Denominations that interpret Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 as NOT permitting divorce in the case of adultery?

While I am aware of none which interpret the passage as referring to unlawful marriage as the Catholic Church does, there are a number of denominations which do not believe this passage grants permission for complete divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery:

Midwest Pilgrim Holiness Church
Hutterian Brethren
Amish
Beachy Amish Mennonite Churches
Old German Baptist Brethren Church New Conference Fellowship
Church Of God, International Offices
Southeastern Mennonite Conference
United Anglican Church
Protestant Reformed Churches In America
Apostolic Faith Church
Independent Fundamental Churches of America
Anglican Church In America
Anglican Catholic Church

That list is from Daniel R. Jennings (Ed.) Denominations That Officially Support The Permanency Of Marriage. Retrieved from http://www.danielrjennings.org/denominationspermanencyofmarriage.html. That page includes quotations from their official statements which can help you understand their positions and interpretations.

Importantly, a notable contemporary Christian teacher, John Piper, also holds this view. John Piper. Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper. July 21, 1986. Retrieved from http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper.

I also found arguments against this interpretation, indicating some historic debate on the issue. See G.C. Brewer, "Christ and Paul on Divorce," GA 75:29 [July 20, 1933],
   p. 674), in Steve Wolfgang. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage In
   Church History. Truth Magazine XXXIV.1 (January 4, 1990), pp. 27,
   29-31. Retrieved from
   http://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/GOT034012.html


How do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 2:1?

Calvinism relies heavily on the following statement:

  Grace (specifically the grace provided via Christ's death) is sufficient for the salvation of all, but it is efficient for the salvation of some.

This is essentially all that stands between Calvinism and Universalism. The idea behind Calvinism is that Christ's grace is so powerful that if one is elected the pull of this grace cannot be ignored. And once applied this grace is too powerful to be removed. That's Calvinism in a nutshell.

So the question ultimately comes down to: if we believe that Grace is more powerful than sin than what do we do with people who are "Bought" but don't stay. There are two conclusions that a Calvinist may come to

These folks were not among the elect and were instead people attracted to the church for some other reason. Their conversion was not true.
These folks are among the elect but have strayed from the path for a time, but will in fact return in full grace.

Doing a bit of research the Calvinist consensus here is that the subject of this passage is the first. These folks claim to be be bought by Christ but are in fact lying, and prove it by their false teachings:

  So to summarize the point here: false teachers are “saying” they are Christians, and “saying” they have been bought, but in fact are not bought at all. “Denying the sovereign Lord who bought them” is what they are saying about their lifestyle, though it is not true from the rest of the immediate context of the passage. The word “bought” means they are either saved (which we know false teachers are not saved so that cannot be the meaning of the passage) or they are “saying” they “they believe themselves to be saved” and ultimately are self-deceived. But it cannot mean that Christ bought them with His blood, and they reject that “offer” to eternal life.

This is far more consistent with the power, sufficiency and efficiency of grace than any other argument.


How do Young Earth Creationists explain the teeth of animals if there was no death before the fall?

The explanation is quite simple. They had the same teeth, but they ate plants. Whether they struggled to eat plants is another question and mostly opinion based.

Generally, Young Earth Creationists when challenged with this point, will note that there are examples of animals with carnivorous teeth, yet they are herbivorous.

The most common example is the Panda Bear. The Panda clearly has very sharp, carnivorous teeth. But anyone who knows a little about the species knows that it is fully herbivorous and consumes almost exclusively bamboo. Consider this article from Answers in Genesis for reference.

There are other examples often given as well, including fruit bats, crocodiles and piranha.

They will sometimes point to curious cases, like a lion eating only vegetables throughout its life, yet being in full health and living an average lifespan.

As a final reference, consider this very typical YEC theology regarding the "impossibility" that death existed before the fall. In my opinion, this is the driving force for YEC's to keep their ground and literal interpretation of Genesis' creation story. If there was death before the fall, then the whole of Christianity no longer makes sense or has any value.

The Bible itself seems to be quite silent on the issue, save for Genesis 1:30, where God gives all the animals "every green plant for food". However, regarding what humans may or did eat is discussed quite a bit. See: What does the Bible say about vegetarian diets?


Are you unguilty of sin if you never heard the gospel?

The sin Jesus speaks of here is the sin of rejecting Him as the Christ. Jesus is condemning the people of the world who hate Him and warning his disciples that the world will hate them also because they bear His name (John 15:18-21).
If God had not sent Him into the world, they would not have been guilty of rejecting Him. If they had not seen His miracles, they would not have been guilty of ascribing His power to Beelzebub, the prince of demons (Luke 11:14-20).
Here is an extract from a sermon delivered on 16 May, 1858 by the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon on human responsibility, based on John 15:22: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.”

THE peculiar sin of the Jews, the sin which aggravated above everything their former iniquities, was their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. He had been very plainly described in the books of the prophets, and they who waited for Him, such as Simeon and Anna, no sooner beheld Him, even in His infant state, than they rejoiced to see Him, and understood that God had sent forth His salvation. But because Jesus Christ did not answer the expectation of that evil generation, because He did not come arrayed in pomp and clothed with power, because He had not the outward garnishing of a prince and the honors of a king, they shut their eyes against Him, He was “a root out of a dry ground,” He was “despised and they esteemed Him not.”
https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs194.pdf

It’s a lengthy sermon (8 full pages) and in the final section Spurgeon warns his audience of the sin of rejecting Christ having heard the Gospel.  But when Jesus spoke his words 2,000 years ago, he did not actually say that the Jews (especially the religious leaders) were guilty of sin because they had never heard the Gospel.  The sin they were guilty of was of rejecting Jesus.  The Gospel message had not yet been released to the world – that would not happen till after Jesus’ death, resurrection and the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Context is everything!  This belief is in accord with Reformed Protestant theology.


Have there been any cases of Stigmata outside of Catholicism?

The only non-Catholic Christian I have heard who MAY have received the stigmata was St. Gregory Palamas who was Eastern Orthodox. This is HIGHLY disputed. The English translation of the Lenten Synaxarion APPEARS to say he was "adorned with the wounds of Christ" (Lenten Synaxarion - Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas)

However, no Eastern Orthodox authority interprets it this way. However, Byzantine Catholics do.


Is it possible for a spirit to eat fish?

Most branches of Christianity believe that Jesus rose from the dead bodily (ie he wasn't merely a spirit at that point). The very context of the verse you are referring to, is that he was eating the fish to show he was not a ghost to his disciples:

Jesus Appears to the Disciples
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. - Luke 24:37-43 NIV, emphasis added

A related question along these lines is found here: How similar was the resurrected body of Jesus to his physical human body?


According to Catholicism, does the depositum fidei include the proper interpretation of scriptures about Jesus?

Yes, absolutely.
The depositum fidei is the fullness of God's Word contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Christ has entrusted to the shepherds of God's people the task of interpreting His Word for the Church:

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.

(Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, article 10; emphasis added)
This teaching office, exercised in the name of Christ, is known as the Magisterium, and is part of the gift of the Word to Christ's Church. It is guided by the Holy Spirit to preserve it from error:

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

(Dei Verbum, article 10)
To address your last question more specifically, yes, the Church (through its pastors, that is, the pope, the bishops, and the pastors of parishes) does teach authoritatively about the understanding and foreshadowing of Jesus Christ given us in the Old Testament:

The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12). Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy. These same books, then, give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way. Christians should receive them with reverence.
God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it.

(Dei Verbum, articles 15–16; emphasis added)
The Church, as the authentic interpreter of all of Sacred Scripture, declares the true meaning of the Old as well the New Testament.


How would Catholics respond to the theory that Mary was a surrogate mother that had no DNA in common with Jesus?

The Catholic Church certainly teaches that Christ is the actual physical offspring of Mary; that is, that he is genetically descended from Mary:

  The Holy Spirit, “the Lord, the giver of Life,” is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 485; emphasis added)

  In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh [that is, her actual, physical son], was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos).

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 495)

It appears from these two quotations, at the minimum, that the Church currently teaches that Mary was the mother of Jesus in the usual sense (that is, in being an actual "blood relative" of Jesus, genetically related to him).

In addition, Thomas Aquinas addresses this question in his Summa Theologica, though modern-day understanding of his discussion may be hampered by his incorrect understanding (derived from Aristotle) of prenatal development.

Aquinas, with Aristotle, believed that the "humanity" of a human before birth derived solely from the father, and that the mother's only physical contribution was providing the physical substance (the actual flesh, bones, and blood) of the child. In considering the question "Whether the flesh of Christ was conceived of the Virgin's purest blood?", Aquinas comments:

  It belongs to the supernatural mode of Christ's generation, that the active principle of generation was the supernatural power of God: but it belongs to the natural mode of His generation, that the matter from which His body was conceived is similar to the matter which other women supply for the conception of their offspring.

(Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 31, Article 5)

In other words, Aquinas believes that the actual physical substance of Jesus' body was in fact derived from Mary's body (even though he discusses it in terms we now know to be factually incorrect), so that he is her son (physically) as well as the Son of God (eternally).

Aquinas addresses the question even more directly shortly afterward. Question 35, Article 3, of the Third Part of the Summa asks "Whether the Blessed Virgin can be called Christ's Mother in respect of His temporal nativity?"—that is, whether Mary is in fact the physical mother of "God born into the world", in the sense of being his genetic ancestor, not just the vessel in which he was "incubated" until birth.

Aquinas, though he doesn't consider "surrogate motherhood" in the sense that we can think of it nowadays, does bring up the potential objection that miraculous births in general (like the "birth" or creation of Eve from the body of Adam) don't necessarily result in parent-child relationships. He answers the objection (quoting Saint John of Damascus) by saying,

  As Damascene says ... "The temporal nativity by which Christ was born for our salvation is, in a way, natural, since a Man was born of a woman, and after the due lapse of time from His conception: but it is also supernatural, because He was begotten, not of seed, but of the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin, above the law of conception." Thus, then, on the part of the mother, this nativity was natural, but on the part of the operation of the Holy Ghost it was supernatural. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is the true and natural Mother of Christ.

That is, it is the fertilization of Mary by the Holy Spirit that is supernatural or miraculous about Jesus' birth, but everything else about Jesus' conception and birth (including, as we'd now phrase it, his conception from an egg of Mary's) was totally natural—so that she was his mother in the usual sense.


I think it's necessary to separate this question into two parts:

Why did Judas need to lead the mob to Jesus? and
Why did Judas need to kiss Jesus to identify him?

I will attempt to answer the first question. Some possible explanations for the second question can be found here: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/16864/why-did-judas-betray-jesus-with-a-kiss

So, why did Judas need to lead the mob to Jesus?

Jesus and the 12 often retreated to Gethsemane at the Mount of Olives (presumably for solitude, prayer, and rest), as indicated in Luke 22:39, "Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him."

Having just shared the Passover feast with Jesus and the rest of the 12, Judas certainly would have been made privy to where Jesus was going after the meal: a place that Judas knew well from his previous visits with Jesus and the rest of the 12 (John 18:2).

We know from Luke 22:6 that Judas "...watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present." I would conjecture that Judas found this to be the best opportunity to arrest Jesus because of a number of favorable conditions:

Jesus was (mostly) alone. Jesus was in a secluded place outside of the city with only his 11 closest disciples. No crowds of listeners. Should there be any resistance, the cohort that came to arrest Jesus would have no problem overpowering the 11 disciples.
It was late. According to chapter 9 of the Pesachim in the Babylonian Talmud, it was Jewish tradition to spend the night in Jerusalem during the Passover (http://juchre.org/talmud/pesachim/pesachim4.htm#95b). Therefore, it is safe to make the assumption that those celebrating the Passover turned in for the night after the feast. It would have been highly unlikely for there to have been any Jewish citizens and travelers outside. This was particularly important because other followers of Jesus would not find out about the arrest, so there was no reason to worry about retaliation. Remember, those seeking to kill Jesus feared his large following and saw the crowds as a real threat (Mark 12:12).
It was dark. The enemies of Jesus were most concerned with transporting him to the Sanhedrin as quickly as possible where he could be tried and charged for blasphemy (a capital crime) in the middle of the night. The darkness provided enough stealth to capture Jesus without drawing the attention of onlookers. The goal was to create as little commotion as possible, and the darkness helped hide what was happening.

Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.1 says that capital cases (that is, crimes punishable by the death penalty) cannot be tried at night (http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin.4.1-5?lang=en&layout=lines&sidebarLang=all). The accusers of Jesus knew the law, so trying him at night ensured that they could control the trial (witnesses and verdict) without interference from others who may have otherwise defended the innocence of Jesus.

Judas recognized that the conditions were perfect for Jesus to be arrested, transported, and tried. I would guess that after the Passover meal, Judas went to the Chief Priests and convinced them that it was an ideal time to arrest Jesus. Of course, only Judas knew exactly where Jesus was in Gethsemane, so he naturally had to be the one to lead the cohort. Judas was the key the Chief Priests needed to arrest Jesus.


How does Catholic Church view the new school of thought on multiplication of bread by Jesus?

Denial of miracles is one characteristic of the heresy of Modernism.

Doctors of the Church did not deny the miraculous nature of the multiplication of the loaves:

The multiplication of the loaves was not effected by way of creation, but by an addition of extraneous matter:The multiplication of the loaves was not effected by way of creation, but by an addition of extraneous matter transformed into loaves; hence Augustine says on Jn 6:1-14: ‘Whence He multiplieth a few grains into harvests, thence in His hands He multiplied the five loaves’: and it is clearly by a process of transformation that grains are multiplied into harvests. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica III, q. 44, a.4, ad.4)
He who multiplied the five loaves is the same One who multiplies the fruits of the seeds:A great miracle: but we shall not wonder much at what was done, if we give heed to Him That did it. He multiplied the five loaves in the hands of them that brake them, who multiplieth the seeds that grow in the earth, so as that a few grains are sown, and whole barns are filled. But, because he doth this every year, no one marvels. Not the inconsiderableness of what is done, but its constancy takes away admiration of it. But when the Lord did these things, He spake to them that had understanding, not by words only, but even by the miracles themselves. (Saint Augustine. Sermon 130, no. 1)
In multiplying the loaves, Jesus showed his power over material nature:But what is divine is that the five loaves were more than sufficient for five thousand people, for clearly it was not this little food that had satisfied the people, but its multiplication. As you have seen, as though by an irrepressible font abounding from the hands of the distributors the fragments that they had not yet divided, and without daring to touch them with their fingers, the pieces spontaneously appeared. When such things are read, how can we be surprised with the perpetual movement of the waters or become amazed that the liquid fonts flow without ceasing when a solid substance expands in abundance? This happens to make us see that which we ordinarily do not see. By one thing He has manifested with such evidence that he is equally the Author of the others and the Creator of all of material nature, that was not found, but made, and supplies his successive contributions to the production of all things. (Saint Ambrose. Treatise on the Gospel of Saint Luke, bk. VI, no. 84-85)
The remains of the multiplication exceeded as fragments so that the absent might learn of the miracle:‘And He brake and gave to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.’ The five loaves He brake and gave, and the five multiplied themselves in the hands of the disciples. And not even here doth He stay the miracle, but He made them even to exceed; to exceed, not as whole loaves, but as fragments; to signify that of those loaves these were remains, and in order that the absent might learn what had been done. (Saint John Chrysostom. Homily on Matthew, Homily XLIX)
The fragments showed that what had taken place was no illusion:And I marvel not only at the quantity of loaves created, but besides the quantity, at the exactness of the surplus, that He caused the superabundance to be neither more nor less than just so much as He willed, fore-seeing how much they would consume; a thing which marked unspeakable power. The fragments then confirmed the matter, showing both these points; that what had taken place was no illusion, and that these were from the loaves by which the people had been fed. (Saint John Chrysostom. Homily on the Gospel of Saint John. Homily XLII)

source: Denzinger-Bergoglio, "Francis and the curious miracle of the non-multiplication of the loaves", which contains more magisterial teachings regarding the necessity of believing Christ's miracles


Was Jesus guilty or not guilty by the law?

Consider this.

A man walks into a court room and long story short, the judge convicts the man of murder in the first degree. However, the man did not commit the crime. Therefore, he is falsely accused, and falsely convicted. Nevertheless, he was convicted, and he was sentenced to death.

Was Jesus guilty of blasphemy? According to the Sanhedrin, yes. Was Jesus falsely accused and falsely convicted? Yes. God (that is, Jesus) cannot be rightly convicted of blasphemy.

It's a matter of perspective. The Sanhedrin convicted Jesus of blasphemy because they did not believe he was God, just as the judge did not believe the man was innocent. Essentially, it's unjust judgment on the part of the judges. However, Jesus was God, and therefore, he was falsely accused and falsely convicted.


What is the earliest extrabiblical teaching of baptism using a trinitarian formula?

Two early church writings can be seen to address this issue: the Didache and Justin Martyr's First Apology.
Didache
Early evidence for a trinitarian formula in baptism might be found in the Didache, which is commonly dated to the late first century:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. [Chapter 7]

The author of this text includes the language of Matthew 28:19 twice alongside more specific instructions regarding the method of baptism.  Of course, because the language is the same as that of Matthew, the same argument could be applied here: that the text really is referring to the singular "name" of Jesus.  Interestingly, however, despite the very explicit instructions contained here regarding the mode of baptism, there is no explicit teaching here that the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is actually Jesus: instead, the phrase is merely repeated twice.
Thus the Didache contains perhaps a stronger statement for a trinitarian formula than Matthew 28:19, given the context, but the instruction here is still inconclusive.
First Apology
Sometime between AD 147 and 161, Justin Martyr wrote his First Apology, and in it we have an early clear expression of the trinitarian formula being used in baptism.  He writes:

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. [Chapter 61]

Notice here that Justin specifically references "Jesus Christ" instead of the "Son."  Justin thus goes against the "Jesus-only" interpretation, since his words would reduce their interpretation to a tautology, "the name of Jesus is Jesus." Later in the same chapter, he makes this understanding even more clear, by referring to the singular name of the Father, name of Jesus, and name of the Holy Spirit:

There is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe [...] And in the name of Jesus Christ, [...] and in the name of the Holy Ghost.

Summary
This is by no means the last word on this subject, as it was a matter of significant debate in the early church.  But at the very least we have explicit use of the trinitarian (three-part) formula dating to the middle of the second century, and some inconclusive evidence for it dating to the first.


When God said to man that if he sinned he would die, was he speaking of death of the human body or death of the Soul, or the Spirit?

It can't have been his body, because he was still alive physically and didn't drop dead on the spot.

And it can't have been his soul because he felt naked after eating of the forbidden fruit.  Which means his natural mind was still working.

  And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the
  cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the
  presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. - Gen 3:8

The only part left of us is our spirit which we cannot perceive through our 5 senses.

  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of
  the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:6

So I believe it was a spiritual death, not a natural death.

Why was he driven out of the garden?  I believe it was so that he couldn't continue to eat of the tree of life and continue to live physically forever in a fallen state.

  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
  good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
  the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Gen 3:22

I believe it wasn't so much that sin had separated God from man, but man from God.
It was man who hid from God in the garden after eating the fruit and man who felt shame.  God continued to reach out to man but sin kept man away from God.

But obviously things were not quite the same.  Without a spirit that is alive they were unable to fellowship with God.  They (and we) cannot relate to God spirit to spirit unless we are born again.

Gen 3:8-10:

  8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in
  the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the
  presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

  9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art
  thou?

  10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid,
  because I was naked; and I hid myself.


Simon Peter's reaction was inline with his previous self-trusting and impulsive nature, a tendency to rely on self to do what seemed right, rather than a faith that relied on God's promises. This cumulated to the point where he denied the Lord three times, having relied on his own abilities. It was not until the rooster struck that he finally recognized his sin and bitterly repented.

Again and again, Jesus had told His disciples that He was to be taken away and be killed, but they refused to believe, and the important significance of Jesus' sacrifice was not understood. Peter, not realizing the type of spirit that took over him, tried to even rashly rebuke the Lord for submitting Himself to such a fate.

  (Matthew 16:21-23) From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Peter's impulsive nature was also seen at the Passover dinner when Jesus reminded them of His fate and warned them that they would all scatter. However, Peter, trusting in himself, declared without hesitation that he would never desert, that he was even ready to die with Him. Therefore it was not out of character for Peter to take the situation into his own hands and try to fight the group that came to arrest and to kill his beloved Lord.

  (Matthew 26:31-35) Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

We are all not without shortcomings, but the key is to recognize these flaws when revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, and by grace seek to overcome. When Jesus returned after His resurrection, the extent of Peter's repentance and the change in his character was clearly seen. When Jesus tested him, asking whether he loved Him more than the others, the previously rash Peter did not make a grand statement of devotion, but with a truer estimation of self, responded "Yea Lord, you know that I love You". (John 21:15)


How do young earth creationists reconcile the age of the universe with the speed of light, and visible distant objects?

If you accept that God could create the universe out of nothing and create it any way He desired, then the explanation of God creating the universe with photons in flight has to be taken as a possiblity.  I realize you have discounted it as deceptive and therefore unacceptable, but consider the following...

When God created trees, did He create only seeds that grew into trees or did He create full grown trees complete with rings?  I assume that He created full grown trees that had an apparent age greater than their literal age.

Similarly, was Adam created as a baby (or embryo) or was he created as an adult?  Again, I assume that he was created as an adult with an apparent age greater than his literal age.

In those examples, would anyone assume that God was being deceptive?  Probably not because we are not looking at the apparent age of trees or Adam to determine how long ago God created the universe.

As a YEC, I don't look to my surroundings to guide me in how to make sense of the Bible, I look to the Bible to guide me in how to make sense of my surroundings (to include the entire universe).

I don't think God created the universe with the goal of us being able to examine it to determine how long ago He created it.  I believe it is more accurate to assume He created the universe as huge as it is so that we would be impressed and glorify Him.

I have a MSEE degree, I minored in Physics when I got my BSEE.  I know this answer does not present a scientific view.  Science can neither prove nor disprove God's creation of the universe.  If it could, then there would be less need for faith "and without faith it is impossible to please Him..."


Can a Sovereign-will authorize personal liberty?

Technically, Reformed Theology does not exclude liberty from sovereignty. Quoting from The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, point I:

  I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Calvinists define free will as the freedom to act according to one's nature. From a Reformed perspective, including a truly random perturbation to provide a certain kind of freedom would not increase the power of the individual's will — the perturbation would be just as external as a Divine decree — but rather establish a lesser but coworking god called Chance to which (in some small part) creation would be subject.

Similarly, God accidentally getting creation just a little wrong so that unintended consequences occur would not increase the freedom of the individual, but such would indicate an imperfection in God. Such a concept of a fallible God is offensive to many Christians.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul provides a response to one complaint about such sovereignty. (This response seems similar to what God told Job — effectively, 'I am God and you are not'.)

  One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 8:19-21 [NIV])

The writers of The Westminster Confession of faith closed Chapter III with a recognition that such is a difficult teaching and with a declaration that this teaching is not an encouragement to passivity but rather toward worship and obedience (and peace/assurance):

  VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.


Which prophecies are fulfilled outside of Scripture?

In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream. Daniel interprets the dream, even though Nebuchadnezzar first insists that Daniel tell him the details of what he saw.  He responds:

31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth. ...
44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands —a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

The interpretation is then clearly identified as those kingdoms which will rise up after Babylon - and historically speaking, these can be very closely ascribed to the Medeo-Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires. Indeed, the prophecy is so good that many scholars refuse to date Daniel to the time of Nebuchadnezzar because of it.  Within the Protestant canon, there is no mention of Alexander the Great, nor of the rise of Rome.
The point of this vision, and the prophecy as a whole, however, is NOT the statue.  Indeed, so much ink has been spilt over exactly what the kingdoms represent, etc... - but notice that the point of the dream isn't the statue.  It is the rock, not hewn by humans, that destroys all the Kingdoms of the world.
What is this rock? Well, I think its pretty clear that upon that rock, Jesus built his kingdom, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.  Rome, even divided into East and West, and later into many kingdoms, was clearly succeeded, not by an earthly kingdom, but an ecclesiastical one.  It was not made by human hands. And while we may have witnessed its birth in Acts 2, its full flower was clearly not understood until well after the canon was closed. John the Revelator may have understood that the church would be triumphant - but it certainly wasn't going to be in his lifetime.
Want a prophecy that isn't attested to by Scripture alone? Look no further than the church, my friend.


Is there a logical flow in 2 Timothy 2:4-7?

Just like teachers today, Paul is using an illustration. The form his illustration takes is three examples of people who work hard, to show what working for God in Christian ministry is like. There are slight differences in what each example tells us about ministry. To understand it you need to read it in context:

  2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. 3 Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

  4 No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer.
  5 Similarly, anyone who competes as an athlete does not receive the victor’s crown except by competing according to the rules.
  6 The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops.
  7 Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.

  8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. (2 Timothy 2:1-10, NIV)

In verses 1-3 Paul exhorts Timothy to continue in his ministry through the strength of God's grace. That work is primarily about teaching and passing on the message, but as verse 3 says, the work will involve suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

So he then gives his three examples. Here's what I think they communicate:

Christian ministry is like serving as a soldier because it requires a distinct lifestyle. Timothy has to avoid being distracted away from his work by 'civilian affairs', because he isn't working for himself, he's working for God. The Bible talks about this in many other places, such as in Matthew 6:24: you can't serve money and God.
Ministry is like athletic competitions, because you can't cheat. You can't take short cuts, you can't abuse your co-athletes. And like a race, ministry has a reward at the end.
Ministry is like a farmer. When the work is done we will see the results. But farmers do have to work hard, just like we do.

A common theme through these three examples is delayed reward, which is where Paul goes in verses 8-10. Paul is suffering for his ministry, but he knows it is worth it. He endures it because through it he is helping other people obtain salvation and eternal glory. His reward is to share God's glory with his new Christian brothers and sisters.


Why is sex between two consenting adults sin?

Sin is not merely defined by one person encroaching on another person's rights.  Pride, greed, envy, bitterness, and many other such things are sins, but they do not encroach on anyone else's rights.  So, then, why are these considered sins by God?  It seems the key point is that each of them is a departure from the righteousness of God.

In the case of two consenting adults, you assume that each of these people have title to their own lives.  According to the Bible, "a man's life is not his own" (Jeremiah 10:23), but belongs to God Himself.  So, we should certainly consider the consent of the other person, but we cannot forego the consent of God Himself.

When David prays his prayer of repentance over his sin with Bathsheba in Psalm 51, he says, "Against you, you only have I sinned..."  (Psalm 51:4)  David understood that the primary infraction was not again Bathsheba or even Uriah, but against God.  It is His standard and His holiness that matters--not the consent of any mere mortal.

Another note is that the eating of the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden did not infringe on any other person's rights--but it still went against the command of God.

  I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not
  in man who walks to direct his steps.  Jeremiah 10:23 ESV

  "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your
  sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in
  your judgment."  Psalm 51:4 ESV

  "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,
  for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.”  Genesis
  2:17 ESV


How is the apparition in Luke chapter one different from other apparitions, such as in Lourdes?

This is one that has an actual biblical backing to it. Remember 2 Timothy 3:16 declares “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.”
God inspired Luke to write about Mary being visited by Gabriel and than a few months later Joseph. These we know to be true for the Word of God says they happened. However, we don’t have that kind of backing for other people claiming to see visions, and hear from God. Instead they must be proved, or be ignored. Colossians 2:18-19 mentions people having “visions” which is of their own imagination, and he condemned them quite strongly in said verses “Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had visions about these things. Their sinful minds have made them proud, and they are not connected to Christ, the head of the body. For he holds the whole body together with its joints and ligaments, and it grows as God nourishes it.”
They are too many people these days who are seeking a spirituality that goes further than the Bible, and will willingly open themselves up to deception, such as Bethel Redding in California, who are bringing occultism into their beliefs, because they are not satisfied with God and His word, and instead seek after experiences instead of Biblical Accuracy.
Edit: To the guy who mentioned “Why even bring up Bethel” I did because Bethel is a perfect example of those who are seeking emotional experience, who are seeking a mystical approach to things, who are consumed in their lust for symbols and signs, to the point that they create their own. AKA the so-called glory cloud of Bethel. We should be very careful about what we trust, a vision of Mary or of an Angel has no standing over the word of God.
Paul in Galatians 1:8-9 writes “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
Paul also says this in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”
There is great danger in putting theological significance in places or people outside of Scripture.


Why can the Catholic Church declare one person a saint but has never declared another damned?

That is because Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven and earth (Matthew 16:19). Not keys to hell. In other words, Peter (and his successors) can bind and loose on earth and heaven (Matthew 18:18) not in hell. They do not have authority on beings outside of the church. And people in hell are outside of the Church.

P.S: Christ alone has the keys to hell (Revelation 1:18)

PPS: One can never be certain that another is for ever damned since there is always a chance for someone to be converted, even at the last moment of their lives. This is a matter between God and the dying person.


Did the Catholic Church proscribe private ownership and reading of scripture?

Laypeople owned Books of the Hours and illuminated manuscripts of Holy Scripture before the printing press. (See the "Manuscript" Catholic Encyclopedia article for the history of manuscripts and copyists.) There was no ecclesiastical prohibition of such ownership.

St. Paula (347-404), a wealthy Roman lady who could thus afford manuscripts, studied Holy Scripture under the direction of St. Jerome and helped fund St. Jerome's Vulgate translation of the entire Bible. Thus, laypeople privately owning Holy Scriptures did exist very early on in the Church's history.

cf. How did the Catholic Church function logistically/liturgically prior to the invention of the printing press?


What is the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity in the Book of Mormon?

With a fair bit of searching, I could find only one source associating the Community of Christ's belief in the trinity with verses from the Book of Mormon. The verse is 3 Nephi 11:36:

  And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

In order to join the National Council of Churches (NCC), The Community of Christ had to make several concessions, including reducing it's reliance on the Book of Mormon. A 2010 NCC report made the following statement about the Community of Christ's belief in the Book of Mormon:

  Leaders of the COC... affirmed without qualification that the Bible
  is the foundational, authoritative Scripture of the church.  They acknowledged that “the Book of
  Mormon is in our DNA,” and suggested that it confirms God’s revelation in Jesus Christ as testified in
  the Bible.  But it is not, in any sense, equivalent to the Bible in the life of their communion.
  Subscription to its teaching is not required for membership or ordination.  While the Book of Mormon
  is sometimes used in worship, there are parts of the COC that seldom refer to it.

Considering that the Community of Christ has made the Book of Mormon optional, I doubt they feel the need to find support for any of their doctrine in it beyond general support for Christ.


What is the relation between the Logos of Greek Philosophy and the Logos in Christianity?

By using the term "Logos" the author of John's Gospel intends to explain the Lord Jesus Christ in terms of Greek philosophical ideas current at the time.  He may have done this, not because Greek philosophy influenced his beliefs, but rather to make the Gospel easier to understand for those who knew the Greek philosophy; he used Greek philosophical teaching about the Logos to act as a bridge for some of his readers.
To know the background to those ideas might add to our appreciation of John's Gospel.
This is a quote from a book by C.H. Dodd:-

Augustine, in a well-known passage of the Confessions (vii. 9), writes:
Thou didst procure for me through a certain person... some books of the Platonists translated from Greek into Latin.
There [i.e. in those Platonist books] I read - not in so many words, but in substance, supported by many arguments of various kinds — that
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.
By him were all things made, and without him was not anything made.
That which was made in him was life, and the life was the light of men.
And the light shines in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.
And that the soul of man, though it bear witness of the light, is not itself the light; but the Word of God, being God, is the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
And that he was in the world and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
But that he came unto his own and his own received him not, but as many as received him to them gave he power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, I did not read there.
Again I read there that God the Word was born not of the flesh nor of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God.
But that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us I did not read there.

Quoted from "The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel" by C.H. Dodd (page 10):-
http://preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1953_dodd_interpretation-of-the-fourth-gospel.pdf
Reading on from that page 10 is a long section too long to give here.
Or you can look at Augustine's Confessions book 7 chapter 9, page 170, online here:-
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/SpiritualFormation/Texts/Augustine_Confessions.pdf
Augustine is at pains to show that, though the Greek philosophers speak of Logos and even of the Son of God they never speak of this Son becoming man and dying for sinners.  That is unique to the Christian Gospel.
C.H. Dodd's work is referenced here:-
https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#H11
Philo of Alexandria (20 BC to 40 AD) was the (Jewish) philosopher who sought to construct philosophical bridges between Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish religious thought.  In Chapter 11 (the Doctrine of the Logos in Philo's writings) we read:

The pivotal and most developed doctrine in Philo's writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos.

It does look very much as if the author of John's Gospel used Greek thought about the Logos to write his Gospel, and to appeal better to those with a Greek education and philosophical background, while simultaneously not undermining the ability of those without a Greek philosophical background to understand his message.
What advantage did John see in using the term Logos?  If Augustine is right (see his quote relating to John 1:1 above) then by the time of the writing of John's Gospel Greek philosophy had already progressed from a unitarian understanding of God to a Two-Persons-One-God, a "Bi-une", understanding.  In Greek philosophy the Logos is not just "God's word", but rather one of the Persons of the Godhead.  It was used to help his readers who knew Greek philosophy: it is a much smaller step of the understanding to go from a Biune God to a Triune God than from a Unitarian God to a Triune God.


Are Russian Orthodox Christians considered heretics by Roman Catholicism?

The primary difference between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church is the refusal of the former to acknowledge the primacy of the Pope. This is a discussion that dates back well over a thousand years. There are some groups of former national Orthodox churches (the Ruthenian church for example) which have in the last several centuries chosen to acknowledge the Pope as head of the Church; these have been re-admitted into the Catholic Church and are known as the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Given that the main difference is the refusal to be subject to the Pope, the Orthodox Churches are formally considered to be in a state of schism, not heresy:

  Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 751)

Although, as St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa Theologica,

  just as the loss of charity is the road to the loss of faith, according to 1 Tim. 1:6: "From which things," i.e. charity and the like, "some going astray, are turned aside into vain babbling," so too, schism is the road to heresy. Wherefore Jerome adds (In Ep. ad Tit. iii, 10) that "at the outset it is possible, in a certain respect, to find a difference between schism and heresy: yet there is no schism that does not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear to have had a reason for separating from the Church."


Before St. Thomas Aquinas, who laid the foundation for the existence of God?

Jesus' contemporary followers not only believed in "a god", they had a common understanding of the existence and nature of God, because his mission was to the people of Israel (cf. Jesus answer to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:14: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel"). This is not to assert that all of Jesus' followers came from the House of Israel, but before the writings of Paul, we have little evidence of any who were not. With the common understandings, they did not need an explanation of the existence, or nature of God.

If, on the other hand, Jesus had been sent to the Gentiles--the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, &c.--he would have had to expend considerably more time teaching about the nature--though not the existence--of God. Note, though, that in the ancient world, atheism was rather unknown. Most everyone seems to have believed in at least one god, though there was not much consensus about much more than the existence of a god.


Is the highway mentioned in Isaiah a literal highway?

From a Baptist perspective

We studied this in our Sunday School. In our studies we also assume it is a literal highway, that will exist but it is *also a figurative "picture" for walking with Christ in salvation.

Scripture contains many passages that are both literal and metaphorical. I'll stop at one example, though there are many: The priests in the Old Testament literally sacrificed animals, and we believe that these served both as a temporary covering for sin in O.T. times, but they were also a picture (or preview) of the coming Savior and the sacrifice He would ultimately make.


What is the process by which Pope Shenuda (Coptic) will be replaced?

The process by which Pope Shenuda's successor will be replaced can be found here.
The highlights are as follows:

Following Shenouda's death, the eldest member of the Holy Synod's archbishops will become acting pope until a new patriarch is seated. If the eldest archbishop, Anba Mikhail of Assiut, who was consecrated in 1946, declines to undertake the role, Archbishop Anba Pachomeus of Beheira, who was consecrated in 1971 and is the second eldest member of the Holy Synod, will become acting patriarch for two months until a new pope is elected.
The candidates are nominated through the Holy Synod (the highest authority in the church, comprising 120 archbishops), the Monks Synod, Melli Council members, dioceses, and members of the Coptic Councils in the People's Assembly and Shura Council.
According to Coptic Orthodox tradition, the pope is elected by a number of processes. Candidates, chosen among monks and archbishops, must be at least 40 years old and have been monks for at least 15 years. Following an election, the names of the three candidates with the most votes are written on pieces of paper and placed in a box to be picked by a child — not more than nine years old — whose eyes are closed.

The thing that I find fascinating about this is the element of the Holy Spirit, whose hand is forced into the selection process. (In the podcast "How to Do Everything?," the Yale Divinity Professor says this is the stated aim.)
In Ancient Israel, The Urim and Thummim were cast (essentially drawing lots) for things like this, and when the Disciples wished to replace Judas, they did the same thing.


When did the Catholic Letters get called the Catholic Letters

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — throughout the whole, i.e., universal) cf. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Catholic

  The Catholic Letters  After the thirteen letters of St. Paul and the letter to the Hebrews come seven other letters (one by St.
  James, two by St. Peter, three by St. John, and one by St. Jude)
  which since the time of Origen, Eusebius and St. Jerome have been
  known as 'catholic' letters, letters to the Church at large, not
  directed to a particular church or individual: the second and third
  letters of St. John, even though they are addressed to a private
  individual are regarded as appendixes to his first letter and are also
  included in the 'catholic letters' category. cf. A GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
  | Antonio Fuentes


The word "gospel" is the Old English word for "good news" or "glad tidings" and has several different uses. It comes from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion (eu- "good", -angelion "message"). As an adjective, it is used in gospel choir or gospel music, perhaps to refer to the African American spiritual Christian hymn. As a noun, it is used in the phrase "to preach the gospel" or "to share the gospel", which means to evangelise. Evangelism is interpreted by many Christians to be a good thing, because they may say:

The purpose of the gospel is to win souls to Christ.
The purpose of the gospel is to enter the kingdom of God in God's plan or make life on earth as if it were the kingdom of God when it would be fully realized.
The gospel is to help human beings become the most fully alive that they can be.
The gospel books is to describe what Jesus has done on earth and how his works are significant to Christians, giving Christians a new identity apart from Judaism, and emphasizing especially on the significance of the resurrection.

To outsiders of the faith, it just means to convert to Christianity.

Upon conversion to Christianity, it is expected that the person would be baptized. The means of baptism, however, varies from denomination to denomination. Refer to the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus about baptism in John 3:1-10.

In short, there are two ways that gospel may refer to: (1) the act of converting to Christianity or (2) the life of the ideal Christian. Plus, the life of the ideal Christian may be a method to evangelism, an attempt to convert non-Christians into the Christian faith by making the Christian faith sound very attractive. Refer to "lifestyle evangelism".


Why did Rome and Constantinople split in 1054 AD?

This site has a good overview of the history from a Catholic viewpoint.

Here is a high level overview based on that site and the article on Wikipedia (which currently stands in question of its neutrality).

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the church headquartered at Constantinople began to have ongoing squabbles with Rome due in some part to the Emperor's meddling in Church affairs.
In 1054, after the Norman conquest of southern Italy, the friction escalated due to the imposition on the Greek colonies there of the practice of Eucharist using unleavened bread.
A Papal legate was sent to address the situation, but (apparently largely) personality issues  caused the two delegates to mutually anathemize each other (but not their respective churches). This was not considered very momentous at the time, but in retrospect it marked the departure point between the two bodies.
Even after that, there were future attempts at reconciliation. The collapse of the Byzantine Empire, between 1450 and 1490, precipitated the enduring split.

With the last few popes, there have been renewed attempts at reunification. In fact there are a number of Eastern-Rite churches in communion with Rome (e.g. the Byzantine Catholic rite). But it seems that the laity of the Eastern Orthodox are more opposed to reunification than the leaders, at least in some ways.

An important aspect of this the differing views, from an early age, of the role of the Pope. Easterns regard him as "first among equals" or to have primacy, while Westerns, of course regard his role as one of authority.

The Filioque question was an early (sixth century) bone of contention between the East and the West. These days, Rome considers the two to be equivalent statements and it seems likely that it would be a small or nonexistent issue if serious reconciliation were ever to take place.


In the "Apostles' Creed" were they referring to themselves when they said "holy catholic church"?

Constantine Not the  Father of Catholicism

Constantine has nothing to do with Catholicism whatsoever, except that he, as a pagan, was a lukewarm convert to it, and was baptized before his death. Whether or not Nicaea I was convened, the Trinity was still the Catholic faith before and afterwards—the only difference is that whereas before the Nicaean understanding of God was not dogmatically settled (but simply the lived faith, not hitherto defined officially), it was still believed in a 'more than unofficial, but not yet official' capacity.

This is a common myth spread by 'history' documentaries with zero sources: that since he convened a Council for Christians to settle their disputes about the precise nature of Christ's divinity, as the bishops discussed a salvation issue in Jerusalem a few centuries prior (Acts 15), that he 'made Trinitarianism the official religion.'

In reality, he simply legalized Christianity; it would only later be made the official religion of the Empire, an indubitable and objective improvement on the prevalent heathen religions which mocked Christianity, and hated Christ implicitly or otherwise.

The 'Constantine invented Trinitarian pagan Christianity' trope simply needed to exist in one way or the other: it amounts to a fumbling attempt at explaining the dominance of the persecuted religion begun by some obscure teacher from Jerusalem over the most mighty Empire of all time, which on a natural level is quite impossible, and which was also prophesied to make matters worse.

Catholic Just Means Universal

The Greek word καθολικος (sometimes simply transliterated due to its quasi-technical use) just means 'universal' (or 'general' as in 'the General Judgement [of all humanity on the last day]') or 'everywhere' (in the geographical sense; cf. Acts 9:31: η εκκλεσια καθ’ ολης). It's not rocket science how the true Church both would and could describe itself as the universal church, which isn't limited to certain bishops and regions, like sects, cults and heresies. It's a great adjectival or title for the Church because only the true Church, rather usefully for discernment of the true Church, can be universal in all centuries. Arianism wasn't 'catholic' because it was started by Arius, and everyone upbraided him when he started teaching this heresy because it was new, and not catholic. This took its fullest form in the Council of Nicaea, where the Catholic Church gathered to condemn this novelty, and affirm the catholic—Catholic—truth on the matter. They didn't need to assert the authority bishops in unison had to teach on Scripture, even though they had it; they didn't need to cite Scripture to prove the perennial faith to some heretic, but they did. They could have simply cited, as Athanasius would cite, the perennial faith as held by the fathers of the faith, those who passed the Scriptures on to them from the beginning, and how they all taught the Trinity as the true doctrine on God.

To be Christian before relatively recently (1500s), was just to be Catholic and vice versa, then. (I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I heard 'Are you Catholic or are you Christian.') It's a myth that there were 'secret bible believing Christians who weren't catholic and believed sola scriptura and symbolic eucharist' etc. It's just antihistory.

Authorship of the Apostles' Creed

One can't prove the Apostles' themselves penned this creed, although that is a traditional (little 't') ascription. But it is impossible to claim that it doesn't crystallize the faith of the early Church as seen from every evidence we have of it, which it manifestly is. Both of these things are subjectively indistinguishable anyway. There is no need for conspiracy here anywhere... unless you do not belong to the same Church as the fathers of the faith, in which case you have every reason to need such conspiracies to explain the absence of your church anywhere close to the beginning.

The path of least resistance is to be Catholic, accept the Apostle's Creed whether an Apostle or other men wrote it, since it summarizes the lived faith anyway, otherwise it wouldn't be considered a summary or σύμβολον of the faith.

No conspiracies.

And the condemnation by Councils of contrary positions ('let him be anathema' and such things) is not different from the Church claiming to have the true faith: indeed, if you have a false faith you indeed are going to hell. There is nothing sinister at work. Why it is seen as sinister is people who aren't of the Church have an aversion of dogmatic statements, because Scripture can be interpreted by the invidual, and after all, you could be wrong? At least, that's what's behind the aversion at least implicitly—otherwise describing those who believe in a false religion as going to hell is not bad, but charitable toward all who would believe likewise.


What is the biblical argument used by Protestants against the Catholic doctrine of Penance?

The basis for the necessary rejection of Catholic penance in the reformation was threefold. a) We need no human priest as we are priests ourselves. b) we have access to Christ our high priest without any other mediator, and c) we never, under any condition, need to do a 'work' to obtain forgiveness - ever.

Forgiveness can only be obtained by faith in Christ. Confession of particular sins by believers is not to obtain justification or general forgiveness but particular application of our previous justification in cleansing - this is called forgiveness in brining us back into better fellowship with God. That is, as we have already been declared righteous by faith, God has sworn to give himself no other choice, according to the justice of his faithfulness, except to forgive is.  If God has in a sense no choice (from his own gracious decree) how monstrous  is it to imagine that we should approach a man, rather than our own high priest, to declare our forgiveness? Our forgiveness is not optional, rather it is our reasonable expectation to receive of God by faith, apart from any good work. To add to this monstrosity that we should receive an evil insinuation as though we also had to 'work' for forgiveness is a blasphemy against the high priesthood of Christ.

What does the scripture say:

Christ is our high priest who we are to approach, not St. Somebody, Mary, or any earthly priest:

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16, ESV)

We are all priests:

  But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9, ESV)

We obtain full and general forgiveness in our justification without respect to any good work:

  For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. (Romans 3:28, ESV)

As a result of full pardon we can be cleansed in particulars that bother our conscience (without any requirement of a work, of course) by simply directly confessing our sin to our only high priest, Jesus;

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.(1 John 1:9, ESV)

Under these consideration most Protestants fully reject the need for penance as a sinful thing contrary to faith in God. Actually, anyone who has performed any kind of penance under the guidance of a Priest would technically have fairly good reason to confess that sin to Christ. One must always go straight to the high priest and not ignore him by devious means and such a show of godliness that denies the power thereof.


Do any Bibles contain the Book of Nathan the Prophet and/or the History of Nathan the Prophet

It may be the views of Judaism on the matter of this ‘Book [or History] of Nathan’ that has given rise to questions about existence or authenticity. The Book of Nathan the Prophet and the History of Nathan the Prophet are among 19 “lost books of the Tanakh”. They may be the same text, but they are sometimes distinguished from one another. As no such text is found in the Tanakh, some assume that text has been lost or removed from earlier ones.

The Bible itself speaks of such prophets and their writings. There are two passages in the Old Testament that speak of them. First, there is 1 Chronicles 29:29 which goes up to the death of King David and mentions

  “Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of
  Gad the seer.”

Second, there is 2 Chronicles 9:29 which is about the reign of King Solomon:

  “As for the other events of Solomon’s reign, from beginning to end,
  are they not written in the records of Nathan the prophet, in the
  prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and in the visions of Iddo the
  seer..."

The Bible appears to says very little but elsewhere we find additional information that enables a complete picture to be put together.

The New International Study Bible (1987 edition) gives such helpful information in its ‘Author, Date and Sources’ section to the introduction of 1 Chronicles (page 566) that I now quote from it.

  “According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles… but
  this cannot be established with certainty…  In his recounting of
  history long past the Chronicler relied on many written sources. About
  half his work was taken from Samuel and Kings; he also drew on the
  Pentateuch, Judges, Ruth, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations and
  Zechariah… There are frequent references to yet other sources: ‘the
  book of the kings of Israel’ (9:1; 2Ch 20:34; cf. 2Ch33:18), ‘the book
  of the annals of King David’ (27:24), ‘the book of the kings of Judah
  and Israel’ or ‘…of Israel and Judah’ (2Ch 16:11; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26;
  32:32; 35:27; 36:8). ‘the annotations on the books of the kings’ (2Ch
  24:27). It is unclear whether these all refer to the same source or to
  different sources… In addition, the author cites a number of prophetic
  writings: those of ‘Samuel the seer’ (29:29), ‘Nathan the prophet
  (29:29 2Ch 9:29), ‘Gad the seer’ (29:29), ‘Ahijah the Shilonite’ (2Ch
  9:29), ‘Iddo the seer’ (2Ch 9:29; 12:15; 13:22), ‘Shemaiah the prophet
  (2Ch 12:15), ‘the prophet Isaiah’ (2Ch 26:22), ‘the seers’ (2Ch
  33:19)… He did not invent, but he did select, arrange and integrate
  his sources to compose a narrative ‘sermon’ for post-exilic Israel as
  she struggled to find her bearings as the people of God in a new
  situation.”

There is a need to see the book of Nathan the prophet, the book of Gad the seer and the history of Nathan the prophet in that context.

Now come the chronological factors. Please note that 1 Chronicles 29:29 also mentions “the records of Gad the seer” and his name crops up again in 1 Samuel 22:5 where we find that it is the prophet Gad, not Samuel, who gives instructions to David.

  “But the prophet Gad said to David, ‘Do not stay in the stronghold. Go
  into the land of Judah. So David left and went to the forest of
  Hereth.”

That is significant because it was the prophet Samuel who had earlier anointed the boy David to be king (1 Samuel 16:1-13) but when Gad is mentioned David is still king-in-waiting as king Saul continues to reign. This is where a bit of chronology and age of the characters involved needs to be worked out.

Samuel was born in 1105 B.C. and he was an old man when he anointed Saul to be king (1 Samuel 8:1-5) and Saul reigned for 40 years from 1050 to 1010 B.C. (Acts 13:20-21).  David reigned from 1010 to 970 B.C.  This means that Samuel was 55 years old when Saul came to the throne and he would have been 95 years old if he had lived long enough to see David become king.  But Samuel died long before then, while Saul was still alive and before David became king (1 Samuel 25:1).

Samuel anointed Saul then later God told Samuel to anoint David.  However, it is the prophet Gad, not Samuel, who gave instructions to David to depart into the land of Judah (1 Samuel 22:5). That is because Samuel was a very old man.  Likewise, it is Nathan who rebukes David after he takes Bathsheba to be his wife (2 Samuel 12:7-10). That is because Samuel had died.

Samuel lived long enough to anoint David to be king, but not long enough to see him sit upon the throne.  Nathan and Gad took over from where Samuel left off.  God used these men as his messengers and as his scribes.  It is they who record the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end.  Their writings, their books, were never lost because they exist today within the books of Samuel and Chronicles.  God used Samuel to write part of the history of Israel as the time of the judges was drawing to a close, and the time of the kings beginning; then God used men like Nathan and Gad to continue writing that history of God’s dealings with His people during the times of the kings. The writer of the Chronicles in the Old Testament drew upon those, and other sources, to make a comprehensive compilation of that history, to help the post-exilic Israelites.

In summary, the answer to your question is that the writings you ask about have been incorporated into the Old Testament itself, in various places as detailed above, so in that sense they have not been ‘lost’. The originals may have had more material but those originals are not available just as none of the original manuscripts of any and all of the Bible (the autographs) are not available. They are considered to be authentic, certainly by Christians, and to the extent that they are in the ancient Hebrew scriptures, Judaism also accepts them.  All Bibles have Nathan’s writings as source material that has been incorporated into various parts of it, parts with other book names; it’s just that there is no ‘Book of Nathan’ on its own.


How should Reformed people deal with Wrong doctrine?

The typical Reformed perspective on this is that the teachers of the church should not be teaching doctrine which disagrees with the confessional position of the church (which in continental Reformed churches is typically the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and the Three Forms of Unity; in Presbyterian churches, it is typically the same creeds and the Westminster Confession of Faith as far as I know).

If an official church teacher is teaching doctrine contrary to the confessions the church upholds, then it is definitely your right (and duty!) bring the matter to the Consistory of your church (e.g. the minister/s and elders). Most Reformed churches have an article in their church order regarding this (in the case of continental Reformed churches, usually based on the old Netherlands Reformed Church Order:

  Article 75

  The reconciliation of all such sins as are of their nature of a public
  character, or have become public because the admonition of the Church
  was despised, shall take place, when definite signs of repentance are
  evident, publicly, by the judgment of the Consistory; and in rural
  districts or smaller towns having only one Minister, with the advice
  of two neighbouring Churches, in such a form and manner as shall be
  judged to be conducive to the edification of each Church.

  Article 76

  Such as obstinately reject the admonition of the Consistory, and
  likewise those who have committed a public or otherwise gross sin,
  shall be suspended from the Lord's Supper. And if he, having been
  suspended after repeated admonitions, shows no signs of repentance,
  the Consistory shall at last proceed to the extreme remedy, namely,
  excommunication, agreeably to the Form adopted for that purpose
  according to the Word of God. But no one shall be excommunicated
  except with previous advice of Classis.

And also later in Article 79, elders or ministers who preach false doctrine or heresy (which in the example you gave, would be the case) should be suspended and/or deposed, as well as disciplined as per the quoted articles.

The reason the complete Matthew 18 process is partially skipped is because publicly teaching confessionally false doctrine is a public sin, and as such should be publicly admonished, skipping private admonition.

If someone is not publicly teaching false doctrine, but does subscribe to it, and it is a confessional doctrine, then you should follow the Matthew 18 process to admonish them and restore them to the faith. This is also described in the linked church order.

Regarding when to NOT try to correct false doctrine, if the matter is not confessional then you don't typically need to follow the Matthew 18 process. This is because any non-confessional matter is not considered necessary for salvation (and typically there is debate on the matter, among orthodox scholars). For example, falsely taught soteriology is a confessional doctrine and thus MUST be confronted. But having a disagreement with someone about whether or not the burning bush was the first or the second person of the Trinity is non-confessional, and as such not something that should be disciplined by anyone but God.

The Presbyterian position may differ somewhat, and I would be interested in seeing an answer from that perspective.


Distributism and Subsidiarity beyond the counsel of Jethro in the Bible

Jethro very plainly is advocating subsidiarity for Moses.  I don't see any reference to distributism in that chapter though.  Jethro is addressing organization/governance, not economics/ownership.  (However, both terms are relatively new to me so I could be misunderstanding.)

There are several New Testament passages that assume subsidiarity without explicitly promoting it as Jethro does.

In Acts 6:1-6 the apostles realized that they were becoming overwhelmed with their responsibilities and directed the church to select the first deacons to take over some of the hands-on ministry responsibilities so that the apostles could devote themselves to prayer and to the  ministry of the word (v4).

In Acts 13:1-3 the church at Antioch is functioning without direct oversight by the apostles in Jerusalem.  Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and without consulting the apostles, they send Barnabas and Saul on the first missionary journey.  Later on, in Acts 15 there is a theological dispute that leads the church at Antioch to send Barnabas and Paul to consult directly with the apostles in Jerusalem for a decision.

One of the main purposes of the letter that Paul wrote to Titus was to instruct him in appointing elders/overseers in the churches that had already been established in Crete so that the churches could better function without the need for oversight from Paul or the apostles.


What is meant by the expression "living in darkness"?

Variants of the phrase appear several times in 1 John

1 John 1:5-6 (ESV)
5   This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that  God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6   If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and  do not practice the truth.
1 John 2:9-11 (ESV)
9  Whoever says he is in the light and  hates his brother is still in darkness. 10  Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no  cause for stumbling. 11  But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and  walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Darkness is contrasted with the picture of God as light, and describes living in sin without knowing or seeing God.


How do YECs respond to the lack of non-Christian buy-in to their "creation science"?

Creationism is built on the assumption that there is a God, and the assumption that this God is the God described in the Bible.

If you don't believe either of these things are true, then you cannot logically believe creation science.

However, if you believe that both these things are true, then creation science becomes a logical possibility (although not the only possibility).

Atheists do not believe there is a God. Therefore they cannot logically believe in creationism.

Hindus do not believe in the God of the Bible. Therefore they cannot logically believe in creationism. (They may formulate their own version of creationism, but it will not be the same as Christian creationism.)

Christians believe there is a God, and that this God is the God of the Bible. In the same way that secular scientists use the framework of naturalism (i.e. the idea that all things have been created by currently observable processes) to structure and inform their hypotheses, creation scientists use the framework of the Bible to structure and inform their hypotheses. In both cases, the hypotheses can be tested by observing available evidence.

In theory, it should be possible to perform creation science in a rigorous manner. However, for every rigorous creation scientist, there are probably 10 000 mis-informed bloggers spreading their own unsubstantiated theories. In addition, some popular creationists have used fairly weak arguments. This has led to the popular belief that all creationists are stupid or wrong.

I am personally a creationist, but I try to approach it in a logical fashion. I am very wary of popular creationists, and try to determine whether their arguments are logical before I accept them.

Your questions was "How do "creation science" proponents explain the lack of non-Abrahamic (non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim) scientists who buy into these "creation science" theories?"

In answer to this, I believe that most people do not realise that creationism can be logical. In addition, some current creation theories appear to be inconsistent with the evidence. For instance, there is no creationist consensus on the problem of distant starlight. Back in the 80s, it was popular to suggest that "God made the light so it looked like it came from billion year old stars." However, modern creationists have realised that this suggestion is problematic, because if this were true, it would mean there were millions of stars which we can see which never existed!! Most non-Christians would see this as instant proof that creation theory is wrong. I am happy to wait and see if they can come up with better theories, because creationism makes the Bible more internally consistent.

Note: I don't believe you have to be a creationist in order to be a Christian.


According to the Bible narrative, who was the second descendant of Adam to die?

The second death recorded in the Bible story, in the lineage of Cain, first son of Adam

The second death recorded in the Bible story is an unnamed man killed by Lamech son of Methushael (not to be confused with Lamech son of Methuselah and father of Noah - Genesis 5:25–30), seven generations from Adam in Cain's line:

Lamech said to his wives:

"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
    you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
    a young man for striking me.
If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
    truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold."
                             (Genesis 4:23–24)

The doubling of the account of the killing probably does not mean that Lamech killed two men, but rather is most likely an example of a common Hebrew poetic form in which the same person, object, or event is referred to using two parallel words or phrases in a row.

The person killed is not named, nor are any other details given elsewhere in the Bible narrative. So about the "who," we simply don't know.

And since no ages are given in the genealogy tracing the line from Cain to Lamech's four children in Genesis 4:17–22, we cannot say what Lamech's lifespan was in relation to Adam's descendants through Seth down to Noah (recounted in Genesis 5). All we can say with certainty about the "when," then, is that the second death recorded in the Bible happened some time before the Great Flood. And we can conjecture that since it happened fairly late in Cain's line, this death likely happened somewhat late in the pre-Flood period.

Having said that, the births in the line of Seth are weighted toward the earlier part of pre-Flood times, as shown in this chart:

(Note: The use of this chart does not imply agreement with all of its commentary.)

If the line of Cain followed a similar pattern, this second recorded death in the Bible story could have been earlier in the pre-Flood era than we might ordinarily think.

For further commentary on this incident, see BibleHub, Genesis 4:23 and Genesis 4:24.

The deaths in the lineage of Seth, third son of Adam

Although the man killed by Lamech is the second death recorded in the Bible, it is not necessarily the second death chronologically. In the next chapter, Genesis 5, the genealogy of Adam through his third son, Seth, is given, complete with the ages of each man at the time of the birth of his firstborn son and at the time of his own death.

In the Genesis 5 sequence, Adam is the first to die (long after Abel's death, of course). The second death in this lineage depends on how you interpret "death" in the case of Enoch, the sixth generation after Adam in Seth's line, of which the narrative says:

  Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him. (Genesis 5:23–24)

If "God took him" is understood to mean that Enoch died, then Enoch is the first person to die in Adam's lineage through Seth.

If "God took him" is not understood to mean that Enoch died, then Seth himself is the first person to die in Adam's lineage through Seth.

Since, as pointed out earlier, there are no ages and therefore no relative dates attached to the genealogy of Cain's line given in Genesis 4:17–22, it is impossible to say for sure whether the man whom Lamech killed as narrated in Genesis 4:23–24 died before or after Enoch (or Seth) died, or indeed whether he died before Adam himself died. We therefore cannot say with certainty that he was the second person to die chronologically in the Bible story.

Conclusion

Based on the above discussion, there are two possible candidates for the first death after Abel, and three possible candidates for the second descendant of Adam to die:

The first death after Abel:

The unnamed man killed by Lamech, Cain's descendant of the seventh generation
Adam

The second descendant of Adam to die:

The unnamed man killed by Lamech, Cain's descendant of the seventh generation
Enoch
Seth


What exactly is the falsehood that St. Paul is referring to at Roman 3: 7?

The overarching context is the necessity of the Gospel for salvation.
In Romans 3:5-8,

But if our injustice commend the justice of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust, who executeth wrath?
(I speak according to man.) God forbid: otherwise how shall God judge this world?
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner?
And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just. ,

St. Paul refutes, with reductio ad absurdum arguments, a 6th objection that

If our unjustness (= sinfulness) serves to make God’s justness (= justice)
stand out the more clearly, why are we still threatened with his wrath, and urged to seek justification? Is God not unjust in punishing such sinfulness?

Verse 7

is taken by most commentators as a further objection, in which case it is but a weakened repetition of v 5.

—The Epistle to the Romans, commentary by A. Theissen, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture PDF p. 2100
cf. also St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Romans 3:1-8


How do Catholics describe "eternal generation"?

The English word “generation” is derived from the Latin word generatio, which is used in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Greek word γένεσις that occurs in the Greek New Testament.
For example, in Matt. 1:1–2, it is written,

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;  KJV, 1769
Α Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ Β Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ TR, 1550

Not only did I embolden generation and γενέσεως, but also begat and ἐγέννησεν. One must note that ἐγέννησεν, a conjugation of the lemma γεννῶ (contraction of γεννάω), is related to the noun γένεσις (and thus the genitive case, singular number declension γενέσεως) by the stem γεν-. While the KJV translates ἐγέννησεν as “begat,” it could also be translated as “engendered,” thus retaining the gen- stem in English.
To beget or engender someone is simply to father them. We understand this temporal generation according to our own human nature. During human generation and subsequent birth, a human is made and comes into existence.
In endeavoring to understand the eternal generation of God the Son, some erroneously transfer those same human processes to the Holy Trinity. They reason that, if we were made and came into existence by our own generation by our own parents, then God the Son must have also been made and come into existence by his eternal generation by God the Father.
The problem with this reasoning is that our parents, being human, are mutable creatures, while God the Father is the immutable Creator. Whenever human parents conceive a fetus, the fetus can never be an exact image and representation of its parents—a perfect clone, if you will. Not only are there two parents, and the fetus cannot receive the entire genetic material of each parent, but each parent’s genetic material has endured decay and mutation during the parent’s lifetime. It is absolutely impossible (zero probability) for a child to be an exact “twin” (clone) of its parents.
On the other hand, God the Son is “the image of the invisible God.”1 This is not merely analogous to someone taking a photograph of someone else and looking at the photograph saying, “This is really a nice photo of you!” First, the photograph is not living. Secondly, it is corruptible and can be destroyed. On the other hand, God the Son who is the image of the invisible God is eternal and immutable, “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”2 Only God is immutable since He alone is uncreated. All else that is created is mutable.
In Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr wrote,3

For those things which exist after God, or shall exist at some time, these have a corruptible nature, and are such as may be both utterly destroyed and no longer exist; for God alone is unoriginated and incorruptible, and therefore, He is God, but all other things after Him are originated and corruptible.
ὅσα γάρ ἐστι μετὰ τὸν θεὸν ἢ ἔσται ποτέ, ταῦτα φύσιν φθαρτὴν ἔχειν, καὶ οἷά τε ἐξαφανισθῆναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι· μόνος γὰρ ἀγέννητος καὶ ἄφθαρτος ὁ θεὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θεός ἐστι, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα μετὰ τοῦτον γεννητὰ καὶ φθαρτά.

The eternal generation of the Lord Jesus Christ is alluded to in scripture in John 8:42, wherein the Lord Jesus Christ states, «ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον»—“I came out of God.” This particular phrase consisting of the verb ἐξέρχομαι in combination with the preposition ἐκ suggests being born or generated.4
Henry Alford wrote,5

ἥκω conveys the result of ἐξῆλθον, as Meyer; who also remarks that mere sending will not exhaust ἐξῆλθον, which must be taken metaphysically, of the proceeding forth of the Eternal Son from the essence of the Father.

As far as how this eternal generation and procession occurred in eternity, there is no possible way for any human to conceive of such thoughts. It is beyond our understanding, for as we do not even understand the complex physiological processes and operations of our own bodies, how could we possibly understand something supernatural and extraordinary as the eternal generation?
The best means we have of understanding the eternal generation is limited to analogies.6 As we do not truly comprehend the very essence or existence of God, we certainly cannot comprehend His operations, including the creation of the universe, and especially, the eternal generation of His Son.

References
Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. Vol. 1. Boston: Lee, 1878.
S. Justinus Philosophus et Martyr. Πρὸς Τρύφωνα Ἰουδαῖον Διάλογος (“Dialogue with Trypho the Jew”). Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Græca. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 6. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Footnotes
1 Col. 1:15
2 Heb. 13:8
3 Ch. V, p. 488
4 cp. Gen. 15:4, 35:11
5 p. 797
6 Justin Martyr used the analogy of a fire kindling another fire yet not being diminished in intensity. See his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Ch. LXI and CXXVIII.


The phrase "pray to" confuses most people as it gives the impression that anyone who asks a saint to "pray for" them is actually praying to the saint as if he/she was God.  This isn't true and is probably an artifact of language.

The word "pray" also has the meaning to "make an earnest petition" so Catholics, and, I think, other Christians, call upon any saint, past or present, to pray for us.

Just as I might ask my friends to pray for me I might also ask a saint in Heaven to pray for me.


LDS Church view: was the earth and all life on it created in six 24-hour days?

As mentioned in the comments the LDS church believes:

  Latter-day Saints have additional information that allows a third view—that each “day” of the Creation was of unspecified duration and that the Creation of the earth took place during an unknown length of time. Abraham stresses that day is synonymous with time. For example, Abraham 4:8 summarizes the second creative period by stating that “this was the second time that they called night and day.” This usage is consistent with ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew word YOM, often translated day, can also mean “time” or “period.” In other words, the term translated day in Genesis could be appropriately read as “period.”1

See also:

  A third theory says that the word day refers to a period of an undetermined length of time, thus suggesting an era. The word is still used in that sense in such phrases as “in the day of the dinosaurs.” The Hebrew word for day used in the creation account can be translated as “day” in the literal sense, but it can also be used in the sense of an indeterminate length of time (see Genesis 40:4, where day is translated as “a season”; Judges 11:4, where a form of day is translated as “in the process of time”; see also Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 130–31). Abraham says that the Gods called the creation periods days (see Abraham 4:5, 8).2

1 https://www.lds.org/liahona/1998/03/i-have-a-question/the-length-of-creation?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng