What Bible translations are accepted by Mormons?

According to a 1992 statement by the First Presidency of the Church:

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.
While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

There are selections of the Bible translated by the prophet Joseph Smith, called the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), but this is not a separate translation of the KJV Bible, only corrections to some of the verses/passages. These are given in footnotes of the LDS edition of the scriptures, rather than as a separate book, because the number of changes is really quite small compared to the length of the full text of the Bible.
More information about the JST:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation
https://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng


What is the "Kingdom of God" supposed to be?

The Kingdom of God or Heaven literally means the Realm where God dwells.

The Kingdom of God may be divided into two types based on it's establishment.

 1. At the First coming of Jesus Christ

When Jesus came to earth as a humble man to suffer and die for us, He's goal was to bring down the Kingdom of God, which was also His role as the promised Messiah. But at His first coming, the Kingdom of God was not to be established physically on earth, which was the expectation of the Jews. Jesus came to establish the Kingdom of God in the hearts of men. Jesus was preparing the people for the coming kingdom, which was to be established soon after He finished His work on the cross. John the Baptist was proclaiming that the Kingdom of God was near.

  Matthew 3:1-2 (NIV) In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in
  the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of
  heaven has come near.”

Jesus started explaining to the people what the Kingdom of God is. He used metaphors like  the sower, mustard seed, hidden treasure, weeds, yeast and fishing net (see Matthew 13). But until it was established from the day of Pentecost, which was the beginning of the Church era, it was not fully understood. Therefore, this Church era is the first establishment of Kingdom of God and it's dominion is in the hearts of mankind.

For instance,

  Matthew 13:23 (NIV) But the seed falling on good soil refers to
  someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who
  produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was
  sown.”

Here, Jesus said that the Kingdom of God can start from a single person, which can yield many other believers. Peter was the first man to preach the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost and 3000 people were baptized that day. And the apostles went on to preach everywhere and the number of Christians kept on growing and growing.

2. At the Second coming of Jesus Christ

Jesus will come again with all His glory and power to establish His kingdom physically on earth forever. This present world is in the hands of Satan but when Jesus comes, Satan will be defeated and the eternal physical Kingdom of God will be established on earth forever and ever. Amen.

  Revelation 19:11-20 (NIV)
  - excerpt

  I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse,
  whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and
  wages war. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of
  God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses
  and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is
  a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule
  them with an iron scepter.” On his robe and on his thigh he has this
  name written: king of kings and lord of lords.
  Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies
  gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his
  army. But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who
  had performed the signs on its behalf.
  The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning
  sulfur.


Old testament: where is Eternal Life and Judgement discussed?

Salvation is often mentioned, and Psalms 9 carries the idea that the soul lives on after death, but the most direct teaching I could find is in Daniel 12:2

Daniel 12:2
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Here are some of the more obvious teachings about the judgement:

Ps. 9:7
But the LORD shall endure forever; He has prepared His throne for judgment.
Ps. 50:4
He shall call to the heavens from above, And to the earth, that He may judge His people:
Eccl. 3:17
I said in my heart, “God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, For there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.”
Eccl. 11:9
... But know that for all these God will bring you into judgment.
Eccl. 12:14
For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.


Info about living in the temple quarters?

There were not many priests who lived near the temple. The majority of priests took turns serving in the temple. They were divided into 24 groups. Each group served in the temple twice a year for a week, roughly six months apart. That covered 48 weeks. The remaining 4 or so weeks of the year were covered by the three major feasts: Passover (Spring), Pentecost (Summer), and Trumpets (Autumn). During the three major feasts, all of Israel came to the temple and all the priests served in those weeks because of the much greater attendance at the temple.

So the short answer is, most priests did not live at the temple. They lived in the Levitical cities around Israel and only traveled to live briefly in Jerusalem for their week of service.

According to Ezekiel 45-48, the priests had quarters in the rooms surrounding the courts of the temple. These likely served as their temporary accommodations when they took their turn serving a the temple. According to the gospels, the high priests' family, which were continually at the temple, had a separate residence in Jerusalem.

Some interesting resources on this topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_divisions
https://www.fachurch.org/2018/01/21/all-services/1221-45/the-courses-of-the-priests-pm/

In the case of Samuel, it is clear he was given over to Eli the High Priest as his guardian and seems to have been living in Eli's private home.


Are there gender requirements for Sponsors for a Catholic baptism?

The Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite Catholic Church states that there may be one or two sponsors for the sacrament of baptism. However, if there are two sponsors, one must be male and the other must be female. Thus two sponsors of the same sex is not permitted according to the laws of the Church.

  Can.  873 There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.

Here is a more readable way of reading the same thing from the GUIDELINES FOR SPONSORS FOR BAPTISM & CONFIRMATION of the Diocese of Rockford:

  A person who is to be baptized or confirmed is to have a sponsor. While it has become a tradition to have two sponsors at Baptism, having only one sponsor is acceptable. No more than two sponsors are permitted, however, and the two sponsors may not be of the same sex.

I am unaware of any possibility of someone obtaining a dispensation of the norm for allowing two sponsors of the same sex. One would have to contact the local ordinary (bishop) at the Chancery Office of your particular bishop and ask this question to those in authority for an answer.


What is the fewest number of cardinal electors are needed to validly elect a pope?

There is no minimum number of cardinals set in the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, written in 1996 by Pope St. John Paul II. This document is the current norm for papal elections. It prescribes such things as the length of the dead pope's funeral, the procedure for managing Vatican City and the Diocese of Rome while the See is vacant, and the procedure and timetable for setting up the conclave to elect the next pope.
There are groups, or at least one rotating group, of cardinals, called the "Particular Congregations", which oversee day-to-day operations of the Vatican:

The Particular Congregation is made up of the Cardinal Camerlengo of [the] Holy Roman Church and three Cardinals, one from each order [that is, a Cardinal Deacon, Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Bishop]. ... The office of these Cardinals, called Assistance, ceases at the conclusion of the third full day, and their place is taken by others.
The Particular Congregations are to deal only with questions of lesser importance which arise on a daily basis or from time to time.
(Universi Dominici Gregis, sections 7–8)

Perhaps this is where your "four cardinals" idea comes from.
The apostolic constitution specifies that all the cardinals who are not "legitimately impeded" (section 7) must come to the conclave as soon as they are informed of the pontiff's death. No further mention is made specifically of any number required in order to cast a valid vote for the pope. Presumably this is to allow an election regardless of how many cardinals are able to make it to Rome.


What does it mean to be "poor in spirit"?

The Old Testament and Hebrew linguistic background of this passage should be kept in mind. Recall:

Matthew (or his source) was likely translating words that were spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Both Jesus and Matthew likely had a Semitic mother tongue.
The Hebrew bible (both in its Hebrew and Greek forms) was frequently referenced explicitly by both, and in many more cases provided unstated background.

The term used is οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, (hoi ptōchoi tō pneumati) – "the poor in [or with respect to] spirit". The dative translated "in" has a broad range of meanings; this needs to be determined from context. A few relevant points of context from the Hebrew scriptures:

The Psalms, regarding poor.

The word ptōchos is the preferred (thought not exclusive) translation of the Hebrew עני (ʿānî) which carries the basic idea of "lacking" – at times in the sociologic sense (lacking property), but more often in the Psalms it denotes "neediness" with reference to God. See especially Psalms 10 and 72, where it is also sometimes translated "afflicted". As far as I see, in all of its 31 appearances in the Psalms ʿānî is used in a positive sense, characterizing those who recognize their need of God. 1
Psalm 51:17,* regarding spirit.

  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
     a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

The "spirit" here is pneuma in the Greek Septuagint, the same word used in Matthew 5. This provides a background for the idea that having a pneuma that is "compromised" in some way is a rhetorical indication of humility toward God.
Isaiah 66:2, regarding poor in spirit.

  All these things my hand has made,
         and so all these things came to be,
         declares the LORD.
   But this is the one to whom I will look:
         he who is humble and contrite in spirit
         and trembles at my word.

The word that the ESV translates "humble" is ʿānî (see #1, above), and "spirit" is translating ruach, the normal Hebrew correlate of pneuma. Here "humble and contrite in spirit" is helpfully restated: "trembles at my word."

*All quotes are ESV.

Note

1.   In this way, Luke’s "poor" that parallels Matthew’s "poor in spirit" (Luke 6:20 // Mat. 5:3) may carry the same sense (or even translate the same Semitic term?), despite the fact that the Greek ptōchos itself more often refers to economic disadvantage.

References

R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Eerdmans, 2007).

Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999).

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

The links in the body of the answer are to older lexicons, provided for convenience because they are freely available. It is the newer lexicons cited here that were used to inform this answer.


How could God's form be seen prior to His incarnation?

Methinks that the problem lies with this statement:

  I stated that He entered into the physical world in His incarnation.

Your multiple examples demonstrate that God did manifest a physical form before He was incarnated in Jesus. However, this physical form wasn't necessarily human flesh and blood. Quite possibly a human appearance, like the angels (Mark 16:5-6 as an example), but not necessarily human "material", so to speak.

So, in essence, God may have had a flesh-and-blood body only after the incarnation, but there's no reason He couldn't have had a physical form (that looked like a human) before the incarnation.


What relationship, if any, does the Feeding of the Multitudes in Mark have to this passage in Goethe's Faust?

The Goethe quotation is part of an ensemble of beliefs around the activities of evil spirits, and the ability of humans to control or confuse them by symbolic (ie, magical) practices. You may have heard of the idea that vampires have to be invited in to your home in the first instance, but thereafter can return as they please. This is similar, saying that demons have to go out in the same way that they came in.

In Mark 2 and Luke 5 is the story of Jesus healing a paralytic man, who is let down through a hole in the roof of the house. Some commentators have suggested a parallel with customs surrounding the movements of evil spirits: (1) an Indian custom that someone could be healed of demonic possession by lowering them into the house through the roof, and then expelling the demons outward along the same path, (2) a Roman custom that someone missing, presumed dead, and then found alive should return to their home through a hole in the roof, so that death would not be able to follow them, or (3) that dead people should be carried out of their house by an unusual route, again to confuse the demons. This third one is the one being cited in your footnote.

(I think that your footnote 49 is actually for a different chapter in the Verhoeven book - his Chapter 4, as far as I can see from the Amazon preview, covers this miracle, whereas the feeding of the multitudes is in Chapter 5. If the footnotes are separately numbered for each chapter then this is an easy mistake to make! I agree that the feeding of the multitudes has no relation to the Goethe passage.)

This is not necessarily "based in Christian doctrine", though. It is the kind of belief for which someone who already held it could possibly find support in the Gospel passages mentioned, if they were sufficiently motivated. But I think van der Loos puts his finger on it when he says:

  Data such as these are definitely most peculiar, and worth mentioning, but since according to the Evangelists the bearers of the sick man acted in this way because they could see no other opportunity of taking the paralysed man to Jesus - in Mark 2:4 and Luke 5:19 this is stated as the motive - there is no reason to look for other motives.

References:

The Miracles of Jesus, Hendrik van der Loos (Brill, 1965). Pages 442-443 discuss these theories, and footnote 5 on page 442 quotes this Goethe passage.
Das Abdecken des Daches, Mc 2 Lc 5, Hedwig Jahnow (1925). Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 24(1):155-158.
Die reste der primitiven Religion im ältesten Christentum, Carl Clemen (1916). Pages 137ff (cited by van der Loos, and quoting Goethe on page 138).
Quaestiones Romanae, Plutarch. 264D-265B.  Cited by van der Loos.


How does Absalom's death foreshadow Christ?

IMHO, Christians find way too many "types of Christ" in the Old Testament.

Sure, there are some similarities between the death of Absalom and the death of Christ. But they're pretty strained.

Yes, both of their deaths involved a tree and a spear. Both were called "son of David".

But there are huge differences. Like: Absalom was guilty; Jesus was innocent. Absalom ran from death; Jesus faced death voluntarily. Absalom worked against his father; Jesus was working with his father. Etc etc.

I'm sure you could find parallels to Jesus death comparable to those you list in the deaths of lots of people throughout history. I'm sure I could find a criminal who was executed by hanging, who was a carpenter, and whose father was named "David". Would that make him a type of Christ?

Even in those cases where the parallels are really relevant, I'm not sure what the point is. So there are some analogies between the death of X and the death of Jesus. Interesting, perhaps, but so what? What does this prove?


Does the Traditionalist and Sedevacantist ignore the words of St.Ambrose saying "Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, Ibi Deus"?

I can't answer for traditionalists who are not sedevacantists, but for sedevacantists there is no problem here. When there is a pope, we will follow him. I don't think your quotation from St. Ambrose was intended to imply that, during periods when there is no pope, the church and God disappear. (There have often been periods without a pope.  Until recently, they were caused not by heresy but by the death or resignation of a pope.)


What do you call the adherents of Covenant Theology (CT) and New Covenant Theology (NCT)?

There are several options, but the terms "New Covenant Theologian" or "Covenant Theologian" are definitely not appropriate.
Those terms are reserved for Biblical Scholars, and is usually used in the context of pastors, or those who have advanced Theology degrees, such as a Master's of Divinity, or Doctorate in Theology, but it not used for a normal layperson.
I agree with the other person who answered that the closest would be "Reformed" or "Calvinist".
It has become more common practice for Calvinists to refer to themselves as "Reformed" even though they might even be a 5 point Calvinist or Hyper-Calvinist.
It's just that the word reformed doesn't have the "-ist" or "-ian" suffix that makes it a noun form, like Literalist, or Baptist, Dispensationalist, or Arminian.


How do those who believe in the immortality of the soul explain Leviticus 21:11?

To my knowledge no serious theologian who doesn't believe in the immortality of the soul uses examples such as Lev 21:11 as proof-texts, so those who do (believe in the immortality of the soul) have not frequently felt the need to defend it on such a charge. Nevertheless, mainstream scholarship provides ample explanation of the lexical phenomenon.

The claim is made in the question:

  the Hebrew literally reads "dead soul."

Although it's true that "soul" is the traditional rendering of nephesh, the term rarely (if ever) means "soul" in the specialized sense that it is used in Christian theology.1

  The more vaguely and naively ["soul"] is used, the more correct and appropriate this translation becomes.2

Lexicons all agree that "soul" is applicable in a minority of cases; the only real disagreement is whether it is ever applicable, and nobody counts Lev 21:11 among the possibilities. Instead, along with a handful of other passages (Lev. 19:28; 22:4; Num. 5:2; 6:11; 9:6, 7, 10, 11, 13; and Hag. 2:13), this usage is glossed by HALOT (the standard modern lexicon of Biblical Hebrew) as:

  deceased person, corpse.

We could leave it at that, but for the sake of thoroughness I will point out that the venerable TDOT rejects this definition (Horst Seebass). To understand why, we return to the OP's suggested translation "dead soul[s],"3 henceforth "dead naphshot" (= plural nephes). In fact, a more fastidiously literal translation would be "naphshot of [one] being dead" or "naphshot of a corpse". At this point we can provide an alternative response to the OP's query:

  nepeš cannot refer to the corpse itself, but only to something associated with it.2

Although he "spiritualizes" nephesh in some sense, then ("vital force"), Seebass points out that all of these examples, which describe the uncleanness that results from proximity to the "naphshot of the dead", still do not carry the sense suggested in the question:

  "Rich and abundant though this use of nepeš for life is, we must not fail to observe that the nepeš is never given the meaning of an indestructible core of being, in contradistinction to the physical life, and even capable of living when cut off from that life." We may therefore assume that even in death the vital force is something uncanny, belonging solely to God, which God’s people should not come near.4

1. The translation "soul" probably came about by way of the Greek psyche. See also, this Q&A which revolved around the same misunderstanding.

2. Horst Seebass. נפש, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testment Ed. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Joef Fabry, Trans. John T. Wills  (Eerdmans, 1974) Volume 9, p. 512ff.

3. I presume this was intended, as the word nephesh is plural in Hebrew and in translation.

4. Seebass, p. 516, quoting Hans Walter Wolff.


What's up with churches and guitars in this joke from The Big Bang Theory?

Simply put:

Contemporary worship services stereotypically include both free-form prayers and music accompanied by guitars.
Traditional worship services stereotypically include the recitation of set prayers, and do not use guitars.

In the joke, Mary makes a slippery-slope argument: that if she diverges from what is "traditional" in one area (changing the words of her set prayer), everything "traditional" is threatened (guitars will be used in worship).

More fully explained, the joke makes sense when we crudely divide Christian worship services into two groups: liturgical and non-liturgical.

The defining characteristic of liturgical worship services is that the order of events is predefined, or scripted, and improvisation is avoided.  But the stereotype of liturgical worship is that it is formal and antiquated.  Most relevant to the joke, liturgical worship often includes the recitation of a written prayer.  Furthermore, the musical accompaniment in liturgical worship, if there is any at all, is often limited to an organ, piano, or bells, to the exclusion of guitars and drums.

In non-liturgical worship, more improvisation is permitted during the worship service.  The minister's prayers are more likely to be extemporaneous (made up on the spot).  And in many non-liturgical worship services, different instruments are used, such as guitars.

Historically, the transition away from reciting prayers and toward extemporaneous prayers occurred long ago in many Christian denominations.  In many of those churches the more recent transition has been to move away from traditional musical forms (hymns, etc.) and toward contemporary forms, often accompanied by a guitar.

Thus Mary is making a slippery-slope argument: that if she changes the form of her prayer, soon guitars will appear in the worship service.

Of course, the joke relies on a stereotype of liturgical worship – in reality, there are many liturgical worship services where guitars and set prayers coexist.  And in at least most liturgical traditions, prayers said at home may be freer and more extemporaneous than those said during the worship service, so Mary wouldn't be doing anything wrong by modifying her prayer.


What name was used by Peter for Baptism?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  There has been a theological controversy over the question as to
  whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid.
  Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty.
  Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be
  baptized in Christ's name: "They were baptized in the name of the Lord
  Jesus." In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be
  baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". Those who were
  converted by Philip. (Acts 8) "were baptized in the name of Jesus
  Christ", and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of
  the Apostles: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
  Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts 2).

  Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles
  baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and
  Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they
  declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other
  writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such
  baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the
  Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the
  terms "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of Christ", either refer to
  baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish
  Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether
  unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the
  trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have
  substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply
  quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus
  declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle
  asks: "In whom then were you baptized?" This text certainly seems to
  declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have
  heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of
  baptism was pronounced over them. (Baptism: Form)

In other words, the predominating opinion states baptism in the name of Christ alone is against Christ's command and is therefor unlikely. Rather, "in the name of Jesus Christ" refers to performing the baptism at Christ's command or for Christ's purpose, much like you might claim a piece of land in the name of the Queen. Acts 19 clarifies the ambiguous language, supporting this opinion, by suggesting that baptized people know of the Holy Ghost from having been baptized in Him.


Are the Old Testament prohibitions on incest applicable to Christians? - Yes.
Leviticus 18:16 is observed in the Gospel of [Mark 6:17-18], alluding to Christian observance all the Laws in Leviticus 18 regarding incest.

Leviticus 18:16 in regards to Mark 6:17-18 :
Mark 6:17-18 [KJV]
17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.

Leviticus 18:16 [MT]
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife. It is your brother's nakedness. (עֶרְוַ֥ת אֵֽשֶׁת־אָחִ֖יךָ לֹ֣א תְגַלֵּ֑ה עֶרְוַ֥ת אָחִ֖יךָ הִֽוא)


Does Catholicism teach that there is a just interest rate?

Is there a 'just interest rate'?

The “just rate of interest” is the fair rate of interest which should corresponds to the average gain that those engaged in business may generally expect in a determined centre.

According to the Catholic Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it as such:

  Just rate of interest

  Even today one can still sin against justice by demanding too high an interest, or usury, as it is called. What interest then is just and moderate? Theoretically, and in an abstract way, the fair rate of interest nearly corresponds to the average gain that those engaged in business may generally expect in a determined centre. It nearly corresponds, for the interest being guaranteed, whilst the profit is uncertain, we must discount the value of an insurance premium from the average profit. Accordingly, in a determined centre, if those who sink their money in buildings, land, or industrial undertakings generally look for a profit of 6 percent, the just rate of interest will be about 4 or 5 percent. This rate covers the risks and ordinary inconveniences of lending. But if one had to run special risks or had to give up an extraordinary premium, one might in all justice exact a higher rate of interest. Such, therefore, is the theoretical rule. In practice, however, as even the answer of the Sacred Penitentiary shows (18 April, 1889), the best course is to conform to the usages established amongst men, precisely as one does with regard to other prices, and, as happens in the case of such prices, particular circumstances influence the rate of interest, either by increasing or lowering it. In this way, the security offered by advances to the governments of wealthy countries and those that cover mortgages diminish the rate for public loans and loans on mortgage. On the contrary, the interest on shipping, and mercantile business is higher than that in civil business, on account of the greater uncertainty in sea voyages and in commercial enterprise.


Is God's glory presented as something that increases over time?

Our knowledge of His manifest glory is incomplete as much as His glory is infinite. So from God's perspective He is not changing. From Our perspective we are becoming one with Him and so it is increasing

In 2 Corinthians we read:

  But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
  2 Corinthians 3:18 (KJV)


Is there any tradition with regards to Zechariah's prayer in Luke?

The other interpretation of Zechariah's prayer is related to the specific duty he was performing in the temple that day. The twice-daily incense offering is closely related to the Holy Place and our ability to enter into God's presence. This is especially seen on the Day of Atonement when the incense offering is used by the High Priest in preparation to enter the Most Holy Place.

So the incense offering is related to the atonement of our sins and our entry into God's presence. Since Zechariah was offering one of these daily incense offerings it would be quite likely that his prayer was related to the atonement of his people and their entry into the presence of God.

  "May the merciful God enter the Holy Place and accept with favor the offering of his people."

With that idea, perhaps the answer to Zechariah's prayer is that a son will be coming to him to prepare the way for the fully realized entry into God's presence in the physical form of the coming Messiah.

This idea is not original to me. Here is one link to this line of thought that Zechariah was offering the traditional prayer for God's people.


Why did human lifespans drop after the Flood?

Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, two young-earth creationist organizations, have similar answers to this question.  They don't attribute a direct supernatural cause, but instead attribute the age drop-off primarily to genetics.

Both cite several factors:

Environmental changes following the flood: probably nothing more than a minor effect, since Noah lived another 350 years after stepping off the ark
Genetic bottleneck at the flood: the gene pool was reduced to eight people, perhaps causing the loss, via genetic drift, of genes contributing to longevity
Possible detrimental mutations: particularly in Shem (who died at a much younger age, 600, than his brothers)
Genetic bottleneck at the Tower of Babel: the gene pool was again divided, potentially having a similar effect as the bottleneck at the flood

Some of the ideas that both reject as insignificant are a change in diet (from vegetarian to omnivorous) and reduced oxygen levels after the flood.

Regarding Genesis 6:3, see this related question.  AIG interprets the verse to mean that God was allowing mankind to live another 120 years before destroying it with a flood:

  We can see that Genesis 6:3 does not deal with the length of time a human will live. Rather, it indicates the longsuffering nature of God in the midst of His wrath. He was allowing even the most evil people of Noah’s time 120 years to repent of their sin before he would judge them with a global flood.

References:

Why Did People Start to Have Shorter Lives After the Flood? (AIG)
Did People Like Adam and Noah Really Live Over 900 Years of Age? (AIG)
Longevity or Countdown? (AIG, on Genesis 6:3)
Living for 900 years (CMI)


Do mainstream believers believe there was a large interval of time that elapsed between the fall of angels and God speaking creating the universe?

All Christians can glean from Scripture is that Lucifer was an angel, got proud, opposed God, and was cast out for it.  There is simply no data to say anything about the when, where, or why of those events.

Even what was stated above is only a tangential case at best. The entire "Lucifer falling out of heaven" narrative is not one that is explicit in Scripture.  Indeed, the three closest references are:

Ezekiel 28

  “You were the signet of perfection,[a]
      full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
  13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
      every precious stone was your covering,
  sardius, topaz, and diamond,
      beryl, onyx, and jasper,
  sapphire,[b] emerald, and carbuncle;
      and crafted in gold were your settings
      and your engravings.[c]
  On the day that you were created
      they were prepared.
  14 You were an anointed guardian cherub.
      I placed you;[d] you were on the holy mountain of God;
      in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
  15 You were blameless in your ways
      from the day you were created,
      till unrighteousness was found in you.
  16 In the abundance of your trade
      you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
  so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
      and I destroyed you,[e] O guardian cherub,
      from the midst of the stones of fire.
  17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
      you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
  I cast you to the ground;
      I exposed you before kings,
      to feast their eyes on you.
  18 By the multitude of your iniquities,
      in the unrighteousness of your trade
      you profaned your sanctuaries;
  so I brought fire out from your midst;
      it consumed you,
  and I turned you to ashes on the earth
      in the sight of all who saw you.
  19 All who know you among the peoples
      are appalled at you;
  you have come to a dreadful end
      and shall be no more forever.”

Isaiah 14:

  “How you are fallen from heaven,
      O Day Star, son of Dawn!
  How you are cut down to the ground,
      you who laid the nations low!
  13 You said in your heart,
      ‘I will ascend to heaven;
  above the stars of God
      I will set my throne on high;
  I will sit on the mount of assembly
      in the far reaches of the north;[c]
  14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
      I will make myself like the Most High.’
  15 But you are brought down to Sheol,
      to the far reaches of the pit.

Luke 10:

  17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” 18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.

Of the two in the Old Testament, these are actually prophecies directed against the King of Tyre - although many for historical reasons see an allusion to Satan in this.  The last one, in the NT, explicitly references Satan, but this appears to be a present day thing, not related to the Fall from Heaven at all.

So, where do we get the narrative? John Milton's Paradise Lost is the most famous telling of the narrative, but the origin of the story is unknown.

As to the timing involved, there is simply no data on which to make any claim in one direction or another.  Many believe that all of this occurred before the Creation of Man, since the Serpent in the Garden clearly wanted man to fall - but beyond that, much in the same way physicists can only speculate about existence a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang, there is simply no data, no framework, and no information to say any more.


In Acts 4, after being arrested and subsequently released by the Council of Pharisees, Peter and John lead "their friends" in prayer:

  24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God
  and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the
  sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father
  David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,

“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
     and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves,
     and the rulers were gathered together,
     against the Lord and against his Anointed’

  — 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus,
  whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the
  Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28  to do whatever your hand and
  your plan had predestined to take place. 29 And now, Lord, look upon
  their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your
  word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal,
  and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy
  servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they
  were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the
  Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

Several things can be noted from this prayer.

They immediately address God as "Sovereign Lord". They acknowledge his power and knowledge, but most importantly his status as King over his people.
They go on to praise God for his works of creation ("heaven and earth and the sea")
They quote Scripture in the prayer - scripture that they use to reinforce their later plea
They reason with God. They say "you yourself say, why did the Gentiles rage? Look! They're raging now, they raged against Jesus! Show your power, protect us, enable us to keep preaching your word"
It's gospel-centric. At the core of their prayer is "your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed."
Their goal is not physical well-being, but the proclamation of the gospel. They say "look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word will all boldness." They don't ask for protection - all they care about is preaching the word of God.
It was a pretty darn good prayer. The Holy Spirit shook the place! It was an edifying prayer - the Holy Spirit filled them and they continued in their goal to preach the word of God.

I expounded on this on because I find it a very good prayer, but there are plenty of others. It's a good rule of thumb, in my opinion, to take the prayers of the saints as templates. Peter and John were apostles - they asked Jesus how to pray - and they learned well!

Our church's Assistant Pastor preached a series on prayers of the bible once. Here's some of the passages he preached on:

Solomon's Prayer for Wisdom: 1 Kings 3:1-15
David's Prayer of Gratitude: 2 Samuel 7:18-28
David's Prayer of Thanks: 1 Chronicles 29:10-22
A Prayer for a Church Oppressed by Heresy: Colossians 1:9-14
Part 1 & Part 2 of A Prayer For Boldness: Acts 4:24-31
On Prayer itself: Phil. 4:6-7


If God is going to fix our "nature" why didn't He do it from the beginning?

O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem ("O happy fault that earned for us such and so great a redeemer")

This is a very ancient concept in Christian theology. Essentially, Christian theology has long held that it was far better for God to bring good out of evil than it was not  to permit the evil to happen in the first place. (I'm paraphrasing S. Augustine here.)

In essence, Creation-Fall-Redemption-New Creation is better than Creation  alone.

Looking in the Bible, we might look at texts like Romans 5.20: "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more". Moreover, it is a concept that permeates both Old and New Testaments: the people of Israel came to know that their exile in the desert and later in Babylon was good because ultimately they came to know God better through it. Christians believe this is supremely true in Christ and in the New Creation.


What would be a good counter arguments to this idea?

Where does the Bible give a green light to premarital sex?

First of all, the original word used in the Greek Bible, πορνεία porneia, and the Hebrew Bible, zanah, does not exactly mean premarital sex. The word has broad meanings, which may or may not include premarital sex:

  πορνεία: properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general.

Second, there are verses in the Bible that explicitly refer to premarital sex, and even the monetary price to be paid for doing so, because the issue was dealt with from the perspective of property crime because virginity was considered valuable in Hebrew culture.

Exodus 22:16-17

  16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her,
  he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

  17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay
  money according to the dowry of virgins.

Deuteronomy 22 states that if a man and woman commit adultery, they are punished by stoning. And if man rapes a woman who is pledged to be married, he is punished by death. The woman is “pledged to be married”, pointing towards the woman already being the property of another man. So rape, as shown in Deuteronomy 22, is not a violation of someone’s dignity, but a property crime, which can be monetarily compensated.

The "ownership" of a woman's virginity is also illustrated in Genesis 19:8:

  Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me
  bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But
  don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the
  protection of my roof."

In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes to Corinthians who had practiced unlawful sexual relations as stated in Leviticus 18.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

  10 τοῖς δὲ γεγαμηκόσιν παραγγέλλω, οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ Κύριος, γυναῖκα ἀπὸ
  ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι. 11 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ, μενέτω ἄγαμος ἢ τῷ ἀνδρὶ
  καταλλαγήτω,— καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα μὴ ἀφιέναι.

  10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife
  must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must
  remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband
  must not divorce his wife.

The problem is that the term  ἄγαμος (agamos), “unmarried” means widowed men (ἄγαμος is used for men, ἄνανδρος (anandros, lit. without man) for women.

From 1 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture.

Widows, widowers, and divorced people weren’t allowed another marriage because of the transactional nature of marriage. “Unmarried” didn’t mean people who never married, but people who were married and are no longer married. Although the widows and widowers wanted to marry, they couldn’t because it was illegal.

So here Paul is talking about marriage. There’s nothing to indicate that Paul is talking about sex here. And certainly nothing to indicate the Paul is talking about sex in the way it is seen today — two consenting, loving adults in a committed relationship that may or may not be bound by the covenant of marriage.


Any biblical passages, traditions or historical record of Virgin Mary's baptism?

Was the Blessed Virgin Mary Baptized?

Scripture does not speak of it. There is not historical document or record of this ever happening. However, Catholic tradition holds that the Virgin Mary did in fact receive baptism and thus set an example for all the faithful to follow.

  According to tradition going back to the second century (documented by renowned Scripture scholar Cornelius a Lapide), Christ baptized the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  It is true that Blessed Mary was without original sin, and full of grace. However, she had yet received the baptismal character, which is an indelible feature of the baptized. Also, the sacrament of baptism linked her even more closely with the Church of her beloved Son.

  If she humbly submitted to Old Law precepts out of humility (e.g. the purification after birth), then she no doubt would also have received the sacraments of the New Law. Moreover, Mary wanted to be like Christ her Savior in all ways. Christ didn’t need baptism but He received baptism. No doubt, she desire the same. Mary didn’t need to die, but she desired to die in order to be perfectly conformed to Christ. This is a feature of all the ancient Dormition accounts.

  Did the Immaculate Mary need to be baptized. No, of course not.

  Did the Immaculate Mary want to be baptized. Yes, of course.

  Was the Blessed Virgin Mary Baptized?

Would Cornelius a Lapide’s words himself suffice to prove the tradition.

Cornelius a Lapide’s commentary

  I have need to be baptized, &c. That is, to be spiritually washed from my sins, and perfected by the Spirit of Thy grace. Have need here does not signify an obligation of precept, as though the Baptist was obliged to receive the baptism of Christ. For this precept of baptism was given and promulged by S. Peter on the Day of Pentecost, and therefore after John’s death. Some gather from this place that John was soon afterwards baptized by Christ Himself, as were also the Blessed Virgin Mary, SS. Peter, James, and John, and the rest of the Apostles. This is stated by S. Evodius, who succeeded S. Peter in the Chair of Antioch, in an Epistle of his, entitled τὸ φώς.

  In favour of this idea are also Nazian. (Orat. 39 towards the end); “Christ knew,” he says, “that He would Himself shortly afterwards baptize the Baptist;” also S. Chrysostom, who says, “John baptized Christ with water, but Christ baptized John with the Spirit.” Whence the author of the Imperfect Comment. says, “It is plainly written in apocryphal writings, that John baptized Christ with water, but He baptized John with the Spirit.”

  Abulensis thinks, on the other hand, that John was not baptized by Christ. And he proves it by the marvelling of John’s disciples, who soon afterwards told John that Christ, whom he had baptized, was Himself baptizing, and that all men were coming unto Him. For this would have been needlessly told to John if he had been baptized by Christ, and he would have given this reply to his disciples. So that it is a doubtful point whether John was baptized by Christ or not.


Who is a Christian according to the Russian Orthodox Church

First things first, there are no 'denominations' within Orthodoxy. The Orthodox believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church (as professed by the Nicene Creed), and they believe that the Orthodox Church is it. Therefore it would be inappropriate to speak of a doctrinal position of the Russian Orthodox that is not also true of other Orthodox. While they are under different jurisdictions, they are the same Church and thus share the same beliefs. With that said, there are at times differences in emphasis between jurisdictions, and they don't always see eye to eye. The difference is that they generally do not split from one another and form separate 'denominations' as in Protestantism. They remain in the Orthodox Church and continue to seek reconciliation. Orthodox recognize that reconciliation may take years, perhaps centuries. So they don't rush these sorts of things. I should also mention that it is very precarious to attempt to speak on behalf of all of Orthodoxy when it comes to this issue, but I will do my best to represent what is the most prevalent view within the Church, with the caveat that not all Orthodox may agree (and that is OK).

With that being said, the answer to this question depends on whether you are talking about the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) or the Russian Orthodox Church itself. There shouldn't really be any distinction since as of 2007 the ROCOR is now in communion with all of mainstream Orthodoxy because of its incorporation into the Moscow Patriarchate. However, ROCOR is still self-governing, and its clergy and members are notoriously hyper-conservative and separatist. Regardless of this, they do not represent all of Orthodoxy if they claim that those who are not chrismated in the Orthodox Church are damned.

Fr. Damick offers a short explanation:

  The final boundaries of the Church are known only to God himself, but
  outside the historical context of the Church—that is, the Orthodox
  Church—the nature of the connection of any human being to the Church
  (whether a believer in Christ or not) is unknown to us. Throughout
  Church history, various groups have broken from the Church, a tragic
  reality which does not divide the Church but rather divides believers
  from the Church. The final status of Christians in such communities is
  dependent on God’s mercy and grace, which is also true for those with
  membership in the Church in this life.

  In this life, however, to be an Orthodox Christian means belonging to
  the Orthodox Church. It is not something one can do alone or as part
  of a separate group. Orthodox Christians believe that other Christian
  or even non-Christian groups may manifest varying degrees of the truth
  of the Gospel but that the fullness of the Christian faith is found
  only in Orthodoxy.

This is in stark contrast to Protestantism which considers the Church to be spiritual (and thus no one group can claim to be the Church). Orthodoxy, on the other hand, insists that it is "the fullness of The Church." According to Timothy Copple,

  When the Orthodox Church says that it is "The Church," they are making
  no pronouncement upon the salvation of anyone inside or outside
  membership in Orthodoxy. This may be hard for Protestants to grasp
  since being saved and being part of The Church is practically
  synonymous when linked to the spiritual Church. The knowledge that not
  everyone, let's say, in the Baptist Churches will be saved only serves
  to reinforce the fact that the Baptist Church cannot say it is "The
  Church". Yet, they also firmly believe that there are many who will be
  saved, so neither can one say that any other group is "The Church."

  While Orthodoxy does believe that ultimately to be saved means being
  in the Church and those outside the Church will not be saved, that
  issue is not fully decided until judgment day. Because salvation is
  not looked at within Orthodoxy as either an in or out position but a
  journey into God. We readily recognize that anyone inside or outside
  the Church at any particular point in time can be in the currents of
  salvation or not participating in it. Thus, there is no ability to
  point to any one person either inside or outside the visible Church
  and say they are saved or not saved. Whether any one particular person
  is going to make it to heaven we leave in God's hands. We cannot know
  the heart of the person, much less the disposition of God towards a
  particular individual short of God revealing that to us.

  Orthodoxy also does not say that the visible governing body of
  hierarchs and the organizations that are called the Orthodox Church
  are in and of themselves "The Church". This is an understandable
  confusion because what is generally labeled as synonymous with the
  visible church in Protestant circles, if they have any concept of
  that, is the governing body, the denomination or local church. It is
  by becoming a member of such-and-such group that one attaches
  themselves with like-minded Christians and is called "a church" in a
  visible aspect. Therefore, when a group says it is "The Church",
  Protestants will tend to think that the group is claiming that their
  fellowship, their organization, their denomination or local church
  body is a one-to-one equivalent to all those names written down in the
  Book of Life.

  Given what we just discussed above, it should be evident that this is
  not the case within Orthodoxy.

There are a lot of underlying worldview issues in this question that Copple addresses if you'd like to learn more (especially the tendency to separate the spiritual from its physical manifestation, a common dualistic worldview inherent in Modernity).

In conclusion, the general attitude of all Orthodox can be summarized by saying, "We know where the Orthodox Church is, but we do not know where it is not."


What is the Biblical and Traditional basis for doing Penance for others?

In Catholicism such people who take on penances for others are called victim souls. Victim Souls are someone who offers their life, their will and their intense sufferings to God for the salvation of immortal souls.

  To speak of certain holy individuals whom we collectively call "victim souls" takes us into territory that many Christians often fail to understand: the redemptive power of human suffering.

  A victim soul is an individual who has been chosen by God to undergo physical, and sometimes spiritual, suffering beyond that of normal human experience. The victim soul willingly accepts this unique and difficult mission of offering up his or her pains for the salvation of others.

  Although Jesus Christ accomplished our redemption once and for all by suffering torture and crucifixion for our sins, Scripture also affirms the value of human suffering. Christ points to this value himself when He says, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me" (Mk 8:34).

  Perhaps more pointedly, St. Paul writes that we are "heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him" (Rom 8:17).

  St. Paul's own example gives clear witness to the possibility of "offering up" our suffering for the benefit of others when he declares, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church" (Col 1:24).

  Our own suffering takes on a redemptive dimension when we unite it with the passion of Christ.

  "To be a victim necessarily implies immolation, and as a rule, atonement for another.

  "Although strictly speaking one can offer oneself as a victim to give God joy and glory by voluntary sacrifice, yet for the most part God leads souls by that path only when He intends them to act as mediators: they have to suffer and expiate for those for whom their immolation will be profitable; either by drawing down graces of forgiveness on them, or by acting as a cloak to cover their sins in the face of divine justice.

  "It stands to reason that no one will on his own initiative take such a role on himself. Divine consent is required before a soul dares to intervene between God and His creature. There would be no value in such an offering if God refused to hear the prayer." - Sister Josefa (What is a Victim Soul?)

Victim souls are co-redeemers with Christ and there are several individuals in the history of the Church that are considered Victim Souls.

St Faustina Kowalska, St (Padre) Pio of Pietrelcina, Therese Neumann, Blessed Alexandrina Maria da Costa, Marie Rose Ferron, Marthe Robin and St Gemma Galgani are a just a few examples of Victim Souls.

  A “victim soul” is someone who offers their life, their will and their intense sufferings to God for the salvation of immortal souls. By uniting their sufferings to Jesus’ sufferings, they bring down torrents of graces upon souls. Bl. Alexandrina was told by Our Lord: “Thousands have been saved by your terrible sufferings.” Many victim souls received revelations about God’s love and mercy. Here is one touching example: “I want to make known in writing the intense love with which My Heart burns for souls; I want to complain that I am forgotten, rebuffed; I want to plead for love as a beggar pleads for a crust of bread; I love souls so much, yet very often I am not understood and not loved.” – Jesus to Bl. Dina

  We are not all called to be “victim souls”. St. Padre Pio said to one of his spiritual daughters that relatively few are called to be victim souls. - What We Can Learn From Victim Souls

The Vicitim Soul?

  The Catholic Church does not officially designate anyone as a victim soul. The term stems, rather, from the testimony of those who have encountered Christians who seem to undergo the kind of redemptive suffering we have described.

  The victim-soul status, even when it is genuine, is a matter of private revelation. Consequently, the Church teaches us that we are not obliged to accept, as part of the Catholic faith, the legitimacy of any particular person for whom such a claim is made, nor the genuineness of any mystical or miraculous claims that have been made in connection with such a person.

  This includes even those people whose private revelations have been approved by the Church. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this subject, No. 67).

  Nevertheless, the fundamental spiritual truth -- illustrated so vividly by the notion of a victim soul -- still remains: We can accept the pain and suffering of this life with patience and love for the intentions and benefit of ourselves and others in the Communion of Saints. - Are We Obliged to Believe?

Outside this particular aspect of there are some of the faithful who performed penances for others as a sort of "proxy penances". An example of this can be found in the life of St. John Vianney (Cure d'Ars). It is described in the Biography of  St. Jean-Marie Vianney by Francis Trochu. We all know the penances of this man of God performed on himself!

  His diet was a self-inflicted penance: boiled potatoes, usually days old, never more than two in a day. If someone gave him a loaf of bread, he would exchange it for a crust from a beggar. To his penitents, on the other hand, he gave easy penances, saying "I give them a light penance and perform the rest myself." - St. John Marie Vianney, Patron of Parish Priests

Doing proxy penances are not something new in the history of the Church. It is known that some penitents have asked of to do hard penances, like making a long pilgrim in one's place because of ill health in the Middle Ages.

  This article investigates the religious practice of suffering for others in the early Middle Ages. In proxy penance, one person completed a penitential work for another, who received the spiritual benefit. This practice was based on the idea that one person could stand in for another to bear his burden. Using penitential, conciliar, liturgical, and epistolary sources, I uncover two types of proxy penance. First, priests shared in the penance of those who confessed to them. Liturgical texts include Masses in which the priest completes the penance for someone who could not complete it himself. Penitential texts admonish the priest to “share in the foulness” with the sinner in order to bring about the remission of his sin. Second, there was both a promotion and a criticism of proxy fasting among the laity. This sic et non rhythm shows that early medieval penitential culture could not control the demand for proxy penance. Some attention is also paid to the practice of proxy penance in the eleventh-century monastic milieu of Peter Damian. This article broadens the scope of current scholarship on penance by focusing on its substitutionary ability. Also, this article explores the changing notions of and metaphors about sin in this period—from medical to economic—that fueled proxy activity. - Penitents and Their Proxies: Penance for Others in Early Medieval Europe


Why do people expect coherence in the bible?

Different denominations and groups within denominations hold to varying doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. If that denomination believes that God inspired the writer and that some version of what that writer wrote down (the "autographs") is inerrant, then they must account for apparent discrepancies. The logic is:

God only speaks the truth
God is logically consistent
The Bible contains all and only the words God intended it to have
Those words must be true and logically consistent

Some people believe that God dictated the Bible, word for word. That is not the prevailing view. It is a view that some sects and some people in other religions believe about their Holy Texts.
One model that many Christians accept is called "Verbal Plenary Inspiration".
This model means that every word is inspired, all the words are useful (Old and New Testaments) and authoritative and the Holy Spirit was involved. It allows for the personality of the speaker (say a prophet) to shape the vocabulary choice, organization and style of the message while simultaneously capturing absolute truth precisely.
Other people allow for errors in science and history in the Bible and say only the spiritual truths are inspired, the rest is the fallible opinions of the writers.
Depending upon your view of how the Bible came about and what measures God has taken to safeguard the words from corruption, the consistency of the different parts of the Bible may be a small or large issue for you.
Scripture itself makes claims about which views of innerancy and inspiration and transmission it endorses:

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
(Matthew 24:35)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of
God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy
3:15-17)

13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the
word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human
word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work
in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets,
though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21)

If you take the above Bible quotes at face value, it narrows down the acceptable range of views that an orthodox Christian may believe considerably. For all that reduced set of possible ideas of inspiration, the presence of actual inconsistencies in the Bible is impossible, hence must be addressed by attempts to explain the Bible passages in such a way as to remove the apparent inconsistency.


How do devils know what God permits in their doings? (Catholic perspective)

The mode of angelic knowledge is not discursive (reasoning from one premises to conclusions, as in human knowledge) but intuitive.
Addressing whether an angel knows God by his own natural principles, St. Thomas Aquinas answers (Summa Theologica I q. 56 a. 3 c.):

The angels can have some knowledge of God by their own principles. In evidence whereof it must be borne in mind that a thing is known in three ways: first, by the presence of its essence in the knower, as light can be seen in the eye; and so we have said that an angel knows himself—secondly, by the presence of its similitude in the power which knows it, as a stone is seen by the eye from its image being in the eye—thirdly, when the image of the object known is not drawn directly from the object itself, but from something else in which it is made to appear, as when we behold a man in a mirror.
To the first-named class that knowledge of God is likened by which He is seen through His essence; and knowledge such as this cannot accrue to any creature from its natural principles, as was said above (q. 12, a. 4). The third class comprises the knowledge whereby we know God while we are on earth, by His likeness reflected in creatures, according to Rm. 1:20: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Hence, too, we are said to see God in a mirror. But the knowledge, whereby according to his natural principles the angel knows God, stands midway between these two; and is likened to that knowledge whereby a thing is seen through the species abstracted from it. For since God's image is impressed on the very nature of the angel in his essence, the angel knows God in as much as he is the image of God. Yet he does not behold God's essence; because no created likeness is sufficient to represent the Divine essence. Such knowledge then approaches rather to the specular kind; because the angelic nature is itself a kind of mirror representing the Divine image.

Regarding "inter-angelic" communication (angels communicating to each other), see: The Thomist 68 (2004): 205-58 on the semiosis (action of signs) of angels.


Have any Protestant leaders in Korea expressly supported the destruction of Buddhist statues?

It is hard to believe that more than a small minority of Korean Christian clergy would provide any support or encouragement for acts of vandalism against the sacred objects of another religion. Moreover, we are unlikely to find written instructions from Protestant clergy to deface Buddhist temples or statues. What we can find is evidence that a few Protestant clergy have incited trouble-makers to perform acts of vandalism. No doubt the vast majority of clergy know their Ten Commandments too well to encourage Christians to perform these acts, but I have compiled some evidence that the Wikipedia claims are probably well-founded.

Barbara O'Brien, an American follower of Buddhism, says ('Christian-Buddhist Tension in South Korea') temple burnings began during the 1980s. In the next few years, through the remaining 1980s and 1990s, several other arsonists destroyed or substantially damaged approximately 20 more Buddhist temple buildings. Vandals often painted red crosses on art and smashed or decapitated Buddha statues.In a few cases Christians, including clergy, were caught in the act but not charged.

Another Wikipedia article about Buddhism in Korea says fundamentalist Protestant antagonism against Buddhism has increased in recent years. Acts of vandalism against Buddhist amenities and "regular praying for the destruction of all Buddhist temples" have all drawn attention to this persistent hostility against Buddhism from Korean Protestants. A Youtube link shows Christians leading a well-organised rally to pray for the destruction of Buddhist temples: not an instruction to vandalism, but some could have taken this as a permission.

The Asia Times (1 Feb 2008) reported that former  South Korean President Lee, a Protestant, sent a video prayer message to a Christian rally held in the southern city of Busan in which the worship leader prayed feverishly: 'Lord, let the Buddhist temples in this country crumble down!'" He may not have specifically called for statues to be decapitated, but this would certainly have encouraged acts of vandalism by naive South Korean Christians.

Harold Olsen ('Protestant Priest Urinates on and Defaces Buddhist Shrine') reports that a Protestant minister was caught on a security camera, entering the inner courtyard of a temple in Daegu, where he defaced and urinated on the altar and wall paintings.

So what we do have is evidence that some Protestant leaders are willing to incite their followers, reckless as to the consequences, and some unidentified clergy defacing or burning down temples. At least one member of the Protestant clergy committed minor acts of vandalism.


What is the old covenant of Hebrews 8:6?

I think it is as easy as you suspect.
Hebrews does focus on the superiority of the New Covenant a little more from the ceremonial perspective than does some of the other Epistles, as this had more meaning to a Jewish audience. However this superiority of the blood of Christ, versus blood of bulls only has meaning as it satisfies the moral demands of the broken laws under the Mosaic Law. So it would be untrue to think any other covenant was being referred to besides the Mosaic Covenant, as that is the only Old Covenant there is.  It is the condemnation of the Mosaic moral law specifically that Jesus the High Priest has removed. Jesus, by offering his own body and soul upon an altar, removed the curse of the law, whereby he was so pleasing to God that he was ‘raised up’, higher than the angels that we might rest in forgiveness forever. This is absolutely what Hebrews argues at length by various convincing arguments tailored to a Jewish audience.
The Old Covenant is the covenant God made with Israel under Moses often called the Mosaic Covenant. It was an agreement between God and Israel that they would vow to keep all the commands provided by Moses.  These laws include all those laws recorded in the first five books of the Bible and summarized under the Ten Commandments. Ceremonially the highest point of this law was the high priest and all his functions.
As this is the case we find the tablets actually called the 'covenant laws':

As the Lord commanded Moses, Aaron put the manna with the tablets of the covenant law, so that it might be preserved. (Exodus 16:34, NIV)

As the Priesthood was fully integrated with the commands and equally part of that covenant it was ratified in blood: (This is a 'Ah..there it is' location.)

Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he splashed against the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.” Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Exodus 24:6-9, NIV)

Naturally in Hebrews when referring to the Old Covenant both the commands and ceremonies are involved. First respecting ceremonial the Covenants are compared:

The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance —now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9:13-15, NIV)

Second respecting the commands, the Covenants are compared:

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (2 Corinthians 3:7-11, NIV)
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. (Hebrews 8:10, NIV)

Of course the Old Covenant also included the theocracy, as God was a citizen as it were of Israel and its civil King. This also is included in the Old Covenant and is superseded by the New:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace (Ephesians 2:14-15, NIV)

This is the Old Covenant the writer of Hebrews refers to, the entire Mosaic Law.


When should we not receive holy communion?

Most Baptists deny the existence of Venial sins, while at the same time declaring salvation permanent.  Some support for that statement can be found here, though this is far from an authoritative source for all Baptists.  Compiling an authoritative statement of faith on the subject for every Baptist denomination is left as an exercise to the reader.

Nonetheless, as you have shown, there are some requirements Baptists are called to respect when receiving their symbol of Communion.  You can read a discussion of what these requirements entails on the forums here, and I would recommend asking your question there as well as here.

In essence, Baptists believe only those walking in obedience to God should receive Communion.  Any Baptist who has committed any sin, then, ought to forgo participation in Baptist Communion until such time as they have reconciled themselves of that sin.  This position is a synthesis of what I perceive to be the majority position based on transcripts of discussions amongst various Baptists, but it is far from the only major Baptist position.


Why is the Roman Catholic infant baptism called "christening"?

It's instructive here to look at the etymology of "christening". It is, obviously, derived from the word Christ. Here's what the Online Etymology Dictionary has to say about christen:

christen (v.)
c.1200, from Old English cristnian "to baptize," literally "to make Christian," from cristen "Christian". General meaning of "to name" is attested from mid-15c.

The original meaning of the word is "to make Christian", which is very much what baptism does. For instance, see the Catechism page on baptism:

Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission (CCC 1213)

So the original meaning of the word was very close to the meaning of "baptism".
Of course, baptism was a significant moment in the life of the child, not least because it was the first time their name would be recorded officially. (No birth registers in those days!) So the baptism/christening ceremony also had the idea of name-giving incorporated into it.
The situation became complicated by the analogous use of the words "christen" and "christening" to refer to naming ceremonies more widely, and thence to meaning "giving a name to something", as in "I christened my new car Hazel."
I'm fairly sure that the weird etymology has only happened in English (as on so many occasions in English, we have a French-derived word (baptism) and a German-derived word (christening) that mean basically the same thing), and therefore that this is restricted to the English-speaking Christian world.


Why is God the Father referred to as "Eternal Father" in LDS writings when He is not believed to be eternal?

This is relatively straightforward.

From the LDS article on Eternal Life:

  Eternal life is the phrase used in scripture to define the quality of
  life that our Eternal Father lives. The Lord declared, “This is my
  work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of
  man” (Moses 1:39). Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected
  being.

Think for a moment of a ray and a line.  A ray goes on forever in one direction.  A line goes on forever in both directions. Each has infinite length.

Mainstream Christianity teaches that God is eternal in that He has always existed and will always exist, and LDS theology teaches that he is eternal because he will always exist.

It's a different definition of the term, but not one that's not reasonable from their point of view.  After all, we are promised eternal life as Christians, are we not?


What prophesies are people alluding to when they say "look at the Middle East"?

When I have heard people say "look at the Middle East", it is generally in regards to the formation of the Israelite state in 1948. For close to 2000 years there had been no Israelite state or temple, and for around 2500 years there had been no independent Israelite state. The establishment is seen as the beginning of the end - a necessary step before a temple can be built (which is frequently referred to in Revelation.)

There are a great many prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the re-establishment of an Israelite state, for example Isaiah 66:8. Many of these prophecies could also be interpreted as referring to the Province of Judah that was established after the Exile, or to the creation of the Church, but those who are saying to "look at the Middle East" would most likely interpret them as referring to the current Israelite state.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses make the Old Testament forms of address to God ( "Jehovah" and "Father") more important than "Abba?"

Jehovah's Witnesses do not ascribe different importance between the so-called Old and New Testaments. They view the Bible as one unified message. Certainly, the Law of the Hebrew Scriptures was brought to a finish by Jesus Christ, but there are also many timeless facts contained in the Hebrew scriptures about God, one of which is his name.

I am Jehovah. That is my name. — Isaiah 42:8

Then God said once more to Moses:
“This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
— Exodus 3:15

May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth.
— Psalm 83:18

On the other hand, the Bible does not teach that "Father" is a personal name of God, but rather it is used as a title, just as your own fleshly father's personal name is not Father, though the word functions grammatically as a proper noun when you're addressing him with that title.
Christians can and should address God as their Father, as exemplified by Jesus, but nowhere does any scripture say that we should stop using God's personal name, Jehovah. The Bible teaches that God's name is the same for all eternity.

For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” — Romans 10:13


The short answer is, they don't. They teach Sunday School.

If you ask a Baptist, they'll probably tell you, we don't have a catechism. (Technically, they're wrong, but in practice, most haven't heard of it.)

Furthermore, if asked to decribe what a catechism is, they will focus on the fact that it is a "rehearsed" set of formulaic questions and answers - and nothing but a "vain repetition."

Instead, Baptists believe whole-heartedly in "studying the Scriptures." Many Baptist churches are named "Berea ," for example, becuase the Bereans are commended for searching the Scripures for themselves.

Futhermore, Baptists very keen on "the priesthood of all believers," and in practice, means that most believers need to read the Scriptures as if they were a preacher who has to teach the word "in season and out." Being suffused with the Word

In short, Baptists don't want a set of pre-written questions and standard responses. In their minds, they want to "know" it like you would know a friend.

Do they use standard terminiology? Sure - but even there, Baptists are often very keen to make sure they aren't use "jargon" or "Christianese." Do "we" use? All them time!  But we feel bad about it when we do!


Did Joseph Smith “translate the Book of Mormon”?

Yes, according to the Latter Day Saints, the Book of Mormon was originally written in 'reformed Egyptian characters' on gold plates by prophets living in the Americas from the fourth century BCE until the fifth century CE. However, Wikipedia says

  Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered.

The term 'reformed Egyptian' comes from Mormon 9:32:

  And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

The "Anthon Transcript" is a small piece of paper on which Joseph Smith is said to have transcribed reformed Egyptian characters from the golden plates, providing purported evidence that the alleged 'Reformed Egyptian' is an authentic script.

While the main LDS church continues to teach that the Book of Mormon is an authentic translation, a breakaway group known as the Community of Christ stated at a 2007 World Conference, "While the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use." (my emphasis)


About the intercessions of Saints to God, on one's behalf?
Now if you ask for help or a miracle from a saint through a prayer, and if you at some point get it, then the help/miracle was done by God though a saint´s intercession!
That is basically saying it in a nutshell.
I can ask a friend to pray for me, but I can also ask my spiritual friends in Heaven also to pray for me. In the end it is God who works the miracles!
According to Catholicism, saints are individuals who are in heaven with God and are enjoying the Beatific Vision. Though many more people are in heaven and technically saints, those deemed official saints of the Church are ones that the Catholic Church knows are in heaven. As such, people can pray to these saints, who sometimes intercede on our behalf with God.
But determining who is in heaven is a tricky proposition. That's where miracles come in. According to the church, miracles are divine events that “have no natural or scientific explanation”, and serve as proof that the person is in heaven and can intercede with God to change the ordinary course of events.
Only God can make miracles. Saints can ask the Sacred Trinity to produce a miracle on the behalf of someone on earth though their intercession. This is all part of the communion of saints (Church Militant, Suffering and Triumphant).
The Catholic Church uses a formal process to determine who is a saint. First, that person's life is thoroughly investigated. If deemed virtuous enough, the person is said to be a servant of God. If they've exhibited heroic levels of virtue in their life, they are considered venerable. To become saints, however, they need to have “performed” two miracles after death. Some saints are known to perform many miracles, while others “perform” only enough to get canonized. There is generally no reason for this other than a particular saints popularity.
In reality it is not the saints who ”perform” such miracles. Only God can perform genuine miracles, on behalf both the recipient and the saint involved.
Toward that end, a Vatican-appointed Miracle Commission sifts through hundreds or even thousands of miraculous claims. Typically, the commissions are composed of theologians and scientific experts.
Nearly all, or 99.9% of these are medical miracles, and they need to be spontaneous, instantaneous and complete healing.
The following articles may be of interest:

The Process of Beatification and Canonization
Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister of Pope John Paul II
What is the basis of the teaching that souls in purgatory can intercede for the living?


What was Isaac Newton's view of the Trinity?

John Byl, in his article "Newton and the Trinity", paints a clear picture that Newton was non-trinitarian. Newton's published works do not contain clear statements of this nature. In his private notebooks however, some of which were not examined completely until the mid 20th century, Newton committed a significant amount of effort to criticizing the Church's trinitarian doctrines. Byl writes:

  In one notebook it is clear that, already in the early 1670's, Newton was absorbed by the doctrine of the Trinity. On this topic he studied extensively not only the Bible, but also much of the Church Fathers. Newton traced the doctrine of the trinity back to Athanasius (298- 373); he became convinced that before Athanasius the Church had no trinitarian doctrine. In the early 4th century Athanasius was opposed by Arius (256-336), who affirmed that God the Father had primacy over Christ. In 325 the Council of Nicea condemned as heretical the views of Arius. Thus, as viewed by Newton, Athanasius triumphed over Arius in imposing the false doctrine of the trinity on Christianity.

  Newton further asserted that, in order to support trinitarianism, the Church deliberately corrupted the Bible by modifying crucial texts. For example, Newton claimed that the well-known words of I John 5:7 (”there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”) were not in the original, pre-4th century Bible (Newton, it seems, was not a King James only man). Newton writes that “the Fathers…preferred to desert the Scriptures than not to condemn Arius”. Soon thereafter a universal corruption of Christianity followed the central corruption of doctrine: in the 4th century trinitarianism fouled every element of Christianity.

  Newton's anti-trinitarianism is evident also in his interpretation of Revelation. According to Newton, the seventh seal began in the year 380, when trinitarianism was officially ratified at the Council of Constantinople. The great apostasy was not Romanism, but trinitarianism, “the false infernal religion”, to quote Newton's own words.

Economist John Maynard Keynes obtained a significant amount of Newton's unpublished works in 1936 due to his interest in Newton's alchemical (occult) studies. Newton wrote vastly on alchemy, which should be considered a philosophy in it's own right and not merely a proto-science. As a proto-science, it is more akin to a proto-psychology than a proto-chemistry, as is the common opinion (I'm happy to elucidate in chat or in the comments), and Newton was interested in the considerable discussion in the alchemical corpus on God, the human soul, and matter, as Newton, even in his published works, considered his work on physics to be an expression of worship toward the Creator and a revelation of his divine arcitecture. Newton is considered by many biographers to have been a deist, and not necessarily Christian, and so  Newton's writings on Christianity should be considered in alchemical or deist context and not primarily in that of Christianity. Indeed, his commentary on Christian doctrine appears to be predominantly critical.

Among the previously unpublished work obtained by Keynes is a list of twelve points stated by Newton on the relation between the Father, Son, and Spirit. Chief differences of Newton's perspective in comparison with both Catholic and Protestant doctrine is that Christ is not human or endowed with a human soul (8), and that the relationship between the persons of the trinity is like that of the saints, that they are distinct beings in agreement with one another (12). In the list, Newton made an entry for a 13th point which he left blank.

  The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
  The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
  Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
  When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
  The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
  The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
  The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
  There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
  It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
  It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives from the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
  The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
  The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.

Some points, esp. 5, 6, and 11, support the claim that Newton was a subordinationist, and the Roman Catholic Church and many protestant denominations strictly reject that teaching. Newton also names the Arians as having a proper notion of the Logos in point 4, while Arianism is also considered heretical by The Roman Catholic Church and many protestant denominations. Byl summarizes Newton's heretical points:

  He explicitly declares only the Father to be supreme; the Son is a separate being, different from the Father both in substance and in nature; Christ is not truly God but is the so-called Word and Wisdom made flesh, divine to be sure, but only so far as divinity is communicated by the Father.

Even so, what Newton actually believed is disputed among those who study his life and writings. While Keynan maintains that he was an Arian and John Byl counts him as a non-trinitarian, James Hanson concludes in a 1996 article in Biblical Astronomer that Newton's positions are not far from the modern mainstream:

  In my reading of what Newton himself wrote, and by analyzing the claims of his biographer detractors, I find Newton to be a Bible-believing Christian who would be comfortable attending my small semi-rural blue-collar Baptist church.


Does Pope Francis write the books ascribed to him, or are they ghostwritten?

Pope Francis' first encyclical Lumen Fidei was co-written by Pope Benedict XVI

That’s one of the reasons why it is particularly striking that, in the Year of Faith, we have an encyclical on faith written, as Pope Francis said, by “four hands” — his and Benedict XVI’s — and fittingly signed on the feast of St. Peter. The didactic duet and distinguished date suggest that Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith) is less the act of a particular pope and more the faithful exercise of the Petrine office in apostolic succession.
NCRegister - The World Needs Lumen Fidei

His second encyclical Laudatio Si is indubitably his brain-child

I do not want to write this Encyclical without turning to that attractive and compelling figure, whose name I took as my guide and inspiration when I was elected Bishop of Rome. I believe that Saint Francis is the example par excellence of care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyfully and authentically

Its frame is the Canticle of the Sun and full of personal references
Evangelii Gaudium might be an exception, it is very long and very well researched and probably similar to a bill passed through Congress where the bills author gets all the credit, but it takes a team to come up with it.

Most of the other works with Pope Francis' name on them are compilations of interviews or addresses though, like St. John Paul II with Crossing the Threshold of Hope
For example On the Family is one of Pope Francis books and the synopsis says:

Throughout his addresses, the Holy Father especially emphasizes the primary role of God and faith in family life, and the crucial importance of regular family prayer to draw on God's grace for strength, love, joy and unity within the home.

and The Strength of Vocation

Pope Francis' new book "The strength of vocation. Consecrated life today.", coming out on December 3rd, is fruit of a four-hour long conversation between the Holy Father and Spanish Missionary Fernando Prado, tackling themes such as vocation, consecrated life and the struggles the Church is facing today.
"The strength of vocation": A book-length interview with Pope Francis

So he's got considerably less work to do in producing a book that is just off-the-cuff remarks.


What does it mean to "flee to the mountains" as writen in Mark?

You get the sense of literal fulfillment by reading the verses before and after. Jesus is not switching back and forth between the two in the chapter when He talks about what will happen in the last days. When Jesus told His disciples that the temple will be torn down (13:1-2), the disciples wanted to know when that would happen, and what the sign will be for it's fulfillment (13:4). In other words, Jesus was talking about a real temple (the one they were looking at, that Herod built), and real, discoverable signs concerning its end.

The events in the verses immediately after that are easily discoverable in our literal world and relationships. In verse 14, Jesus starts answering the second part of the disciple's question about signs of the fulfillment. That sign refers to an event mentioned in Daniel 9:27, from which Jesus gets the phrase, "abomination that causes desolation." Some pretribulation groups claim that this event will take place when an antichrist figure will set himself up as a god to be worshiped (taking their text as 2 Thess. 2:3-4). When the Jews see that literal sign, they are to flee out of Judea, which is surrounded by hilly, mountainous terrain. Read again verses 15-18; Jesus indicates in these verses that the fleeing is literal, and extremely urgent. If you are on your housetop, don't stop to pick up stuff on your way out (v15), if you are in the field, don't stop to pick up your garment (v16); if you are pregnant or care for little ones, it will be hard for you (v17); and "pray that your flight may not be in winter" (v18). All of these details emphasize the literalness of the event in question, of the urgency of fleeing when the sign is seen.

The literalism comes to an end in the chapter when Jesus deliberately injects a parable, and says He does so ("Now learn this parable from the fig tree"). Once the brief parable is over, He goes back to using terms that can be understood literally.

In some cases of prophecy, they have a near fulfillment and far fulfillment. It is so with this prophecy. In its near fulfillment, the temple was indeed torn down as He said it was, in 70 A.D. by the Roman armies of Titus, and those Jews who fled when they saw the armies surrounding the city (a detail recorded in Luke's version of this chapter of Mark, Luke 21:20-21) escaped to safety, and were spared the grievous horrors suffered by the Jews left behind recorded by Josephus.

However, the Abomination of Desolation was not set up at that time. That will be left for a future day, which must take place after another literal temple is built in Jerusalem. After that event, according to the sequence of events in Mark 13:24-27, Jesus will come again.


Is there a denomination/sect of Christianity that believes that Jesus was the son of an angel?

Latter Day Saints refer to God the Eternal Father as Elohim, meaning God or gods, and to his Son Jesus Christ as Jehovah (YHWH of the Hebrew Bible): "Elohim is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race."  They believe the premortal Jesus was born as a spirit son of Elohim before coming to earth.  Source: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/God_the_Father
Elohim is nowhere described as an angel, but Latter Day Saints believe that Michael the Archangel (who is a created angel) became the man, Adam: “In his premortal and postmortal roles, he is known as Michael and as the archangel (D&C 29:26)... Latter-day scriptures attest that Adam is a son of God, that his physical body was created by the Gods in their own image and placed in the Garden of Eden.”  Source: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Adam
There may be a connection between Michael (a created archangel) who is supposed to have been given a human body and is Adam (the father of all humans) in that Jesus was born of a woman, Mary: “Centuries before her birth, Book of Mormon prophets referred to Mary by name in prophecies of her vital mission (Mosiah 3:8). Describing her as "most beautiful and fair above all other virgins" (1 Ne. 11:13-20) and a "precious and chosen vessel" (Alma 7:10), they prophesied that Mary would bear the Son of God and was therefore blessed above all other women. "We cannot but think that the Father would choose the greatest female spirit to be the mother of his Son, even as he chose the male spirit like unto him to be the Savior" (McConkie, p. 327).” Source: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Mary,_Mother_of_Jesus
From what I have read, the following is a summary (as best I am able to understand):

Elohim is God the Eternal Father, Father in Heaven
Elohim is the literal Parent of Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race
Father in Heaven is the director of creation and Father of the spirits of all mankind
God the Eternal Father is Elohim, meaning God or gods, and to his Son Jesus Christ as Jehovah
LDS identify Jehovah of the Old Testament (YHWH) as Jesus Christ
LDS identify Michael (the archangel) as Adam, who came to earth
Mary, the mother of Jesus, was once a spirit daughter of Elohim

The teachings of Joseph Smith and the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (to give them their full and official title) would have been available to scholars in Morocco and Algeria during the 1900’s.  I am not a member of this Church, and if I have inadvertently misrepresented their beliefs, I will apologise.
To my knowledge, no Christian denomination claims that Jesus was the son of an angel, although some claim Jesus is known in heaven as Michael the Archangel.