How do Roman Catholics explain their change in Eschatology?

The answer is quite simply that the Church has not changed her thoughts on eschatology.

Even within the church, the subject of the Antichrist and the end times is somewhat opinion based as well subject to speculation to say the least.

Two fundamental things that we take into consideration here. One is that no one knows when the end of the world will be. The other is that each (Catholic) generation (popes included) have given their *own personal interpretations and thoughts on this said issue. No pope can teach the he knows for a fact when the end of the world will come about.

Pope Gregory simply gave his personal views on it, when he wrote that he thought the end of the world would occur. (We must also recall that Pope Gregory the Great lived through the Roman Plague of 590). Other popes have done the same. The Church Fathers have expressed their views on it, as well as countless saints and Catholic theologians.

The Church can not determine when the eschatological events will occur because the Scriptures tell us it is impossible.

  No One Knows That Day and Hour

  36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[a] but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. - Matthew 24:36-44

  The Day of the Lord

  5 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers,[a] you have no need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. - 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3

  10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies[a] will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. - 2 Peter 3:10

  3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. - Revelation 3:3

Nevertheless, some Pontiffs believed that certain event were (are) pertaining to the end times or the antichrist, but that in itself simply remains a personal reflection on the subject.

Even Pope St. John Paul II once stated that we are now nearing the final confrontation. But again, this is not an infallible statement, but rather his personal belief on the matter. Church teachings have not changed, just the personal opinions of various popes, theologians and saints!

  “We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.

“We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it. . . .How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.” - The Final Confrontation

Prophecy is usually recognized as true while the thing prophesized have run their course. The anti-church and anti-gospel of Pope John Paul II should be seen as something the against the Church and against the Gospels and not as a counterfeit church or a counterfeit gospel, although the Antichrist will no doubt teach a false gospel of sorts.

For more information about this topic, one may pursue my following article:

What is the Catholic understanding of Antichrist?


How many mistresses did Solomon actually have?

Compare a number of English versions here. Nearly all have the form 700 and 300. The Bible in Basic English (BBE) specifically reads,

  He had seven hundred wives, daughters of kings, and three hundred other wives; and through his wives his heart was turned away.

There is no real reason to think the numbers don't add together to make 1000 total, and in fact the "1000 wives" of Solomon are considered by some commentators to be an illustration of the bride of Christ. The 700 wives are royalty, so considered an equal match for Solomon to marry. The other 300 presumably were commoners, so had lower social status and were called "concubines" instead of wives.


Did God create Earth as a temporary place of confinement for Lucifer and his Angels?

The world may be a place of confinement for the devils, in some sense, but it is primarily a place created for humans and for the glory of God. Perhaps your question was partly inspired by the famous lines from Marlowe's Faustus,

  FAUSTUS: Where are you damn'd?
  MEPHISTOPHELES: In hell.
  FAUSTUS: How comes it then, that thou art out of hell?
  MEPHISTOPHELES: Why, this is hell; nor am I out of it:
  Think'st thou that I, that saw the face of God,
  And tasted the eternal joys of heaven,
  Am not tormented with ten thousand hells
  In being depriv'd of everlasting bliss?

Hell as separation from God is a very common and orthodox concept. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica 1.64.4 ad 3), in the same way, says "Although the demons are not actually bound within the fire of hell while they are in this dark atmosphere, nevertheless their punishment is none the less; because they know that such confinement is their due." (Daemones licet non actu alligentur gehennali igni, dum sunt in aere isto caliginoso, tamen ex hoc ipso quod sciunt illam alligationem sibi deberi, eorum poena non diminuitur.) This reference to the "dark atmosphere" follows Augustine, after Paul in Ephesians 2:2 and 6:12.

However, Earth is certainly not identical with Hell. The various narratives of creation present the universe as a place formed and hallowed by God: it is "very good" in his sight (Genesis 1:31) and it is a home for humans and other creatures (see Psalm 104 for extended praise of God's handiwork and sovereign care). John proclaims that God "became flesh and lived among us" (John 1:14), literally "pitched his tent", as part of a constant Biblical theme of God choosing to become known in the world and making it "his" place. The preaching of Jesus is also full of positive references to the Earth's inhabitants, as in Matthew 6:26-29, from the Sermon on the Mount:

  Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these.

An Earth which contains birds and lilies, beloved in their own way by God, is not a prison for devils. At other times, Jesus speaks of the world as a place occupied by evil powers:

  "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out." (John 12:31)
  "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father." (John 14:30-31)

The world does not rightly belong to the present "ruler of this world", but to God; Jesus came to liberate us from the lordship of evil. The Revelation culminates in "a new heaven and a new earth" (21:1), distinct from Hell which is thrown into "the lake of fire" (20:14). The new Earth is not an improved prison, but a new and better home for God and us: "The home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them" (21:3).

(All Biblical quotations are from the NRSV.)


Why do most Christians call Jesus "Son of God" rather than simply "God"?

Trinitarian Christians most often refer to Jesus by name or by the title of "The Son of God" to distinguish between the Three Persons of the Godhead.  (The title of "The Son of Man" is a specific reference to a prophecy in Ezekiel with which Jesus identifies Himself.)

The Doctrine of the Trinity can be explained as such:

Jesus is God
The Father is God
The Spirit is God
The Son is not the Father.  Jesus is not the Spirit.
The Father is not the Son.  The Father is not the Spirit.
The Spirit is not the Son.  The Spirit is not the Father.

Jesus had a specific role in that He is the One who became a man.  Neither the Father nor the Spirit did so.  So, we often reference Jesus specifically because of His role in redemption.

However, we may refer to Jesus as God and be correct in doing so.  Indeed, we often say the "God became a Man," and we mean by this that The Son of God became a Man--not the entire Trinity.

So, to answer your question, we don't refer to Him as God all the time, because we are identifying and distinguishing Him for His Incarnation, Vicarious Sacrifice, and Resurrection.  Yet, we can and do refer to Him as God at times--just not as often as we refer to Him by His Name or His titles.

See this question for more information on the Biblical Basis for the Trinity.


Is there a scriptural example of a non-believer speaking on God's behalf?

In the book of Ezra, God speaks to the King of the Persians, who were holding the Israelites in exile:

1In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing:2“This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:
“ ‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. 3Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the Lord, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem, and may their God be with them.

Numbers 22 tells the story of Balaam, who was a non-Israelite prophet with whom God communicated directly, although he ended up betraying his role.
In the New Testament, there are occasions in the Gospels (Mark 5:7) and in Acts (16:17) where people under the influence of spirits are able to correctly recognize Jesus and his followers.  There is also the case of Pontius Pilate's wife (Matt 27:19) who was warned in a dream not to persecute Jesus.  Finally, there is the case of the person who was casting out spirits in Jesus' name, yet without being allied with the disciples, of whom it was said "he who is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:38-40)
On the other hand, there are also ample cases recorded in the Old Testament of false prophets who preached lies under the guise of religion (see Jerimiah 23), similar to the people referred to by Jesus in the New Testament who will be rejected by God despite their public displays of religiousity:

Matt 7: 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

See also the failed exorcists of Acts 19 who found that simply invoking the name of Jesus was not enough to give them the powers of faith.
It's common in modern America to see Christian iconography used as an avenue for marketing.  Which category this falls in is open to debate, although perhaps the most relevant example from scripture is either the money-changers who Jesus threw out of the temple (Matt 21:12), or Simon Magus (in Acts 8) who was cursed by the Apostles for attempting to purchase the powers of faith.


Scripture tells us Moses was 40 when the Egyptian struck the slave:
Acts 7:22-29

  22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. 23 And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.

And then...in Acts 7:30

  And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.

In Exodus 7:7, we see the age at which Moses (and Aaron) when they go to Pharaoh:

  Moses was 80 years old and Aaron 83 when they spoke to Pharaoh..."

So Moses was 40 when he killed the Egyptian, and 80 at both the time of the Burning Bush and the meeting with Pharaoh.


What are the NIV cross-references? Where do they come from?

Before examining the New International Version use of cross-references, here is a brief look at the history behind Bible cross-references.

  “One of the fundamental principles of Protestant biblical interpretation is that "Scripture is its own best interpreter." Luther expressed this principle with the words, Scriptura sui ipsius interpres ("Scripture is its own expositor"), and it was summed up by the authors of the Westminster Confession thus: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture ... it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." For this reason the most important feature of any edition of the Bible (aside from the quality of the translation itself) is the system of cross-references provided in the margin, which helps the reader to find out the meaning of any hard place by "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor 2:13). A good set of cross-references, when used diligently and with intelligence, will make much commentary unnecessary.”  Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/cross-references.html

  William Carpenter in the preface to his work Scientia Biblica from 1825 states: “The first collection of parallel passages the editor believes to have been that published with the third edition of Tyndale’s Testament, in 1534. Coverdale’s Bible, also, the first edition of which appeared in 1535, has a few marginal references. These were augmented and improved in the various editions of the Bible and New Testament, which were published subsequently to that time: the first edition of the present “Authorized Version” containing nine thousand references (Preface, p. vi)...  In 1683, the “Authorized Version” was corrected, and many additional parallel texts were added by Dr. Scattergood; and in 1690, Samuel Clark published “The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New, with Annotations and Parallel Scriptures,” &c. In the Preface to this edition of the Scriptures, the Editor states that he took a great deal of pains in collecting parallel texts, and that not only for words and phrases, but for sense and matter.  Source: http://www.realbiblestudy.com/?p=91

From this, we can see how marginal notes and references can be traced back to 1534 and how, over time, they have been expanded.  With regard to how the NIV uses cross-references, we need look no further than the Introduction pages to the NIV Study Bible.  It has a cross-reference system of 100,000 entries.  The 1985 edition of the NIV Study Bible says this:

  “The cross-reference system, developed over many years by June Gunden, John R. Kohlenberger III (OT) and Donald H. Madvig (NT), can be used to explore concepts, as well as specific words.”

Pages xvi and xvii in my 2000 edition of the NIV Study Bible explain how the cross-reference system works.  Because this material is copyright, I am not at liberty to reproduce what it says, but I did find an on-line article which was published with the permission of Zondervan Publishing House.

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/13reference/study_NIVStudyBible.aspx#sthash.YyZaZbiy.dpbs

The intentions of the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV Study Bible are explained in the Preface and your other questions about how cross-references should be used are explained in the Introduction pages.  I hope you find this helpful.


Do Catholics believe that Mary mother of Jesus is as holy as God?

The short answer is no.

  It is obvious, that as a result of her Immaculate Conception, her fullness of grace and her holiness, the Blessed Virgin Mary never committed any personal mortal sins. But what about venial sins? We all commit venial sins, even the saints. A venial sin is committed if one transgresses the law of God which does not oblige seriously, such as telling a lie of convenience or stealing something of small value; one also sins venially if he violates a law that obliges gravely, but for one reason or another lacks perfect knowledge and consent. In this sense, did the Blessed Virgin Mary ever commit any deliberate or semi-deliberate venial sins.

  The answer of the Church to this question is a firm no. From the fifth to the sixteenth centuries the teaching of the Fathers and the theologians was almost unanimous on this point. How Mary was sinless was explained in different ways, but the fact of her sinlessness was rarely denied. In the sixteenth century, the Council of Trent made the teaching official: “No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the grounds of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin. Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus taught that God’s grace was bestowed on Our Lady “in such a wonderful manner that she would always be free from absolutely every stain of sin, and that, all beautiful and perfect that under God none greater would be known.” Pope Pius XII said of the Virgin Mary in his encyclical Mystici Corporis that “she was immune
  from all sin personal and inherited.”

  In light of these statements, which in turn are based on Scripture and the tradition of the Church, Catholics believe that in consequence of a special privilege of grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. Therefore, she is totally pure, the immaculate one, the sinless one.

  Theologians were unanimous in holding that from the first moment of her creation Mary possessed a greater degree of sanctity than any angel or other merely human being. Also, many theologians have gone further and claimed that Mary’s holiness surpasses the combined holiness of all the angels and saints. Such a statement will perhaps shock some of us, but reflection on the mystery of Mary will show that it is plausible. The Church does not teach this, but it is a pious opinion, held by many respected theologians, which is not forbidden by Church authority.

  We must always remember that Mary is a creature; therefore she is limited and her holiness remains finite. So her fullness of grace is not comparable to the fullness of grace of Jesus her Son. He is the very source of grace - for us and for Mary. Since he is God, and by reason of the Hypostatic Union, from his conception Our Lord possessed the infinite fullness of grace. So he was not able to increase in grace, but she was. As her life progressed she learned more and more about her Son and his mission to redeem mankind on the Cross. She also united herself ever more closely with him and so grew in grace. Therefore, when we say that Mary was “full of grace” the expression is meant as a relative, not an absolute sense. - Fundamentals of Catholicism, by Fr. Kenneth Baker (pages 331-335)

Just as Mary’s fullness of grace was finite in comparison to Our Lord’s fullness of grace which remains eternally infinite; so to Mary’s sinlessness was by a Divine privilege, it was finite. God’s sinlessness remains totally superior and infinite.

God was the author of Our Lady’s privilege of her Immaculate Conception and by consequence her sinlessness and fullness of grace.

Mary needed to be saved like the rest of mankind.

  The fullest development of the Immaculate Conception, as formulated by Duns Scotus in the 13th century, was careful to state that the Immaculate Conception does not somehow rule out the need for redemption for the Blessed Virgin Mary. She was saved just like the rest of us, and she calls God her Savior in the Magnificat (as St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out). - Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary?

God is all sinless and holiness by Divine Essenes. Mary is sinless and holy by a Divine privilege and her own personal struggles to save her soul while one earth. Thus Mary’s sinlessness does not equal God’s Infinite sinlessness or holiness. Mary in all her sinlessness and holiness remains finite.

Article(s) of interest:

Immaculate Conception: Why was it necessary for our Salvation?

Was Jesus immaculately conceived?


Did the ancient Hebrews believe that blood had unique spiritual properties?

Such a belief is clearly expressed in both Genesis and Leviticus.

  Genesis 9:4

  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye
  not eat.

  Leviticus 17:11-14

  11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to
  you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the
  blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

  12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall
  eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat
  blood.

  13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the
  strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast
  or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof,
  and cover it with dust.

  14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life
  thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat
  the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the
  blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

In both cases, the blood-as-life theory is used specifically as the reason why eating blood should be forbidden.


What do Christian Pacifists believe is necessary for a killing to be justified?

All the examples you are asking about are from the Old Testament. Fundamentally it is important to realize that Christianity is not the same a Judaism. The coming of Jesus Christ ushered in a New Covenant, and a new way of doing things. Many things in Christianity are changed from Judaism, and according to the Peace Churches, pacifism is one. Just as animal sacrifice was a necessary 'temporary measure' until the real sacrifice was made, so are the killings of the Old Testament a necessary measure until the New Law could be brought into place. The events you describe in your first paragraph take place under the 'old rules'.

To answer the question in the second paragraph, most Christian pacifists believe that it is never right for a Christian to kill. Most also believe that no forms of violence are ever right for Christians. Many would believe that it is acceptable for the state or government to kill as part of its job of lawfully protecting its citizens, but that it is not right for Christians to take part in that process. Many of those churches also believe in separating themselves very clearly from the state, so that they can never be associated with any state-sponsored killing.


What is the difference between Protestantism and Evangelicalism?

Evangelicalism is a kind of Protestantism.
From wikipedia:

Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great
Britain in the 1730s and gained popularity in the United States
during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th century.
Its key commitments are:

The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")

A high regard for biblical authority

An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son
of God, Jesus Christ

Actively expressing and sharing the gospel.

Contrast this with the traditional lutheran church that does not have the concept of being "born again" (1), also believes in the Tradition (2), don't know about (3) and traditionally being a part of the power mechanisms of its countries (4).


Does the Catholic Church have a written rule on the depth of a grave in a cemetery?

As far as universal rules are concerned, Canon 1243 is relevant:

  Appropriate norms are to be enacted by particular law for the management of cemeteries, especially in what concerns the protection and fostering of their sacred character.

The depth of a grave is part of the cemetery's management, and is governed by “particular law” — which might be a civil law or a ruling in a particular territory (Conference or even diocese).

My translation is prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1983


Sacred groves are a common feature of ancient pagan religion.

A particularly accessible Western example might be Oedipus at Colonus, which is the middle play in the Theban cycle of Sophocles (following Oedipus Rex and preceding Antigone).

A great deal of the action in Oedipus at Colonus takes place in a grove outside Colonus that is consecrated to the "Erinyes" (goddesses of vengeance).

It's also not uncommon in the legends of early-medieval Western saints for the saint to cut down a sacred tree in the presence of pagan clerics and dignitaries, in a sort of recapitulation of 1 Kings 18 -- e.g., Boniface and the Donar Oak.


Why did Aquinas place so much credence in Aristotle?

Thomas Aquinas definitely took advantage of Aristotle (following the lead of Albertus Magnus) but he was not uncritical in his reception. Aristotle's major writings were only recently rediscovered in the West and were the topic of intense scholarly effort. But at the same time, there was a lot of doubt about whether Aristotle was a suitable source
of knowledge for Christians - he was not only a pagan, but his work was also seen as potentially 'contaminated' by its transmission through the Muslim world. As a scholar, then, the aim of Aquinas could not have been to simply parrot the teachings of Aristotle, but to reconcile or absorb them into Christian thought. For example, Aristotle argues in the Physics that the world has always existed, but Aquinas says "that conflicts with our faith" (Sententia super Physicam 8.2).

In any case, for Aquinas and Albertus, the main attraction of Aristotle wasn't just that he was a fertile source of good philosophical material in general. They were really interested in his metaphysics, because of the promise it had for establishing a coherent system of thought covering theology, philosophy, science, ethics, and politics. Thomism includes an understanding of 'natural law' and 'natural theology' that is the bridge between revealed truth on the one hand, and observation and reason on the other. In this way, Scripture and tradition can be brought to bear on philosophical questions that would otherwise be inaccessible, since the Bible is not a book of philosophical propositions. It also allows better engagement with non-Christians, since "Muslims and pagans do not agree with us on the authority of any scripture" and so "one must fall back to natural reason" (Summa contra Gentiles 1.2). Aristotle's ethics were another part of this - Thomas wrote a commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics, and his natural law approach to ethics is very much due to Aristotle's teleological ideas, again resting on his metaphysics. If you look at modern work in the tradition of Thomas, it's all about this kind of thing: the twenty-four theses of Pius X in Postquam sanctissimus (1914) are primarily metaphysical (in re praesertim metaphysica).

It is true that there are problems with Aristotle's science which Thomas did not correct. And the same goes for other philosophers he used. The rib issue is pretty harmless but there are other points, like the nature of women, which are not. He follows Aristotle in assuming that women are imperfect men, suffering from a birth defect caused by excessive moisture in the womb (On the generation of animals; Summa Theologiae 1.92.11) and therefore in a state of subjection (Summa Supplement 39.1). Of course we now know that this is wrong, but it's not reasonable to expect a thirteenth-century man to know what we do. These flaws in Aristotle are evident to us but would not have been so glaring to Aquinas. In any case, Thomas is more interested in the methodology of Aristotle (including his logic and metaphysics) than in his specific data (e.g. that men have more teeth than women, History of Animals 2.3). Again, the modern iteration of Thomism would be able to reject "anything that ill agrees with the discoveries of a later age" (Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, 1879) while still accepting the basic approach.


Are there any writings from the church fathers teaching Original Sin before Augustine?

Although St. Augustine clearly tops the list (at least in the West) of those Church Fathers who taught the doctrine of Original Sin, he surely is not the first.

First off, lets define Original Sin:

  Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of
  humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from
  Adam's rebellion in Eden. (Wikipedia)

Original Sin is arguably the most touched upon doctrine in the history of the Church - not counting Sacred Scripture (which wasn't clearly agreed upon for the first 3 centuries) - simply because its the root cause of our need for salvation.

Reference: Gen 3; 1 Cor 15:21; Rom 5:12,15; 6:23; Rom 5:12,19; Psalm 51:5; Eph 2:1-3

Discussion of this doctrine is clearly evident in the early centuries of the Church.

St. Irenaeus writes toward the end of the 100's:

  ....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for
  herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man
  but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of
  salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot
  of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the
  virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through
  faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if
  truth be told, the first-formed man....We, however, are all
  from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the
  second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even
  unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose
  commandment we transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies
  3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3 emphasis mine)

Later we find Tertullian (c. 200 AD)

  Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you
  pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of
  wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole
  world, through whom Man was deceived in the very beginning so that he
  transgressed the command of God. On account of his transgression Man
  was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected
  by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation. (The Testmiony
  of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

Origin (c. 244 AD):

  Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin....And if it should seem necessary to do so,
  there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to
  previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the
  Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sin; and according to
  the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed
  if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins
  and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism
  would seem superfluous. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

  The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism
  even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets
  of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate
  stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the
  Spirit. [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD):

  If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned
  much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their
  sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how
  much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but
  recently been born, has done no sin [committed no personal sin],
  except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted
  the contagion of that old Death from his first being born. (Letters
  64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

There are dozens more writings from early Church Fathers.

Long story short...

Despite the fact that Augustine is perhaps the most referenced theological giant (in the West at least), he most certainly isn't the first.


Is there any holy language for Christians according to words of Jesus Christ and the apostles?

Essentially, no: there is no language specified for religious use in Christianity.

From the early days of the Church, there was variety in religious language. The Western Church primarily spoke Latin (the vernacular) while the Eastern Church spoke Greek (again, the vernacular).

Various churches have languages that have special status, especially for liturgy. For instance, Latin still has a special status in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church; Old Church Slavonic is the liturgical language of the Russian Orthodox Church (among others); Syriac is used by the Maronite Church and the Syriac Orthodox Churches (again, among others). Hebrew and Greek obviously have a special importance as the languages of the Bible.

But none of these languages is as tightly bound to religious identity as Arabic, Hebrew or Sanskrit are to Islam, Judaism and Hinduism respectively.

(If I were to theorise, I would suggest that this is due to the nature of the development of these religions. Whereas those religions developed mainly in one culture, Christianity rapidly spread to and developed in multiple cultures. So it is not bound to one specific culture or language in the same way.)


Are Catholics allowed to celebrate the Reformation?

Merriam-Webster define commemorate as:

to call to remembrance: St. Andrew is commemorated on November 30.

to mark by some ceremony or observation; observe:  commemorate an anniversary

to serve as a memorial of: a plaque that commemorates the battle

In this sense, we  cannot be opposed to commemorating (particularly in sense 1) the Reformation, lest we forget its causes and allow it to happen again.
As a Catholic, though, I would be opposed to leaving "in honor of the 500th Anniversary"; I might replace it with "in memory of the 500th Anniversary," since, as others have pointed out, we cannot honor a wound to the unity of the Church, however much Luther and Calvin might have thought it necessary.
That being said, ecumenical dialogue is something required of the Church by virtue of it being Church:

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.Cf. I Cor 1:13 Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature. — Unitatis Redintegratio

So, in a sense, we as Church are required to attend such events and go seek restoration of the unity that Christ preached, because without our cooperation, it will not fall down on our laps.


What is the significance of Palm branches?

The tradition of palm branches on Palm Sunday actually originates with the Jewish festival of Sukkoth, also called the Festival of the Tabernacles or Booths, which was probably the most popular holiday among the Jews in the first century.  In the observance of Sukkoth, worshippers processed through Jerusalem and in the Temple, waving in their right hands something called a lulab, which was a bunch of leafy branches made of willow, myrtle and palm.  As they waved these branches in that procession, the worshippers recited words from Psalm 118, the psalm normally used at Sukkoth.  Among these words were "Save us, we beseech you,  O Lord."  Save us in Hebrew is hosianna or hosanna. This is typically followed by “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord. (Ps 118:25–6).”

John Shelby Spong says, in Jesus for the NonReligious, page 153, says that Mark transferred the Sukkoth traditions from autumn to the Passover season and adapted them to the Palm Sunday story. Mark 11:8–9 tells us:

  Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. Those preceding him as well as those following kept crying out: "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!

The author of Matthew omitted the word 'leafy', perhaps a sign that he was aware that this was the wrong season for leafy branches (excepts palms), and the King James Bible also omits the word in Mark's Gospel.  Which brings us to John's Gospel.  Its author aware that just before the Passover was too early for the leafy branches of Sukkoth, John 12:12–13 clearly states that they cut down palm branches, creating the basis for the Palm Sunday tradition.


What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law but did not abolish it?

I think part of the difficulty comes as a bit of confusion as to what is meant by the law and its application.

When the law was introduced, it was never intended to be the instrument by which man would save himself, but it was the instrument through which man was to be saved.   In a very real sense, man is saved through the fulfilment (keeping) of the law.   When Christ fulfilled the law, he earned the privilege of life.  Those who are in Christ, likewise, share in his righteousness and are delcared righteous right along side him.   In that sense, the law has always stood and and will continue to stand.

That being said, though, it's important to realize that we basically choose whether the law applies to us individually or not -- through grace, we can choose to be in Christ, or we can choose to stand on our own merits when we're judged.   In that sense, too, the law still stands.

Paul talks a good deal about this in the book of Romans, and the whole book gives a much more complete (and competent :) ) version of an explanation that I'm about to...

I think it's important to realize the role of the law.  I'm going to jump arount a bit, but if we start with Romans 7:7-12, I think we can make a little more sense of this (emphasis mine):

  Romans 7:7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means!
  Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I
  would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You
  shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the
  commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from
  the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when
  the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very
  commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin,
  seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and
  through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is
  holy and righteous and good.

There's a certain bit of irony when the law is introduced to human nature.   Being rebellious and sinful that we are, we latch on to the specifics as a means to found outlet for our repressed frustrated rebellions.   The law was never meant to save man, but rather was a contrast between the holiness of God and the depravity of man. The law offered life through its fulfilment and death through its violation.   This is a subtle but significant key, I think we somehow overlook when discussing grace, as this seems to be exactly how Jesus came to be our savior offering us hope for life...He earned that right by fulfiling the law.

That being said, there's still hope for us wretched sinners:

  Romans 7:4Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through
  the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has
  been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
  5For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused
  by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But
  now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us
  captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the
  old way of the written code.

Looking at the block starting with v.7 we see that the law is not bad (in fact it's good) just because we use it as a springboard for badness.   The law is good, and it's been fulfilled by Christ.   He was the one who fulfilled it; not us.

When we look on the Romams 8, Paul clarifies a bit more (Emphasis mine):

  Romans 8: 1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are
  in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free
  in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what
  the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son
  in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the
  flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be
  fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to
  the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds
  on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit
  set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

The righteous requirement of the law has been fulfilled in us (those who are in Christ Jesus) by virutue of us being in Christ.   The law has been fulfilled, there is, therefore no condemnation for those who are clothed with Christ's righteousness, but we should remember that those who live according to the spirit set their minds on spiritual things and will see to live in accordance with God's moral law.  Romans 6:15 reminds us of this, but note, (Paul does suggest again that we're not under the law, per se):

  Romans 6:15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but
  under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present
  yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one
  whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience,
  which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who
  were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the
  standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been
  set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am
  speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just
  as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to
  lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members
  as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

With his blood, Jesus purchased us from death.   Jesus was the fulfilment of the law; not us.  Because of that, we are bound as slaves of righteousness.   We're not going to fulfill the law in our own lives, and we're not expected to; but lest we use this as an excuse to sin without rein, we are supposed to set our sights on righteousness out of gratitude and duty to our Savior.  Those who understand the Gospel (the goodness of God, the wickedness of sin, the graciousness of God to provide a savior) will, naturally seek to please the God who save them and whom they serve, and the best way we can know what this is it to look to the law He's given us.

ETA: TL;DR:

When Jesus came to fulfil the law (i.e. obedience leads to life; disobedience leads to death) he did just that.   Notice He didn't say, that old law's no good, don't worry about it (i.e. abolish it); what he did, instead, was to come saying the law is good, and he is the fulfulment of it.


What is the Biblical basis for saying that we won't have a second chance to be saved after we die?

The mainstream Christian answer is that there is no chance for repentance after death.  The Scripture used to support this is Hebrews 9:27 which says

  And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that
  comes judgment

The protestant answer goes further saying this:
(From http://www.gotquestions.org/second-chance-salvation.html)

  While the idea of a second chance for salvation is appealing, the
  Bible is clear that death is the end of all chances. Hebrews 9:27
  tells us that we die, and then face judgment. So, as long as a person
  is alive, he has a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. chance to accept
  Christ and be saved (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31). Once a
  person dies, there are no more chances. The idea of purgatory, a place
  where people go after death to pay for their sins, has no biblical
  basis, but is rather a tradition of the Roman Catholic Church

Now in all fairness, the Cathollic Church doesn't teach that there is a chance for repentance after death.  This is a misrepresentation.

From the Catholic Answers forum:

  The teaching of the Church is very clear on this point: if we die in a
  State of Grace, we will attain salvation. Otherwise, we (probably) go
  to hell.

  We are placed in a State of Grace through Christian Baptism. We remove
  ourselves through mortal sin. We are restored to a State of Grace by
  Sacramental Confession.

  The Church recognizes the possibility that salvation might be attained
  by other means (which have not been revealed). Thus, we have hope for
  salvation for unbaptized infants (but nobody knows for sure what
  happens to them)

  There's no telling what we can make of near-death experiences. If we
  accept them at face value, they could be interpreted as an experience
  of purgatory (not hell). Or they might represent some "other means" of
  salvation that has not been revealed to the Church.

LDS teaching is a bit more... Complex.  Some LDS Scriptures seem to say Yes and some say no.

LDS Scripture teaching no repentance after death:

  Mosiah 2:36-39

  And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go
  contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves
  from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide
  you in wisdom's paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and
  preserved—I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same
  cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey
  the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness;
  therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy
  temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth
  an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal
  soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to
  shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with
  guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire,
  whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

  Alma 34:32-35

  32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform
  their labors. 33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so
  many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not
  procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this
  day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we
  do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of
  darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. 34 Ye cannot say,
  when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I
  will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit
  which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this
  life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that
  eternal world. 35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of
  your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to
  the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the
  Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you,
  and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of
  the wicked.

LDS teaching stating there can be repentance after death...

  Doctrine and Covenants 128:5

  5 You may think this order of things to be very particular; but let me
  tell you that it is only to answer the will of God, by conforming to
  the ordinance and preparation that the Lord ordained and prepared
  before the foundation of the world, for the salvation of the dead who
  should die without a knowledge of the gospel.

All that aside, getting back to a purely Biblical answer, we fall back to the standard Protestant "No. Once you die there is no further chance for repentance, according tothe teachings of Jesus".  For this, we need look no further than Luke 16:19-31

  19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and
  lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named
  Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the
  rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

  22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to
  Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades,
  where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with
  Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have
  pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and
  cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

  25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you
  received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now
  he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this,
  between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those
  who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from
  there to us.’

  27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,
  28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not
  also come to this place of torment.’

  29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them
  listen to them.’

  30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes
  to them, they will repent.’

  31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets,
  they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

This horrifying account tells of someone who has died in his sin, and has no way out.  Verse 25 makes it pretty clear that there is no way across that chasm from Hell to Heaven after death.


When was the "Evangelist" title first applied to the Gospel authors?

When was the title Evangelist applied to the four gospels?  We find it was within the first 150 years of Christ's ascension.
Irenaeus who wrote circa 175 CE

The law and the prophets and evangelists have declared that Christ was born of a virgin, and suffered on the cross; was raised also from the dead, and taken up to heaven; that He was glorified, and reigns for ever.
-Fragments of Irenaeus LIV

Ignatius so-called Letter to Antiochans, quoting the Evangelists John and Matthew

The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was “the only true God,”1229 did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.”1230 And concerning the incarnation: “The Word,” says [the Scripture], “became flesh, and dwelt among us.”1231 And again: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”1232
-source-

Irenaeus Against Heresies, wherein he calls Luke an evangelist

But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him “the beloved,” and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?
-source-

Fragments of Clement of Alexandria who wrote circa 200 CE

“Which are now,” he says,3719 “reported unto you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you.” The old things which were done by the prophets and escape the observation of most, are now revealed to you by the evangelists. “For to you,” he says,3720 “they are manifested by the Holy Ghost, who was sent;” that is the Paraclete, of whom the Lord said, “If I go not away, He will not come.”3721 “Unto whom,”3722 it is said, “the angels desire to look;” not the apostate angels, as most suspect, but, what is a divine truth, angels who desire to obtain the advantage of that perfection.
-source-

Tertullian quoting Matthew and Luke writing circa 225

And justly does the evangelist1240 write, “The law and the prophets (were) until John” the Baptist. For, on Christ’s being baptized, that is, on His sanctifying the waters in His own baptism,1241 all the plenitude of bygone spiritual grace-gifts ceased in Christ, sealing as He did all vision and prophecies, which by His advent He fulfilled. Whence most firmly does he assert that His advent “seals visions and prophecy.”
-source-


In answer to your related question "How did people know right from wrong before the law?", I included the following:

  There was always a 'law' before it was written on tablets of stone and given to Moses: God sets the standard of righteousness by what remains in accord to His nature and unrighteousness by what constitutes rebellion against His nature. (emphasis added)

That was supported by citing the commandment (i.e. a law) of God to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Elsewhere (Rom 8:2) Paul refers to the 'law of sin and death' which has been in effect as a priniciple since at least the fall but arguably derives from the first commandment given.

When Paul refers to 'before the law was given' he is of course referring to the Mosaic law, but the phrase 'sin is not counted where there is no law' is somewhat hypothetical (there has always been 'law') and must be viewed in the sense of specifics rather than generalisations - '(specific) sin is not counted where there is no (specific) law' not 'sin (in general) is not counted where there is no law (at all)'.

Althought there has always been 'law' to some degree, there were certain levels of depravity that people were initially innocent about - the depths of wickedness were discovered progressively (although the progression from wilful disobedience to fratricide only took one generation). Some things (e.g. drunkenness) only became problematic after other conditions were fulfilled (discovering the fermentation process and later fortification/distillation).

A specific example is the law of incest:

  9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. - Leviticus 18:9 ESV

Which Abraham at least (but almost certainly many, if not most, of the early patriarchs) was 'guilty' of according to the later law, but actually innocent because the conditions that necessitated that law had not yet arisen.


What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon?

Depending on the scope of this question, it can be very difficult to give any satisfactory answer to.  Archaeology primarily concerns itself with artifacts that have been left behind from ancient days, whereas the Book of Mormon deliberately avoids going into too much detail on the culture of its people and explaining details that might aid archaeological research, preferring to focus on more sacred matters.  Also, it appears that their preferred method of construction was in wood, which doesn't lend itself well to the generation of archaeological ruins:

From Helaman chapter 3:

  3 And it came to pass in the forty and sixth [year], ... there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land.

  ...

  7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.

  ...

  9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.

  10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.

  11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.

So we see that they considered timber to be the preferred method of construction.  When it was unavailable, they developed new techniques for constructing houses and buildings of cement, and eventually became "exceedingly expert in the working of cement," but still placed a high value on wood as a construction material.  (Having lived in South America, where many modern homes are built of cement and bricks, I can certainly understand this attitude.  Cement is a rather good conductor of heat, which is an undesirable quality at low latitudes!)

The cement settlements are interesting.  This was once derided as a hopeless anachronism in the Book of Mormon: the working of cement was an Old World art that never existed in pre-Colombian America! Right up until the mid-twentieth century, that is, when archaeologists started finding cement settlements in the vicinity of modern-day Mexico City, built with an extremely high degree of skill ("exceedingly expert") dating back to approximately the same time as the Book of Mormon states that these colonists moved in. (As reported in Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon.)

However, this settlement is an exception rather than a general rule.  The people in question preferred construction in wood or simply living in tents, neither of which generates much in the way of ruins.  Also, Book of Mormon archaeology is at a second disadvantage when compared to Biblical archaeology: on the Biblical side, we know exactly where to start looking!  Modern-day Jerusalem is located on the side of the same mountain it's been on since at least the days of Melchizedek, to give just one example.

It will not be surprising, if you understand this, to hear that much of the truly interesting archaeological and historical evidence to arise in support of the Book of Mormon actually comes from discoveries in the Old World.  To continue the earlier theme of Book of Mormon details once thought to be ridiculous, the book mentions two different men by the name of Alma.  This was once held up as proof of Joseph Smith's hopeless inexperience: Alma is a Latin name, not a Jewish name, and a feminine Latin name at that!

...until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, more than a century after the publication of the Book of Mormon, that is. One of the scrolls contains a reference to one "Alma, son of Judah." Oops.

Then we have the Lachish Letters, a group of clay tablets found in the ruins of an ancient Jewish city, dating back to just a few years after the start of the Book of Mormon. They describe several non-Biblical details of the local political climate which fit hand-in-hand with the corresponding Book of Mormon narrative.  LDS scholar Hugh Nibley wrote a very detailed article on the letters, summarizing it at the end with 18 points of remarkable similarity between the two, and concluding that

  Other parallels may be added to taste, but this should be enough to show that Joseph Smith was either extravagantly lucky in the opening episodes of his Book of Mormon—that should be demonstrated by computer—or else he had help from someone who knew a great deal.

(Two Shots in the Dark, first half)

Entire volumes have been written, and then, sadly, largely ignored, regarding the authenticity of the introductory chapters of the Book of Mormon, the ones that deal with travels in the Old World.  To give just one example which is freely available online, see Lehi in the Desert, again by Dr. Nibley.  He examines cultural details, religious and dream imagery, historical background, and even the names used, and shows that it is all remarkably consistent with the time and place it purports to originate from.

Stronger than any external evidence for or against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, though, is internal evidence.  There is a word for a literary work that claims a certain authorship but does not actually originate the way it claims to: forgery.  And there are well-established tools and techniques for the detection of literary forgery, and they do not require the support of external evidence.  But strangely enough, these formal methods don't tend to get applied in adversarial analyses of the Book of Mormon.

On the surface of it, there's no good reason not to; the Book of Mormon is a forger's nightmare!  A fairly large work, claiming to be historical in nature, disseminated as widely as possible and inviting all to read and critically examine it?  What is the forger thinking?!?  This violates every rule of producing a successful forgery!  But the two most important principles in the detection of literary forger tend to be consistently ignored:

Begin with the assumption that the work is genuine, and
no external evidence is required to expose a forgery of any significant size; internal inconsistencies alone will do that every time.

When the formal, scientific techniques for detecting forgery are applied to the Book of Mormon, instead of emotionally-driven attempts to reach a predetermined conclusion, the book is shown to be genuine. (Dr. Hugh Nibley, New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study)

I could go on, (and on and on and on; as I said before, there have been entire volumes written on the subject,) but this answer is getting to be too long as it is.  Suffice it to say that a large corpus of evidence exists which, while not enough to conclusively prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, (they haven't even managed to do that with the Bible, so it would be unfair to hold another work that claims to be scripture to such a high standard,) definitely demonstrates that the book is worthy of serious attention and consideration.


Are there Christian denominations debating whether Jesus was really the son of God?

Your question ends asking this:

"In other terms, is there a way to conceive Christianity refusing the concept that Jesus was the son of God?"

It would be a clear "NO".

To say that Jesus is just like any other great Godly man having special friendship with God, as you have put it in  one of your comment, is to look at those places in Bible where Jesus is equalled with God, as major flaws and contradictions in the Bible. To take Jesus in this manner and to say that He was only human and with no divine nature is to reduce the whole Bible into a bundle of inconsistencies. All those verses in Bible where Jesus is sometime portrayed as human and sometime as Divine, remains in harmony  with each other especially in New Testament, only when we accept Jesus as having both human as well as Divine nature. Without this we would be representing Christianity in complete contradiction to the Old Testament as well as what we have in New Testament.

We cannot overlook all those verses where Jesus is clearly portrayed as having Divine nature. He was crucified for saying that He was Son of God. Further in John 8:58 He declares:

  John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”

Then we have at other places where Jesus forgave third person’s sins. If you do something against me, I have the right to forgive you. However, if you do something against me and somebody else comes along and says, "I forgive you," what kind of cheek is that? The only person who can say that sort of thing is God himself, because sin, even if it is against other people, is first and foremost a defiance of God and his laws. So along comes Jesus and he says to sinners, "I forgive you." The Jews immediately recognize the blasphemy of this. They react by saying, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Not only did Jesus forgive sin, but he asserted that he himself was without sin. And certainly sinless-ness is an attribute of deity. as if it is against Him, equalling Himself as God and many places He equalled Himself with God. All these events and quotations would glaringly be biggest contradiction which would stare at Christianity and for which there would be no plausible explanation to offer.

In the verse below, we find Jesus giving the highest honour to John the Baptist and that John is more than a prophet.

  Matt. 11:9-11 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ “I tell you the truth, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.

This would mean that Jesus makes Himself smaller than John, which cannot be. Since John was someone who was more than a prophet, it only shows that Jesus was not just a prophet or someone more than that but someone much greater than that.

Again we find in Gospel of Mathew;

  Matt. 16:13-17 When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!

And finally: Early in the Old Testament God introduced this idea of one innocent being shedding its blood in place of the sinner’s. However the solution of sacrificing bulls and goats and lambs for the sins of each person’s sin was a temporary fix. The next year, another animal would have to be sacrificed for the same person. A more permanent solution was needed, as noted in Hebrews 10:4:

  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

That meant a human was needed to die for humans’ sin. But all humans are sinful, so another sin-filled person dying for us just wouldn’t work. A human without sin was needed.
But ever since Adam, every human born is sin-filled, so how could a sinless man happen? The only way was if God did it Himself.


Did only Jesus human body remain in the grave for the three days?

"Using only biblical texts and/or established traditions of the Nicene
church, is there a consensus or even a limited set of positions on
where Jesus' spirit was?"

It is not clear that Nicene Council was considering this particular subject.  It seemed they were more hard pressed to establish a good date for celebrating Easter. Consult ref. below:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈni:kaɪja];
  Turkish: Iznik) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea
  in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first
  ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the
  church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[5]

  Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue
  of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the
  Father,3 the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea,
  establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter,[6] and
  promulgation of early canon law.

  Misconceptions Biblical canon Main article: Development of the
  Christian biblical canon

  A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's
  role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record
  of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[66] The
  development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly
  complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts
  whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian
  fragment was written.[67]

  In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of
  Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even
  certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and
  New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), and it
  is doubtful that this request provided motivation for canon lists as
  is sometimes speculated. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[68] he claims
  that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been
  counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".

From John 20:17 we do know that Jesus had not ascended to the Father preceding the 3rd day after crucifixion.

  John 20:17 NIV Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not
  yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,
  ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your
  God.’ ”

Luke 23:43 lets us know that wherever else he might have gone on day one, he was at the very least in paradise.

Benson [Benson Commentary] has an excellent commentary on the subject and you may find it of use.  With this partial quote from the text:

  "...That he was going, not only to αδης, the invisible world, but to
  that part of it termed paradise (my markup). His human soul was
  removing to the place of separate souls; not to the place of the
  damned, but to the place of the blessed...."


When did the "upside down cross" become a symbol of anti-Christianity?

Eugène Vintras (1807–1875) may be the first to use the inverted cross in a distinctly anti-Christian way.  He was a Gnostic revivalist operating in France during the middle of the 19th century.  He preached the end of the age, and claimed to have received messages from Michael the Archangel and that he himself was a reincarnation of Elijah.  He was condemned by the Vatican, and subsequently began using an upside-down cross:

Vintras, following further attacks from the Church, adopted the inverted cross as the symbol of the new dispensation of which he was the prophet, inverted because the Reign of the Suffering Christ had been superseded by the Reign of the Holy Spirit of Love.1

His masses reportedly included "chalices magically overflowing with blood," and occultist Eliphas Levi considered the inverted cross that Vintras wore as "indicative of satanic influences":2

The practices of Vintras's followers were even more bizarre, and the symbol thereafter began to be associated with the occult more generally, such as in a 1891 novel, Là-bas:

His costume was a long robe of vermilion cashmere caught up at the waist by a red and white sash. Above this robe he had a white mantle of the same stuff, cut, over the chest, in the form of a cross upside down.3

It's also used in a 1903 depiction of 17th century occultist Étienne Guibourg (link is possibly an occasion for sin). In the (cropped) image below, he is shown wearing an upside-down cross as he performs a Black Mass during the Affair of the Poisons:

I haven't found any indication that Guibourg actually wore an inverted cross, but rather that he was only depicted that way once Vintras's use of it became associated with occultism more generally.
Summary
If one includes Gnosticism within Christianity, then perhaps Vintras's use of the inverted cross would not be considered "anti-Christian." However, at the very least, his use of it and his perceived involvement with the occult caused the symbol to become generally associated with Satanism by the end of the 19th century.

Richard D. E. Burton, Blood in the City: Violence and Revelation in Paris, 1789–1945, 164
James Randall Noblitt, Cult and Ritual Abuse: Narratives, Evidence, and Healing Approaches, 161
Joris-Karl Huysmans, Là-bas, Chapter XX


What does it mean that Eve was beguiled?

Eve when she ate of the tree of good and evil instantly became aware of the sin of disobedience and she knew she was in trouble with God when He asked her what she had done.  She realizing now what the guilt of sin was, blamed the serpent who truly was the great deceiver he is.  Her reply "He beguiled me."  He tricked me.


Explanation of the bell, book, and candle ritual of excommunication

Note that this is an old ritual that only makes sense in the context in which it was developed. The ritual is no longer used, no doubt in part because it seems very strange for modern sensibilities.
A couple of clarifications are in order, first of all. Excommunication (and other ecclesiastical penalties) are, and always have been, "medicinal." Their purpose is to draw attention to a person who has committed a very grave crime (under ecclesiastical law), so that he may repent.
Excommunication specifically does not remove a person from membership in the Church (a common misconception), nor does it exclude one necessarily from eternal salvation (for example, in cases where the interested party repents, or else the penalty is applied in error or abusively). It does, however, exclude one from the reception of the Sacraments (although one may, of course, always receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation when in danger of death).
Canon 1331 §1 of the Code of Canon Law explains:

An excommunicated person is forbidden:
1° to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;
2° to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;
3° to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

Some of the ritual's more flamboyant expressions, such as the ones referred to by the original post, must, therefore, be considered as exaggerations to make a point.
I should point out that the ritual has numerous allusions to the Bible. For the benefit of readers, the full text of the rite is

Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive him and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

"Binding and loosing" refers to Matthew 16:19

I will give you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

or Matthew 18:18

Truly, I say to you, whatever you [apostles] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The "eternal fire with Satan and his angels" alludes to Matthew 25:41:

Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Finally, the very last sentence is almost a direct quotation for 1 Cor 5:5:

You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

(Note how his quote emphasizes that, for all its flamboyancy, the purpose of the penalty is above to help the person receiving it to repent and return to communion with the Church.)
Another important point is that priests do not have, per se, the authority to excommunicate. Rather, the Church teaches, based on the passages from Matthew cited above, that only the competent authority in the Church has the authority to impose such a penalty. That means, practically, that only a diocesan bishop (or his equivalent: the "ordinary" of one of the Anglican-use ordinariates, for example). Naturally, whoever has authority over the entire Church may also impose such a penalty (for example, the Bishop of Rome—i.e., the Pope—or an ecumenical council, or possibly even a dicastery—a "congregation" at the Vatican—with delegated authority).
In any event, the Catholic Church does not claim to have authority over God, merely that God has bestowed upon the Church the power to "bind and loose"—to impose penalties on persons guilty of grievous crimes, and to re-admit them into communion if they repent.
So, analyzing the particular phrases in the original question:

... we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth

This is to be understood as excluding the person above all from receiving the Sacraments, unless and until he repents. The ritual is, so to speak, assuming that the penalty is just and that the person is really guilty. The exclusion from communion is, as it were, only a public manifestation of what is going on internally in the person's soul.

we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate,

Again, this presupposes that the person in question has really committed a grievous crime, and has done so out of malice. The idea is, if he persists in that state, then his eternal salvation will be lost.

we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

As I mentioned, this is almost a verbatim quotation from 1 Cor. 5:5, in which St. Paul prescribes a rather harsh treatment for a man who persists in a grave sexual sin:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.  And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you (1 Cor. 5:1-2).

In summary, the ritual described here uses the flamboyant language of the early Middle Ages. According to the custom of the time, since the ritual was pronounced after the person was put on trial, it presupposes the guilt of the person, and this comes out in some of its more extreme phrasings. Moreover, since excommunication is intended to help a person repent of a grave crime, language is used to help him understand the grave consequences of persisting in his depravity.


How does Christianity view participation in dangerous sports?

I have tried to answer this question by showing some Christian teaching on the "extreme sports" of previous centuries, which are pretty extreme by modern standards too.

Jousting was very dangerous and many people were killed and injured; other tournament sports such as the melee also had a high casualty rate. In the twelfth through fourteenth centuries, the Catholic Church tried to discourage jousting, partly because of the possibility of these sportsmen killing themselves or others. The following is typical - Canon 14 of the Second Lateran Council (1139):

  We entirely forbid, moreover, those abominable jousts and tournaments in which knights come together by agreement and rashly engage in showing off their physical prowess and daring, and which often result in human deaths and danger to souls. If any of them dies on these occasions, although penance and viaticum are not to be denied him when he requests them, he is to be deprived of a church burial.

Similar prohibitions were stated in the Council of Clermont (1130), of Rheims (1131), Lateran III (1179), and Lateran IV (1215), and in Papal decrees (eg of Clement V, Pope from 1305 to 1314). They were annulled by Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) because the penalties were felt to be too harsh, and were catching too many people. Some effort had also been made, in terms of technique, better armour, etc., to make the sport safer for the participants. (Jousting in medieval and renaissance Iberia, Noel Fallows, Boydell Press 2010, p173-4.)

This is certainly in line with Catholic / general Christian thinking on the value of human life, including one's own life; deprivation of church burial was also characteristic for suicides. However, these decrees do not impose a penalty of, say, excommunication; and it was accepted that jousting was legal under the civil law. So this attitude towards jousting doesn't seem to me to be so "strong" - it's just that the particular way the sport was practiced at the time was felt to be excessively dangerous, and a later pope ultimately rescinded the decrees. Modern sports, even the ones you mention, are far, far less risky. There is also a strong ethos for safety and responsibility among the participants in extreme sports, including use of proper equipment, having plenty of training, and so on. This reduces the danger and the moral objection.

Other considerations might include the frivolous nature of these events. Football, for example, was banned by the Puritans in England for this reason, in addition to the violent way the game was played, and its connection with betting. The objection on the grounds of danger is basically similar to the jousting case. Philip Stubbes wrote (Anatomy of Abuses, 1581):

  As concerning football playing, I protest unto you it may rather be called a freendly kinde of fight, then a play or recreation; a bloody and murthering practise, then a felowly sport or pastime. [...] hereof groweth enuie, malice, rancour, cholor, hatred, displeasure, enmitie, and what not els; and sometimes fighting, brawling, contention, quarrel picking, murther, homicide, and great effusion of blood, as experience daily teacheth. Is this murthering play, now, an exercise for the Sabaoth day? is this a christian dealing, for one brother to mayme and hurt another, and that vpon prepensed malice, or set purpose? is this to do to another as we would wish another to do to vs?

Again, modern sports are a bit better at avoiding brawling and homicide. It's true that the objections other than danger still apply - on that basis, someone could argue against tiddlywinks - but if participants are being responsible about threats to life and limb, it's harder to say that a sport should be considered immoral in itself.


Can orthodox Trinitarians say, "God died on the cross"?

Can we say God died? Just as much as we can say God was born and called God with us...

The Nestorian Heresy
The Nestorian heresy did not only amount to "essentially a roundabout way to talk about the hypostatic union and the relationship of Christ's two natures to his person," but rather, as the Council in question itself stated, divided Jesus Christ into two persons, not only two natures (God; man) united in the one divine Person. This is an inescapable conclusion of the misplaced concern about calling Mary 'Mother of God.'
When Elizabeth said that Mary was mother of her "Lord," (Lk 1:43) regardless of whether she understood lord or Lord, only persons are lords. Therefore, since the Word was made flesh, since the Word is this Lord, she is the mother of God. Unless we deny that "the Word was God."
It's that simple.
As Constantinople II said,

The holy synod of Ephesus… has pronounced sentence against the heresy of Nestorius… and all those who might later ... adopt the same opinions as he held ... They express these falsehoods against the true dogmas of the Church, offering worship to two Sons, trying to divide that which cannot be divided, and introducing to both heaven and earth the offense of worship of man. But the sacred band of heavenly spirits worship along with us only one Lord Jesus Christ.
—Second Council of Constantinople, Sentence against the Three Chapters of Nestorius, A.D. 553, sect. 9

The first two canons of Ephesus I, I think, capture the essence of the Nestorian heresy quite well, because their truth, in contradistinction to the heresy of Nestorius, is so obvious and incontravertable (emphasis mine):

Canon I. If anyone does not confess that God is truly Immanuel, and that consequently the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (inasmuch as according to the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh), let him be anathema.
Canon II. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father is united, by bond of [His] Person, to flesh—so that Christ, being one with his own flesh, is thus at once both God and man—let him be anathema.

It's crystal clear:

"The Word [is] God" (Jn 1:1)
"The Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:14) in Mary (Gal 4:4; Lk 1:35)
Therefore Mary, mother of the Word who is God, is the mother of God (Lk 1:43)

Mothers give birth to persons, not 'whats.' Else we claim that 'sons' are things and not people—who would dare to say this of God's Son (Gal 4:4)?
Implications of the Orthodox Position
This means that the one Person, the Word, or Son, or Jesus Christ—the same Person with two natures—can be said to have proper to Him both that which is proper to men and that which is proper to God.
In other words, what is said of Christ can be said of either His divine or human nature, but always as belonging directly to the same, one, divine Person (to whom these two natures belong).
Thus Scripture can say (1 Cor 2:8) of those who crucified Jesus, that if they knew of the secret of God's plan:

..they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Or more strikingly, Jesus Himself can say (Rev 1:17-18):

Do not fear. I am the First and the Last, and the Living One: and I was before dead, and behold: I live forever ...

Or again, if Jesus, Mary's Son, were not at all times God, it would be false for Him to claim something like:

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, Amen, Amen I say to you: before Abraham was born, I am.
John 17:5 And now Father, glorify me, with yourself, with that glory I had with you before the world was.

And of course everyone is aware that Jesus thirsted and ate, whereas in His divine nature, He has no need of such: His human nature, which is real and not fake, did.

People can claim the Father or the Holy Spirit died on the cross when they become incarnate like the Word did!
Until then, the Word is God and He became flesh and died for us. Not the Father. Not the Holy Spirit.
It's worrying, theologically, if one thinks that each Person of the Trinity is not fully God without being the other Persons, as was suggested. The Trinity isn't a group of Gods. It is the one God. Such is to deny the Trinity. The Word became flesh, not the Father, or the Spirit, yet the Word wasn't 'not God because He isn't the Trinity.' He was "God." And thus the mother He chose is the Mother of God whether it's comfortable or not.


In the first council of Jerusalem (In the Acts of the Apostles), we see an outline of the practices which the Jews did that they thought were reasonable to ask of the Gentiles. The wearing of Tefillin is not among them.

In all likelihood after the destruction of Jerusalem and certainly after the Muslim incursions into the middle east, the number of culturally Jewish Christians was probably close to zero, and thus the practice of wearing Tefillin too would have disappeared.

Jesus may have worn Tefillin, we don't have a solid answer for that question. It is reasonable to assume that he didn't given his criticism of the practice. There are no records of him having worn them. It also would have been redundant.


How do Arminians handle the case of Judas?

"Predestination"
It is not that Arminians argue "against" predestination - that would be silly, since the term comes from Scripture; Arminians would have to cross out a whole bunch of verses in their Bibles if that were the case.  Clearly "predestination" is a reality.
The question is, what does that mean, and how does that work?

In general, Calvinists teach that predestination means that God, in His complete sovereignty (i.e. control over everything), predetermined who would be saved and who would spend eternity in Hell, based solely on His plan which He designed for His glory.  It is not about us, what we do, what we decide (as if we had some autonomous "free-will"); it is about God's plan for Self-glorification.

In general, Arminians teach that predestination means that God, in His complete wisdom and foreknowledge (i.e. awareness of every future event), prepares the future based on His awareness of what men will choose.

Where do Arminians get such strange ideas?  From Scripture!

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined ... and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. -Romans 8:29-30
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those ... who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father -1 Peter 1:1-2

"Ridiculous!"
It is easy to think that the opposing view is ridiculous, but we really need to listen more carefully to what the "other side" is saying; one's "opponents" in this debate are not as ignorant as they might seem.
From a Calvinist perspective, Arminians don't believe God is sovereign, because they don't believe He is ultimately behind every choice that is made.  To them the end result is that Arminians don't believe that God is God.
From an Arminian perspective, Calvinism paints men as mechanical creatures who carry out the actions God programmed them to  carry out, more or less.  The end result is a God who decided that the best possible plan was one where He made billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them in Hell for eternity - all for Self-glorification.  And yet somehow "God is love".
What About Judas?
The story of Judas doesn't catch Arminians off-guard in any way; nor does it pose a challenge.  Judas chose to betray the Lord, and God knew He was going to do so.  Based on His foreknowledge, He arranged history accordingly, foretold it to His prophets, and then pointed to it when it happened.
All of this causes the Arminian to bow in worship to the all-knowing, all-wise Creator and Lord.
Of course, the Arminian would not concede that God wanted Judas to choose evil and inherit eternal torment, but for the Arminian, this is more of a comfort than a concern.  It does not signify that God is not God; only that God is not malicious.


What is the theological basis both body and blood being present in both the eucharist host and the wine? (Catholic perspective)

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 forms the theological basis for the conclusion that under each of the species (bread and wine), the body and blood of Christ is fully present after transubstantiation.

That verse states that 'if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood.'

Here St. Paul attaches the same guilt "of the body and the blood of the Lord" (copulative) to the unworthy "eating or drinking" (disjunctive).

In its article The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Catholic Encyclopedia points out that based on this verse Catholic Church believes that Jesus, in the species of bread alone, is fully present with his entire body, blood, soul and Divinity.


Let there be no mistake: illegal downloading is not stealing. It is infringement, which is something that can be superficially similar to stealing when done in certain ways (like downloading), but in the end is not quite the same thing. Calling illegal downloading "theft" and leaving it there is wrong and distorts the issue.

However, it is also not correct to say that there is no harm to the owner or creator when you infringe their work. The harm may be small or much less than theft, but it is still real. Trespassing might be a closer analogy, but that's not quite right either... the reality is somewhere in between the two. There is something like "theft", because you have taken something that does not belong to you, but legally it's more like trespassing, because you have not deprived the owner of any property, in the same sense that if you trespass you can be said to have "stolen" time and use of someone else's land, but did not steal the land itself.

Mostly, though, I think it's important here to think about the harm to yourself. Because there is harm to the creator of the work, and because illegal downloading is, well, illegal, you cannot hope to participate in this activity without creating serious harm to your own conscience. If you do participate in this activity and don't feel any guilt, it is because your conscience is already damaged.

In other words, even setting aside the theft issue, illegal downloading is most definitely sinful. It is harmful to your conscious, it is harmful to the creator and copyright owner, and it violates the law of the land. In addition to the Romans 13 verse used elsewhere by other answers here, I am reminded of Jesus answer to whether we should pay taxes. He said that we should give to Cesar what is Cesar's, and to God what is God's, implying that we must respect the government and it's laws, even when those laws might not make sense to us. I believe the Golden Rule of Matthew 7 also plays a part here. If you were a publisher, you would want others to respect your copyright and whatever licensing terms you chose.


Based on what verse did Luther know that no sin can separate the believers from God?

My understanding is that the Lutheran Church believes it is possible for someone to lose their salvation because of unrepentant and persistent sin. I doubt they would interpret Romans 8:38-39 in the manner you suggest.  Here is some information I found that may be relevant:

  At times, our pastors, with considerable sorrow, may have to tell a person not to attend the Lord’s Supper until he or she has repented of sin. If the situation continues without repentance, the pastor may have to declare to the person, on behalf of the congregation that has made this decision, that he or she is excluded from the church until there is repentance.  Excommunication is a last resort to help a person recognize the extremely dangerous situation he has placed himself in because he will not repent of his sin. It is a final attempt to win someone back from Satan’s influence.   Source: https://www.faithlutherancorning.org/confession-absolution

The Lutheran Church believes that repeated sin hardens the heart and may lead to sinning against the Holy Spirit.  Also, as noted in the previous extract above, unrepentant and repeated sin could result in being excommunicated:

  SIN: Transgression of God's law (Ro 4:15; 1 Jn 3:4). Sin may be divided into original sin (see Sin, Original) and actual sin. Actual sin (every act, thought, emotion (e.g., lust*) conflicting with God's law) may be involuntary or may be done ignorantly (Acts 17:30) and includes sins of commission (cf., e.g., Mt 15:19; Ja 1:15) and sins of omission (Ja 4:17). Sin arouses God's righteous wrath and deserves His punishment. Willful sin sears conscience*; repeated, it hardens the heart; may lead to, but is not identical with, the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit.’  http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=s&word=SIN

This extract explains the Lutheran view of sin, but it does not suggest a believer can persist in unrepentant sin and "get away with it":

  VENIAL AND MORTAL SINS: The Lutheran Confessions speak of sin* that is mortal, or deadly, i. e., irreconcilable with faith (Ap IV 48, 64, 109, 115). When believers fall into open sin, faith has departed (SA-III III 43–44). One who obeys his lusts does not retain faith (Ap IV 144). Original sin (see Sin, Original) is mortal; it brings eternal death on those who are not born again (AC II 2 Lat.). One who is dead in sin is insensitive to sin (LC, V: The Sacrament of the Altar, 77–78). Sins remain in believers (SA-III III 40; FC SD II 34). Many regard the following as 7 deadly sins, fatal to spiritual progress: pride,* covetousness,* lust,* anger, gluttony, envy,* sloth. But man cannot weigh, distinguish, or differentiate sins; all sins manifest total corruption (SA-III III 36–38), merit God's wrath (Mt 5:18–19; Gl 3:10; Ja 2:10), and are deadly (Eze 18:4; Ro 6:23); every sin loses its deadly effect when Christ, apprehended by faith, intervenes (Ro 8:l; 1 Jn 1:7, 9; 2:1–2). Source: http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=s&word=SINS.VENIALANDMORTAL

I am not a Lutheran and I may have misunderstood what you are asking (because it is not clear).

Edit re your view that Martin Luther believed it was all right to continue in sin:  Wrong. Martin Luther nowhere supports that interpretation of Romans 8:38-39. That partial quote from the letter Luther wrote to Melanchthon has been taken out of context.  Please note: “The Modern Lutheran church does not stand with Martin Luther on the issue of predestination, and thus suffers from an internal contradiction. Its efforts to modify Luther's views and to present a more moderate case for predestination ultimately end in conflict with Luther's uncompromising doctrine of God's Sovereignty.”  https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html


Why does the NIV have 16 verses missing from the Bible?

It is NIV (not NLV); and all modern Bible versions contain those differences with the KJV. The reason is that the modern versions are made from more reliable manuscripts than the KJV, which was made from 10th century codex. Here is a whole series of lecture on Bible translations by Dan Wallace, that answers this.