What does St. Thomas Aquinas mean by 'alteration' of heavenly bodies in Summa Theologiae?

What St. Thomas is saying here is that the heavenly bodies are undergoing changes as to the fact that the entire universe is alive, growing and subject to change, just as the earth and it’s inhabitants are.

For example a sun is just a sun. But after a certain amount of time has past by it will eventually die, just like people do.

When God renews the heavens and the earth at the end of time, all this will change and any alterations will cease all together. Everything will exist in perfect harmony with it’s Creator.

  The sun gives energy to life on Earth, and without this star, we wouldn't be here. But like most things in space, even stars have limited lifetimes, and someday our sun will die.

  You don't need to worry about this solar death anytime soon, though. Inside the sun, a churning fusion engine fuels the star, and it still has a lot of fuel left — about 5 billion years' worth.

  Stars like our sun form when a huge cloud of gas (mostly hydrogen and helium) grows so large that it collapses under its own weight. The pressure is so high in the center of that collapsing mass of gas that the heat reaches unimaginable levels, with temperatures so hot that hydrogen atoms lose their electrons. Those naked hydrogen atoms then fuse together into helium atoms, and that reaction releases enough energy to counter the intense pressure of gravity collapsing the cloud of gas. The battle between gravity and the energy from fusion reactions fuels our sun and billions of other stars in our galaxy and beyond.

  What will happen when the sun dies?

  But in about 5 billion years, the sun will run out of hydrogen. Our star is currently in the most stable phase of its life cycle and has been since the birth of our solar system, about 4.5 billion years ago. Once all the hydrogen gets used up, the sun will grow out of this stable phase. With no hydrogen left to fuse in the core, a shell of fusion hydrogen will form around the helium-filled core, astrophysicist Jillian Scudder wrote in an article for The Conversation. Gravitational forces will take over, compressing the core and allowing the rest of the sun to expand. Our star will grow to be larger than we can imagine — so large that it'll envelope the inner planets, including Earth. That's when the sun will become a red giant.

  For about a billion years, the sun will burn as a red giant. Then, the hydrogen in that outer core will deplete, leaving an abundance of helium. That element will then fuse into heavier elements, like oxygen and carbon, in reactions that don't emit as much energy. Once all the helium disappears, the forces of gravity will take over, and the sun will shrink into a white dwarf. All the outer material will dissipate, leaving behind a planetary nebula.

  "When a star dies, it ejects a mass of gas and dust — known as its envelope — into space. The envelope can be as much as half the star's mass. This reveals the star's core, which by this point in the star's life is running out of fuel, eventually turning off and before finally dying," said astronomer Albert Zijlstra, of the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, in a statement. - When Will the Sun Die?

Thus we are aware of movement, transforms and alterations going on in space all the time. Meteors hit the earth on a daily bases.

  Whether the world will be renewed?

  We believe all corporeal things to have been made for man's sake, wherefore all things are stated to be subject to him [Psalm 8:5, seqq.]. Now they serve man in two ways, first, as sustenance to his bodily life, secondly, as helping him to know God, inasmuch as man sees the invisible things of God by the things that are made (Romans 1:20). Accordingly glorified man will nowise need creatures to render him the first of these services, since his body will be altogether incorruptible, the Divine power effecting this through the soul which it will glorify immediately. Again man will not need the second service as to intellective knowledge, since by that knowledge he will see God immediately in His essence. The carnal eye, however, will be unable to attain to this vision of the Essence; wherefore that it may be fittingly comforted in the vision of God, it will see the Godhead in Its corporeal effects, wherein manifest proofs of the Divine majesty will appear, especially in Christ's flesh, and secondarily in the bodies of the blessed, and afterwards in all other bodies. Hence those bodies also will need to receive a greater inflow from the Divine goodness than now, not indeed so as to change their species, but so as to add a certain perfection of glory: and such will be the renewal of the world. Wherefore at the one same time, the world will be renewed, and man will be glorified.

  Whether the movement of the heavenly bodies will cease?

  There are three opinions touching this question. The first is of the philosophers who assert that the movement of the heaven will last for ever. But this is not in keeping with our faith, which holds that the elect are in a certain number preordained by God, so that the begetting of men will not last for ever, and for the same reason, neither will other things that are directed to the begetting of men, such as the movement of the heaven and the variations of the elements. Others say that the movement of the heaven will cease naturally. But this again is false, since every body that is moved naturally has a place wherein it rests naturally, whereto it is moved naturally, and whence it is not moved except by violence. Now no such place can be assigned to the heavenly body, since it is not more natural to the sun to move towards a point in the east than to move away from it, wherefore either its movement would not be altogether natural, or its movement would not naturally terminate in rest. Hence we must agree with others who say that the movement of the heaven will cease at this renewal of the world, not indeed by any natural cause, but as a result of the will of God. For the body in question, like other bodies, was made to serve man in the two ways above mentioned (Article 1): and hereafter in the state of glory man will no longer need one of these services, that namely in respect of which the heavenly bodies serve man for the sustenance of his bodily life. Now in this way the heavenly bodies serve man by their movement, in so far as by the heavenly movement the human race is multiplied, plants and animals needful for man's use generated, and the temperature of the atmosphere rendered conducive to health. Therefore the movement of the heavenly body will cease as soon as man is glorified.

  Whether the brightness of the heavenly bodies will be increased at this renewal?

  The renewal of the world is directed to the end that, after this renewal has taken place, God may become visible to man by signs so manifest as to be perceived as it were by his senses. Now creatures lead to the knowledge of God chiefly by their comeliness and beauty, which show forth the wisdom of their Maker and Governor; wherefore it is written (Wisdom 13:5): "By the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby." And the beauty of the heavenly bodies consists chiefly in light; wherefore it is written (Sirach 43:10): "The glory of the stars is the beauty of heaven, the Lord enlighteneth the world on high." Hence the heavenly bodies will be bettered, especially as regards their brightness. But to what degree and in what way this betterment will take place is known to Him alone Who will bring it about.

  Whether the elements will be renewed by an addition of brightness?

  Just as there is a certain order between the heavenly spirits and the earthly or human spirits, so is there an order between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Since then the corporeal creature was made for the sake of the spiritual and is ruled thereby, it follows that corporeal things are dealt with similarly to spiritual things. Now in this final consummation of things the lower spirits will receive the properties of the higher spirits, because men will be as the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30): and this will be accomplished by conferring the highest degree of perfection on that in which the human spirit agrees with the angelic. Wherefore, in like manner, since the lower bodies do not agree with the heavenly bodies except in the nature of light and transparency (De Anima ii), it follows that the lower bodies are to be perfected chiefly as regards brightness. Hence all the elements will be clothed with a certain brightness, not equally, however, but according to their mode: for it is said that the earth on its outward surface will be as transparent as glass, water as crystal, the air as heaven, fire as the lights of heaven. -
  Question 91. The quality of the world after the judgment


Which 20th-century Orthodox Christians said that the crusades were more oppressive than the Marxist anti-religious campaigns?

The anti-Catholic Eurasians in the 1920s.
Archpriest Georges Florovsky (1893-1979) was an Orthodox priest from (Imperial) Russia, who was associated with what theologian Paul Gavrilyuk calls the Eurasian movement.
See Gavrilyuk's essay "Florovsky's Neopatristic Synthesis and the Future Ways of Orthodox Theology", collected in Orthodox Constructions of the West:

Upon his arrival to Europe, Florovsky joined the Eurasians, who to some extent followed the Slavophile trajectory [...] Florovsky contributed to...the next two volumes published by the Eurasians, On the Ways and Russia and Latinity [1923].
[...]
The introductory article of [Russia and Latinity] advanced a claim that for the Orthodox believer in France to be converted to Roman Catholicism was worse than to be killed by the Bolsheviks in Communist Russia, on the grounds that the former led to the eternal perdition of the soul, whereas the latter caused merely a temporal destruction of the body. When this astonishing idea was criticized by Prince G. N. Trubetskoy on the pages of Put', the Eurasians promptly responded with an open letter in defense of their moral comparison of the repressive character of Bolshevism and Catholicism. Florovsky, who was one of the contributors to the Eurasian volume Russia and Latinity, had signed the open letter in question.

(link to quoted page)
When Russia and Latinity was published in 1923, the worst of the anti-religious fervor in the Soviet Union was not yet in effect. The anti-religious campaign of 1928-1941 was particularly anti-Orthodox, and killed as many as 200,000 Orthodox monastics and clergy alone, not to mention the numerous horrors inflicted upon and murders of the laypeople.
Another View
The Eurasians' view was apparently considered astonishing even at the time, and was clearly written before the full force of Soviet crimes against Orthodox people had been realized. The Fourth Crusade was certainly disastrous for the Orthodox Church, but I am skeptical of Ferguson's claim that most 20th century Christians would prefer Marxism (as the Soviet Union saw it) to crusaders.
For comparison from a less fringe perspective, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (1934-) is a very popular Eastern Orthodox theologian, and for decades lectured about Orthodoxy at Oxford. In his The Orthodox Church (1993 ed.), he wrote:

In this way, from 1917 onwards, Orthodox and other Christians found themselves in a situation for which there was no exact precedent in earlier Christian history. The Roman Empire, although persecuting Christians from time to time, was in no sense an atheist state, committed to the suppression of religion as such. The Ottoman Turks, while non-Christians, were still worshippers of the one God and, as we have seen, allowed the Church a large measure of toleration. But Soviet Communism was committed by its fundamental principles to an aggressive and militant atheism. It could not rest satisfied merely with a neutral separation between Church and State, but sought by every means, direct and indirect, to overthrow all organized Church life and to eliminate all religious belief.

(link to quoted page)


What traditions espouse infant baptism and why?

At least the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian churches do. A fairly comprehensive list is available on the wikipedia article.

As to the why, at least from the Presbyterian perspective, children of saints are viewed as being born into a covenantal relationship in similar vein to the males of ancient Israel being required to be circumcised.

Fuller paedobaptist theology is also covered on the wikipedia page.


What percentage of US Christians are Dispensationalists?

I can't find any surveys that asked Americans about dispensational belief directly. Dispensational theology is mainstream in evangelical Protestant circles, though being an evangelical doesn't necessarily mean one believes in premillenial dispensationalism. Many people probably do not have fixed theological positions, and cannot fairly be said either to believe or disbelieve dispensationalist theories. There are also theologically conservative Protestant churches that might not be called "evangelical" that hold to dispensationalism.  I would guess that the number of evangelicals in the US provides an upper bound on the number of dispensationalists. According to the Pew Research Center, as of 2014 about 25% of Americans are evangelical Protestants.

More directly relevant to the reasoning behind the question, a Pew Research Center study from 2003 reports that 36% of Americans (of any religion) say that Israel fulfills Biblical prophecies about the Second Coming. I don't see why you would have to believe in dispensational eschatology to believe that, though. For example, 25% of Catholics said they believed Israel fulfills Biblical prophecies, and official Catholic doctrine is not dispensationalist. Of course, ordinary Catholics may not conform to official doctrine, and I'm pretty sure the official Catholic doctrine is that the state of Israel has no religious significance.

That study also reports that 63% of self-identified evangelicals believe Israel fulfills Biblical prophecies. Again, not all of them are necessarily dispensationalists. One could also, in theory, be a dispensationalist and not think the current state of Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy, but the dominant dispensationalist view says it is. If we assume that nearly all evangelicals who think Israel fulfills prophecy are dispensationalists, and that those who think it doesn't are not, and we assume that 63% of evangelicals still think Israel fulfills Biblical prophecy in 2014, then we might take 63% of 25% = 16% of Americans as a lower bound on the number of dispensationalists.  Since about 80% of Americans are Christian, that would be about 20% of Christians. But I've made some pretty suspect assumptions here. My guess is that between 15% and 25% of Americans are not not dispensationalists; that is, their beliefs are basically consistent with dispensationalism, even if they don't have articulated eschatological beliefs.

One addendum: the 80% of Americans who are Christians excludes people of no religion, who mostly come from Christian families.  Only about 5% of Americans identify with a non-Christian religion.


Our church practices foot washing as a sacrament (must do to be saved).

This sounds like a point to be cautious about.  I know of no place in the scriptures where it says you must wash feet to be saved.
I presume your church practices foot washing because of Jesus' words in John 13:14-15  Specifically Jesus says in verse 14, "you should wash one another's feet".  The key word here is "should" rather than "must".  "Should" was translated from the Greek the word ὀφείλω, which could mean "morally obligated"; however, this falls short of a requirement for salvation.

I know that we are probably the only church that treats foot washing this seriously.
How do other churches approach the subject of foot washing and is it taken as seriously as our church?

One may be surprised that foot washing is practiced by several Christian denominations; however, it is rather unorthodox for a church to insist that you must wash feet to be saved.
I believe that there is a bigger principle at work in John 13:14-15; Jesus teaches us to be humble and serve one another.  Washing guests' feet was considered household servant's work in Jesus' day; yet this (servant's work) is what we're called to as Christians (Matt 20:24-26).  Jesus modeled this servant's attitude with his life - Quoting from Philippians 2:6-7 (italics mine): "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."


Did the early church record other events of handing people over to Satan?

The early church did indeed apply this language to specific cases, particularly in relation to God's judgment and church discipline.

For example, Chrysostom describes Judas and Job as being "delivered to Satan," and says:

  Many such instances still occur. For since the Priests cannot know who are sinners, and unworthy partakers of the holy Mysteries, God often in this way delivers them to Satan. For when diseases, and attacks, and sorrows, and calamities, and the like occur, it is on this account that they are inflicted. (Homilies on 1 Timothy, V)

Jerome doesn't seem to disagree with Lucifer of Cagliari's description of the priest's typical practice:

  The priest, we know, offers his oblation for the layman, lays his hand upon him when submissive, invokes the return of the Holy Spirit, and thus, after inviting the prayers of the people, reconciles to the altar him who had been delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit might he saved ("The Dialogoue Against the Luciferians," 5)

And Basil of Caesarea offers specific instructions regarding those who have repented from grievous sin:

  There can, however, be no doubt that we ought to receive those who have repented of impurity committed in ignorance for thirty years.  In this case there is ground for forgiveness in ignorance, in the spontaneity of confession, and the long extent of time.  Perhaps they have been delivered to Satan for a whole age of man that they may learn not to behave unseemly; wherefore order them to be received without delay, specially if they shed tears to move your mercy, and shew a manner of living worthy of compassion. (Letter 188, VII)

The question of what the church fathers meant by the phrase is a bit different, but the context of the above quotes should be helpful in that regard.


Can a diocesan priest become a missionary?
The short answer is yes.
A diocesan priest actually does not need the bishop’s permission to enter a Religious Order as it is a higher state of perfection. A bishop may however, and reasonably so, delay letting him go, in order to test his vocation.
On the contrary a diocesan priest may become a missionary, but must obtain permission from his own diocesan bishop. This sort of permission is also required when other diocesan bishops request help from other dioceses for priests to help in their diocese. Even Rome needs the permission of the local bishop when it requests priests to work at the Vatican. I have never heard of any bishop refusing the request of a particular priest to help out at the Vatican which is usually a 5 year term and is often renewed once, if the priest in question is comfortable with his work.
Here in the Archdiocese of Vancouver, I have known a number of priests to work in the missions, sometimes at their own request and at other times at the request of Rome.
Fr. Stanley Francis Rother of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City is an example of a diocesan priest who not only worked as a missionary in Guatemala but is now well on his way to be beatified as a martyr.

Stanley Francis Rother(March 27, 1935 – July 28, 1981) was an American Roman Catholic priest from Oklahoma who was murdered in Guatemala. Ordained as a priest for the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City in 1963, he held several parish assignments there until 1968 when he was assigned as a missionary priest to Guatemala where he was murdered in 1981 in his Guatemalan mission rectory.
Guatemalan pastor
So that Rother could be in closer touch with his congregation, he set out to work to learn Spanish and the Tz’utujil language which was an unwritten and indigenous language that the missionary Ramón Carlín once recorded. He served in Santiago Atitlán from 1968 until his death. He supported a radio station located on the mission property, which transmitted daily lessons in language and mathematics. In 1973 he noted with pride in a letter: "I am now preaching in Tz'utuhil." During that time, in addition to his pastoral duties, he translated the New Testament into Tz'utujil and began the regular celebration of the Mass in Tz'utujil. In the late 1960s, Rother founded in Panabaj a small hospital, dubbed as the "Hospitalito"; Father Carlín served as a collaborator in this project.
By 1975, Rother had become the de facto leader of the Oklahoma-sponsored mission effort in Guatemala as other religious and lay supporters rotated out of the program. He was a highly recognizable figure in the community, owing to his light complexion as well as his habit of smoking tobacco in a pipe. Since there was not a Tz'utujil name equivalent to "Stanley," the people of Rother's mission affectionately called him "Padre Apla's," translated as "Father Francis," a nod to his middle name.


Does any version of the Anglican church associate 'confirmation' with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost?

It is part of the Anglican service of confirmation that the Bishop lays hands on the candidate and says "receive the Holy Spirit". This has been true for a long time and is still true today. So no, this is not an outdated or unusual idea at all, and is widely believed by modern Anglicans.

Different denominations do mean different things by "Baptism of the Spirit", and it's not intended to mean that the Holy Spirit was absent from the candidates life before.


Do Catholics psychologists have a moral obligation to treat homosexuality as a perversion?

According to a statement made by The Catholic Medical Association in November of 2000, gay conversion therapy is considered a corporeal work of mercy.

This statement clearly points out that Catholic therapists are obligated to encourage chastity in all situations. The Church has always taught (and will always teach) that chaste behavior is required for spiritual health and well-being.

  It should be pointed out that Catholics cannot support forms of
  therapy which encourage the patients to replace one form of sexual sin
  with another. (Schwartz 1984) Some therapists, for example, do not
  consider a patient "cured" until he can comfortably engage in sexual
  activity with the other sex, even if the patient is not married.
  (Masters 1979) Others encouraged patients to masturbate using
  other-sex imagery. (Blitch 1972; Conrad 1976)  Catholic therapists
  working with Catholic individuals should feel free to use the wealth
  of Catholic spirituality in this healing process. Those with father
  wounds can be encouraged to develop their relationship with God as a
  loving father. Those who were rejected or ridiculed by peers as
  youngsters can meditate upon the Jesus as brother, friend, and
  protector. Those who feel unmothered can turn to Mary for comfort.
  (Homosexuality and Hope, part I, sect. 5-6)

As you pointed out, the CCC is clear about the chastity of those afflicted with same-sex attraction:

  Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of
  self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of
  disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can
  and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
  (CCC 2359)

The Church, as well as the CMA, teaches that anyone with any type of sexual disorder (i.e. masturbation, adultery, homosexuality etc.) should be approached with nondiscriminatory therapeutic charity.  Where ever mercy is needed, the Body of Christ should be there.

  The teachings of the Catholic Church on sexual morality are explicitly
  clear and do not allow exceptions. Catholics have a right to know the
  truth and those working with or for Catholic institutions have an
  obligation to clearly enunciate that truth.  Catholics must, of
  course, reach out to individuals experiencing same-sex attraction, to
  those actively involved in homosexual acts, and particularly to those
  suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, with love, hope, and the
  authentic, uncompromised message of freedom from sin through Jesus
  Christ. (Homosexuality and Hope, part I, sect. 5-6)

History has shown that whenever the Church makes a counter-cultural stand to defend her morals, she is always met with opposition.  This sometimes puts a heavy burden on those providing medical and psychological treatment. Nevertheless, the Church stays true to the Law of Christ, which is the Law of Merciful Love.  Catholic physicians and therapists are obligated to do the same.

  While any attempt to teach the sinfulness of illicit homosexual
  behavior may be greeted with accusations of 'homophobia', the reality
  is that Christ calls all to chastity in keeping with the particular
  state of life. The desire of the Church to help all live chastely is
  not a blanket condemnation of any who find chastity difficult but
  rather the compassionate response of a Church seeking to imitate
  Christ, the Good Shepherd.
  (Ibid.)


How did the Crusades impact modern Christianity?

Well, only the Catholic and Orthodox churches existed during the times of the crusade.  So, most major Protestant groups tend to wash their hands of the whole matter since they didn't exist at the time.

The Catholic church specifically, has apologized for the Crusades (back in 2000) and seems to carry a sense of shame about the whole event.

The event itself seems to be a bit of a dark mark in Christian history--a time when people were willing to kill other people for their religious beliefs.  Most Christians seem to take the fact of the Crusades at face value and see it as a historical event (and something to avoid).

Since these events aren't preached upon or taught in churches, it seems that there is minimal impact on modern Christianity, except for possibly the preclusivity of mounting another Crusade/holy war from a Christian stance.

sources 1; 2


What does Paul intend to say in 1 Corinthians 5:5?

If you read the general context of this passage in Corinthians you will find that there is a lot of stuff about church order, roles in the church, how to deal with problems inside and outside the body of believers, etc.

The verse you quote in particular starts to make sense when you see it as a reference to church discipline and understand the purpose of discipline. In this case we're specifically talking about the last possible stage of  disipline: excommunication. This is the final step a church will take in trying to bring somebody who claims to be a believer into alignment with their confession. Although the step is a drastic one, the purpose is no different than the earlier steps: Christ receiving glory as people are saved and brought from darkness to light.

Excommunication (or total removal of a person from the church) serves two purposes.

It protects the church. The church is supposed to be holy: the bride of Christ spotless and reserved for Him. Of course the church is also comprised of sinners, but we are in the process of being made holy. Step by step we are supposed to be conforming to his standards and looking more like him. If somebody is moving the oposite direction — deliberately and intentionally sinning and justifying their sin, then removing them from the body prevents the corruption from spreading.
It stands as a severe warning. The hope is that by being rejected by the church they will be made aware of the seriousness of their sin before God and realize that they need to repent. Removal from the church only happens after teaching, warning, and internal discipline measures have failed — in other words the person is not listening to lighter warnings. They still insist they are Christian but also insist on living in a manner inconsistent with Christianity. By rejecting their claim to "be Christian" and not allowing them to participate in church functions, they are forced to consider whether they really are Christian.

Back to your verse in particular: "Deliver this man to Satan" is a reference to excommunication -- where the church rejects a person's claim to be Christian and forces them to live outside the community of the church. If the person truly has been chosen and is being saved by the Lord, finding themselves outside the blessing of the church gives them an opportunity to discover 1) how they are living "according to the flesh"; 2) how they need to repent; and 3) how they need to rededicate themselves to the Christian values they once espoused.

If they do these things, the church must then welcome them back into the fellowship of the local assembly, and the whole process will have benefited them and will have brought them one step closer to their complete salvation. If they do not do these thing, the process will prove they never did belong to Christ and may in fact serve another master!

A church can turn a blind eye to serious sin, allowing people who profess to be followers of Christ to live like followers of the devil with complete impunity, but that is not what Jesus had in mind for his true followers.

Excommunication, on the other hand, is a means by which a local church upholds biblical and righteous standards, punishes those who persist in unbiblical and unrighteous living, and moves one step closer to fulfilling Christ's purpose for his bride the church:

  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:27 KJV).


Why are wives considered the "weaker partner"? (1 Peter 3:7)

I do not think the NIV does the original Greek justice in this case. The English Standard Version (a respected relatively new essentially literal translation) renders the verse this way:

  7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,
  showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs
  with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be
  hindered.
  1 Peter 3:7

In Calvin's commentary on this verse his translation supports this choice in translation as well. A few other resources I checked seem to align with this as well.

That being said, the word weaker is still there. So what does this mean? Commentators seem to agree that in this passage that the use of the word weaker was used to prompt the husband to act in a gentle and gracious manner.

Calvin:

  Moreover, he employs a twofold argument, in order to persuade husbands
  to treat their wives honourably and kindly. The first is derived from
  the weakness of the sex; the other, from the honour with which God
  favours them. These things seem indeed to be in a manner
  contrary,—that honour ought to be given to wives, because they are
  weak, and because they excel; but these things well agree together
  where love exists.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible:

  Both husband and wife are vessels in God’s hand, and of God’s making,
  to fulfil His gracious purposes. Both weak, the woman the weaker. The
  sense of his own weakness, and that she, like himself, is God’s vessel
  and fabric, ought to lead him to act with tender and wise
  consideration towards her who is the weaker fabric

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:

  Christians ought to do their duty to one another, from a willing mind,
  and in obedience to the command of God. Wives should be subject to
  their husbands, not from dread and amazement, but from desire to do
  well, and please God. The husband’s duty to the wife implies giving
  due respect unto her, and maintaining her authority, protecting her,
  and placing trust in her. They are heirs together of all the blessings
  of this life and that which is to come, and should live peaceably one
  with another. Prayer sweetens their converse.

The argument that "weaker vessel" implies care and gentleness carries a lot of weight in my opinion. If you have a fragile, beautiful vase are you going to knock it around and treat it roughly? Not if you care about it. Taking a good literal translation into account and viewing this as an illustrative analogy will help a lot in interpreting this verse.


How did Isidore of Seville become the patron saint of the Internet and computer programmers?

Pope St. John Paul II declared St. Isidore of Seville the patron saint of the Internet because he tried to catalogue everything that was ever known to man. I remember reading about this in 1997 in the Italian version of the L'Osservatore Romano.

  In 1997 Pope John Paul II declared Isidore of Seville the patron saint of the internet. Saint Isidore died in the year 636, long before the first host-to-host ARPANET connection in 1969. But Isidore did try to record everything ever known in an encyclopedia that was ultimately published after his death.

  From The Telegraph:

    Saint Isidore wrote a 20 book opus Etymologies, also known as the Origins, in which he tried to record everything that was known. Published after his death in 636, it was for a thousand years considered the encyclopedia of all human knowledge.

    Written in simple Latin, it was all a man needed in order to have access to everything he wanted to know about the world but never dared to ask, from the 28 types of common noun to the names of women’s outer garments.

    It was a tool by those seeking wisdom much like the internet is used now.

  Source: The patron saint of the internet is Isidore of Seville, who tried to record everything ever known

The Franciscan Media has this to say about this subject:

  An amazingly learned man, he was sometimes called “The Schoolmaster of the Middle Ages” because the encyclopedia he wrote was used as a textbook for nine centuries. He required seminaries to be built in every diocese, wrote a Rule for religious orders, and founded schools that taught every branch of learning. Isidore wrote numerous books, including a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a history of Goths, and a history of the world—beginning with creation! He completed the Mozarabic liturgy, which is still in use in Toledo, Spain. For all these reasons, Isidore has been suggested as patron of the Internet. Several others—including Anthony of Padua—also have been suggested. - Saint Isidore of Seville

Popes generally do not name patron saints as the faithful often are inspired to have their own local patron saints. How Pope John Paul decided to have St. Isadore as the patron saint of the Internet is unknown. How he became (by what individuals) the patron saint of computer programmers is equally unknown. But it is a logical step after the internet patronage question was made.

  In 1997, Pope John Paul II decided that the internet could use a patron saint to guide Catholics in its proper use. He chose Saint Isidore of Seville (560-636), Doctor of the Church, and last of the Latin Fathers. His twenty-book opus (called Etymologia, after the subject title of one of the books), made him an easy choice. The word “etymology” was Isidore’s own coinage. It means “the study of origins.” Today, the term is limited to the history, or origin, of words. Interestingly enough, three other words that I know of owe their invention to saints: “utopia” and “integrity” to Saint Thomas More and “soliloquy” to Saint Augustine.

  Here is a prayer to Saint Isidore that should be said before logging in on the internet:

  Almighty and eternal God, who created us in Thy image and bade us to seek after all that is good, true and beautiful, especially in the divine person of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that, through the intercession of Saint Isidore, bishop and doctor, during our journeys through the internet we will direct our hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee and treat with charity and patience all those souls whom we encounter. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

  Source: Patron Saint for the Internet, Isidore of Seville


How do we resolve the issue with the circular argument that the Bible is the basis for its own authority?

it is said that the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so.

I have yet to hear this from a Christian. Does not seem like anything a apologist would say. Can you quote someone who says this because I suspect this is a strawman of the arguments that Christian make.

I think it would be better to say that the basis for the authority of the new testament is that the New Testament was written for the most part by people who knew Jesus. They where his first followers. His Apostles.

So if you want to go against the teachings of the bible regarding Jesus you would need to have 1st century Judean author who knew Jesus personally and attests to things in contradiction with the bible.

I do not think such a testimony exist. You have the Gnostic gospels written three-and-a-half centuries after Christ or the Quran that was written six centuries after Christ, but the New Testament stands alone among the world religion's holy books as being the only one that had intimate personal knowledge of who Jesus was.

The New Testament is rife with eye witness accounts of Jesus. Jesus even made post mortem appearances to almost 500 people as 1 Corinthians 15v6 tells us.

This is a common misconception that unbelievers have of Christians that we are all taking religion on some sort of blind faith. As you investigate the ancient evidences for Jesus's resurrection you come to realize that Jesus interacted with the world in a very real way and we can prove that using nothing more than general historical analysis.

We as Christian are very lucky in that way

I could say more, but I'd leave it there


Are there any mandatory prayers in Christianity?

The closest would be the model prayer given in Matthew chapter 6 as part of the Sermon on the Mount. This prayer is understood by most to be an example, or model, rather than something to be repeated verbatim.

So, no, there are no specific mandatory prayers given in scripture, other than that we are to pray — and to pray without ceasing. Mandatory prayers reflect an ethos that is more about rule keeping. While there are rules, Christianity is not really about rule keeping: it's about building a relationship with God, and by extension your fellow man.


What is the basis for understanding commandments to be anything other than compulsory?

1. Bilateral Covenants afford rights

After the conquest of Canaan, Joshua has an interesting proposition for the Children of Israel.  Reflecting on their tendencies to fall into idolatry and syncretism, he says in Joshua 24:

  “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Non-unilateral Covenants - and this was a reiteration of the Covenant - are legal agreements in which each party surrenders certain things to the other in exchange for certain privileges.  The 10 Commandments with which you are familiar is such a covenant - often formulated as "You shall be my people, and I shall be your God."

Regardless of whether or not as the Creator God already has a legal right over his people, God chooses to enter into a covenant with His people, thus affording them simple privileges.

2. Love is the desired thing - not obedience

Historically, theologians have attributed this to a problem of power disparity.  As God, God has ultimate power to demand reverence and devotion, but in practice, this tends to overwhelm the less powerful party. Instead, God chooses to woo those whom he would have love Him - and requisite to taht would be both free choice and the ability to reject the suitor.

Jesus makes this explict in John 14:15 where he says:

  "If you love me, keep my commandments."

As such, God phrases these as choices, in order to get what he wants - which is that sincere faithfulness which only comes from a free exchange.

Indeed, Jesus is often quoted against the Pharisses, but in one of his most damning indictments of disobedience, he tells them:

  "Go and learn this saying - I desire mercy and not sacrifice."

Jesus is pointing them back to Hosea, wherein God reveals that his character is to love and to woo, not to overwhelm.  In making such a god of the law, the Pharisees have perverted its purpose.

3.  Judgement is coming, but love delays it

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares in Matthew 13 is probably the best biblical support for tolerance.  In the story, the enemy comes and sows weeds amongst good grain.  When the farmhands discover this, they ask the master if they should tear up the weeds.  The Master declines, saying:

  ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Note that judgement will come to those who are not following the commandments - but the love that the Master has for his chosen compels him to afford all the opportunity to grow in love.  Waiting until their fruits are fully known affords a time for everyone to come to love of the One who came "too seek and save the lost."  Affording a chance to repent necessarily means affording a chance not to - thus allowing for some to reject God, but having the choice to do so in the first place.


I don't think that we can say for sure.  I think that this particular verse could apply to just about any time in history.  Rumors of wars could mean any fear of a coming war, including the cold war.

In fact most of the things foretold in Matthew 24 have happened since His time - false messiahs, nation rising against nation, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, Christians being persecuted, killed, and hated for their faith, and so on.

The general consensus among pastors that I have spoken to (and sites that you can find by Googling this verse) is that these signs will increase as we get nearer to the end times.

The fact that there is not a definitive answer to this question, and that it could apply to any time in history is perfectly within Biblical teaching, since Jesus Himself said that no man would know when the coming of these times are.


What is the difference in original sin and our nature to sin from a Reformed or Calvinist view?

The sin nature is an aspect of the doctrine of "original sin," but not the entire story.

Louis Berkhof's highly regarded Systematic Theology introduces the topic of Original Sin by calling it simply "the sinful state and condition in which men are born."

The Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 25, identifies three key components of original sin:

The guilt of Adam's sin
The lack of inherent righteousness
The corruption of man's nature

The first of these isn't normally part of what we consider to be the "sin nature."  Berkhof calls this original guilt, and distinguishes it from original pollution. The former expresses the state of mankind in relation to the law – guilty:

  The guilt of Adam's sin, committed by him as the federal head of the human race, is imputed to all his descendants.

The latter, original pollution, includes the concepts of total depravity and total inability, which typically come to mind when considering the "sin nature."  These refer to the inherent corruption of of man's nature, a lack of anything spiritually good in man, an inability to act in a way that meets the requirements of God's law, and an inability to come to love God on one's own.

So the simple answer to your question is that Original Sin is a broader term that includes the idea of the "sin nature," but it also includes the concept of "original guilt."  Thus they are not synonyms.

As an aside, sometimes the word "original" can be confusing and lead to incorrect assumptions that it exclusively refers to the sin of Adam and Eve.  Berkhof explains:

  This sin is called "original sin," (1) because it is derived from the original root of the human race; (2) because it is present in the life of every individual from the time of his birth, and therefore cannot be regarded as the result of imitation; and (3) because it is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man. (2.2.4)

Thus the word "original" here should not be exclusively understood as referring to the first sin in history, but also to the "original" state of post-fall individuals before they have committed any actual sins.


What does Neo-Scholastic Thomism say about the Charismatic Renewal movement?

Charismatic Renewal not a Catholic movement
See The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church ch. 9 "The Sacraments" §87:

What is the rite known as “the baptism in the Spirit”?

The rite of “baptism in the Spirit”301 was originally the distinctive mark of a Protestant sect called the Pentecostalists. It is a laying on of hands for the purpose of giving a palpable experience of the Holy Spirit and a participation of the charismatic gifts [gratiæ gratis datæ] of the first Christians, especially speaking in tongues.

What is the origin of this Pentecostal rite?

Pentecostalism was born during the night of December 31, 1900, to January 1, 1901, in Topeka, Kansas.302 In the hope of regaining the charisms of the Apostles (especially speaking in tongues), the Methodist pastor Charles Parham (1873-1929) laid hands on a girl named Agnes Ozman.303 She immediately began to speak an unknown language, which a Czech recognized the next day as his mother tongue. The experience continued on the following days, and Pastor Parham set out to preach his discovery. Arrested later on a morals charge (he was accused of sodomy), Pastor Parham was eclipsed by some of his disciples, like William Seymour (1873-1929).304

How did the new Pentecostal rite spread?

The “Pentecostalists” were at first rejected even by the Protestants (they were called “shakers” because of their contortions or “rollers” because some of them rolled on the ground during their services). They established their own chapels and organized themselves in very restricted groups. It was only during the 1930’s in Europe, and in the 1950’s in the United States, that their rite was taken outside of strictly Pentecostal churches to penetrate all Christian denominations. Pastor David du Plessis (1905-87) was the main architect of this “ecumenical” propagation of “the baptism in the Spirit.” At the end of the twentieth century, there were about 100 million Pentecostalists worldwide.

Are there precedents for the Pentecostal phenomenon?

The rite properly called “baptism in the Spirit” is new, but heretical sects have regularly experienced analogous phenomena throughout history. At the end of the seventeenth century, a wave of illuminism shook the Protestant Camisards of the South of France: people claimed they felt the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues and wept copiously. The same eccentricities occurred in 1731, at Paris, in the St-Médard Cemetery on the tomb of a Jansenist deacon: frenetic convulsions gripped entire crowds, ecstasies, speaking in unknown languages, “prophecies,” etc.

How can this type of phenomena be explained?

These strange phenomena can partly be explained by natural causes (uncontrolled nervousness, morbid psychic exaltation, hallucinations), but it is likely that the devil often intervenes. The first sign of diabolical possession indicated by the traditional Ritual for exorcisms is the person’s speaking in languages never before studied.305

Can people who call on the name of Christ with such fervor really be manipulated by the devil?

Our Lord Himself said:

Beware of false prophets….Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name and cast out devils in thy name and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you. Depart from me, you that work iniquity. (Mt. 7:15, 21-23)

How did the Pentecostal rite penetrate into the Catholic Church?

The Pentecostal rite of baptism in the Spirit was spread in the Catholic Church by so-called Catholic “charismatics.” The “Charismatic Renewal” can be defined as “the Catholic branch of the Pentecostal current.”306

What is the origin of “Catholic” charismatism?

“Catholic” charismatism was born in the United States in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on February 20, 1967, the day on which two Catholic students at Duquesne University received the laying on of hands in a prayer group led by a Protestant minister and began to speak in tongues. They then used the same rite to transmit to other Catholics the powers thus received. On February 18, 1972, an engineer returning to France from the United States transmitted the baptism in the Spirit to Pierre Goursat, who founded the Emmanuel Community (the main French charismatic community) in 1973.307

What was the effect of the Pentecostal rite on the first Catholics who received it?

The laying on of hands produced the same effects in the Catholic students of Duquesne University as it did in Protestants. One of them recounted: “I was so joyful that all I could do was laugh as I lay on the floor.” Another testified: “The sense of the presence and love of God was so strong that I can remember staying sitting in the chapel for a half hour just laughing out of joy over the love of God.” And a third: “When hands were laid upon me, immediately it felt as if my whole chest were trying to rise into my head. My lips started trembling, and my brain started turning flips. Then I started grinning; I couldn’t help it.”308

What do these reactions show?

These unseemly reactions reveal diabolical intervention. Whereas the Holy Ghost makes order and discretion reign, the evil spirit, even when disguised as an angel of light, generally betrays himself by some grotesquery.309

Can the devil then inflame souls with the love of God?

The devil cannot inflame souls with the love of God, but he can give this impression to those who desire too strongly to feel the action of grace:

[T]he devil hath power to feign some false light or sounds, sweet smells in their noses, wonderful tastes in their mouths, and many quaint heats and burnings in their bodily breasts or in their bowels, in their backs and in their reins and in their members.

And yet in this fantasy they think that they have a restful contemplation of their God without any hindrance of vain thoughts; and surely so have they in a manner, for they be so filled with falsehood that vanity cannot disturb them. And why? Because he, that same fiend that would minister vain thoughts to them if they were in a good way–he, that same, is the chief worker in this work. And know thou right well that he would not hinder himself. The thought of God will he not put from them, for fear that he should be held suspect.310

Are similar warnings to be found in the writings of the saints?

St. Vincent Ferrer[, O.P.], in his Treatise on the Spiritual Life, teaches:

The first remedy against the spiritual temptations which the devil plants in the hearts of many persons in these unhappy times, is to have no desire to procure by prayer, meditation, or any other good work, what are called revelations, or spiritual experiences, beyond what happens in the ordinary course of things; such a desire of things which surpass the common order can have no other root or foundation but pride, presumption, a vain curiosity in what regards the things of God, and, in short, an exceedingly weak faith. It is to punish this evil desire that God abandons the soul, and permits it to fall into the illusions and temptations of the devil, who seduces it, and represents to it false visions and delusive revelations. Here we have the source of most of the spiritual temptations that prevail at the present time; temptations which the spirit of evil roots in the souls of those who may be called the precursors of Antichrist….311

Does this passage of St. Vincent apply to Pentecostalism and Charismatism?

It was precisely so that she could “speak in tongues” that Agnes Ozman asked Pastor Parham to lay hands on her. It was also to benefit from these extraordinary “charisms” manifested by the Pentecostals that the Catholics at Duquesne asked for the same laying on of hands.

Doesn’t the Charismatic Renewal accomplish some good, bringing back to the practice of Catholicism a certain number of souls and nurturing the piety of others?

The devil in his perspicacity knows how to lose a few to gain many. This is the teaching of Blessed Marie of the Incarnation:

Ecstasies, visions, and revelations are not a sure argument for the presence or assistance of God in a soul. How many have we seen who have been deceived by these sorts of visions? Even though they were the cause of the conversion or even the salvation of a few souls, it is nonetheless a strategy of the evil Spirit, who is content to lose a few to gain many.312

What advantage can the devil find in these displays of piety?

Pentecostalism not only revived and revitalized a moribund Protestantism, which risked leaving the Catholic Church an open field, but today it is allowing him to progressively take hold of Latin America313; the devil finds obvious advantages. Likewise, “Catholic” Charismatism perpetuates within the bosom of the Church the errors that are destroying it.

Isn’t the Charismatic movement against the post-conciliar desacralization of the Church?

It is precisely because it reacts against certain excesses that the Charismatic movement attracts Catholics troubled by the crisis, but only to bring them round to the conciliar errors! (in the same way that Pentecostalism brought back to Protestantism those who fled its excessive rigidity in droves).

Can you provide an example?

The Emmanuel Catholic Charismatic Community has reintroduced in many places adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the Rosary, confession, etc. These “conservative” devotions have rallied very many disoriented Catholics. But this conservatism merely serves to conserve…the conciliar novelties! Who would deny that the sentimental scenes that the Charismatics know how to stage so well are the principal crutch still holding up the new liturgy?

What is the link between Vatican II and the Charismatic movement?

Vatican II is fully responsible for the introduction of the Pentecostal rite within Catholicism. Not only because John XXIII desired a “new Pentecost,”314 or because the Pentecostal pastor David du Plessis—who had worked so effectively to infiltrate the “baptism in the Spirit” into all the Protestant confessions—was invited to the Council as an observer (he was influential in introducing several passages on the charisms into the conciliar documents)315 but it was especially the Vatican II decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, that led the Catholics of Duquesne University to receive “the baptism in the Spirit.”

How could this decree lead Catholics to “the baptism in the Spirit”?

Speaking about the communities separated from the Catholic Church, the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio states that “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”316 It also says that “whatever is wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification.”317 These passages convinced the Catholics of Duquesne University to ask the Protestants for the imposition of hands on February 20, 1967.318

How does Charismatism promote the errors of Vatican II?

Like Vatican II, the Charismatic movement contributes to the upholding of a false ecumenism (Charismatism springs from ecumenism), to the confusion of the orders of nature and grace in every domain, to the weakening of the hierarchical authority willed by God, and to the forgetting of the ascetical side of the spiritual life.

How does Charismatism contribute to confusing nature and grace?

The desire to feel the action of grace (inherently intangible) is to expose oneself to the danger of confusing faith and religious sentiment (as the modernists do319), as well as divine inspiration and imagination, the theological virtue of hope and optimism, the life of grace and psychological well-being. Psychology, as it so happens, occupies an important place in Charismatic communities.320

What can be said, in the last analysis, about the rite of the baptism in the Spirit?

The Charismatics themselves do not quite know how to explain the rite of the baptism in the Spirit. It cannot be a sacrament since Jesus Christ instituted only seven. Thus they see it as a means of conversion, a reactivation of the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, or else a religious experience. But none of these explanations can account for the efficacy of a rite that seems to act of itself like a sacrament.

Can the baptism in the Spirit really be compared to a sacrament?

By linking spiritual effects to a specific rite, the baptism in the Spirit resembles the sacraments. But the latter transmit a grace that is not sensible (they leave us in the order of faith), while the other rite claims to make the action of God felt. Thus it can be defined as a caricature of a sacrament that transmits, not the grace of God, but a perceptible illusion of this grace. We know that the devil has the power to create this illusion in those who seek to experience physically the divine action.

Should the Charismatics be considered as possessed by the devil?

Those who receive the baptism in the Spirit are not for that reason possessed by the devil, nor even necessarily guilty of mortal sin (because of a certain ignorance of what they are doing). But they open themselves nonetheless to a diabolical influence that establishes them in an illusion, risks falsifying their spiritual life and blinding them to the crisis in the Church and to their own personal duty. Some give up the Christian life when, years later, the mirages vanish.

Should the healings and prodigies worked by Charismatics be attributed to the devil?

The devil cannot work miracles strictly speaking (which manifest an absolute power over nature), but he can produce prodigies (which use the laws of nature ingeniously). Undeniable miracles are not to be found among the Charismatics. They themselves acknowledge that a good number of healings that happen during their gatherings do not last.321 Besides, these outpourings in unknown languages during some Charismatic meetings have been identified as blasphemies by people knowing the languages who happen to be present.

Footnotes

The Pentecostalists cite the words of John the Baptist: “I have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Mk. 1:8). But in reality St. John the Baptist was speaking here of the sacrament of baptism that our Lord was going to institute and which, as distinct from St. John’s baptism—a baptism of repentance—was to give the Holy Spirit. The difference between these two baptisms is clearly stated in the Acts of the Apostles (19:3-6).

It was also in the United States that spiritualism was born, in 1847, when the Fox family girls in the village of Hyderville (in New York State) tried to make contact with the poltergeist that haunted their house. Ten years later, spiritualism counted more than ten million adepts.

Agnes Ozman had requested this laying on of hands herself based on the Acts of the Apostles (8:17-19; 9:17; 19:6).

Bothered by the personality of Charles Parham, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, some Pentecostalists today prefer to trace their movement to Seymour’s preaching in Los Angeles, April 9, 1906. That evening, the audience received the “baptism in the Spirit” and began to speak in tongues, to laugh, to cry, to sing, to clap their hands and stamp their feet so vehemently that the old house where they were meeting collapsed. Another Pentecostal illumination (analogous to the first, but independent) occurred in Great Britain in 1904 and considerably influenced French Protestantism. But “Catholic” charismatism, even in France, is linked to American Pentecostalism. See Arnaud de Lassus, Le Renouveau charismatique aujourd’hui, Supplement to Action Familiale et Scolaire, No. 162, pp. 48, 61-65, 135.

Rituale Romanum, tit. XI, c. 1, §3: “Signa autem obsidentis dæmonis sunt : ignota lingua loqui pluribus verbis….”

This is the definition given by the journal Tychique (review of the Charismatic community “Chemin Neuf” [New Pathway] in its July 1984 issue (No. 50).

The founders of other French Charismatic communities received the “baptism in the Spirit” either directly from Protestants (Gérard Croissant, called “Brother Ephraim,” founder of the Community of the Beatitudes), or through the intermediary of American Charismatics (Laurent Fabre, founder of New Pathway, received it from an American Jesuit.)

Testimonies quoted in the work by Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan, Catholic Pentecostals (Paramus, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1969), pp. 28, 64, 67.

The fouteenth-century English mystic who wrote The Cloud of Unknowing (one of the basic texts of Carthusian novices) wrote:Many wonderful gestures follow them that be deceived in this false work. Some be evermore smiling and laughing at every other word that they speak, as they were giddy girls or silly jesting jugglers lacking behaviour. Better far were a modest countenance, with sober and demure bearing of body and honest mirth in manner.I say not that all these unseemly gestures be great sins in themselves, nor yet that all those that do them be great sinners themselves. But I say that if these unseemly and disordered gestures be governors of that man that doth them, insomuch that he cannot leave them when he will: I say then that they be tokens.…And this is the only reason why I set so many of these deceits here in this writing: for why, that a ghostly worker shall prove his work by them. [English version: tr. Father Augustine Baker, O.S.B. (London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1924), Ch. 53.]

The Cloud of Unknowing, Chapter 52. The same author explains:They conceive a false heat wrought by the fiend, their ghostly enemy, caused by their pride and their fleshliness and curiosity of wit. And yet, peradventure, they ween that it is the fire of love gotten and kindled by the grace and the goodness of the Holy Ghost….This deceit of false feeling, and of false knowing following thereon, hath diverse and wonderful variations, according to the diversity of states and the subtle conditions of them that be deceived. (Ch. 45)

St. Vincent Ferrer, “Treatise on the Spiritual Life,” in Rev. Fr. Andrew Pradel, O.P., Saint Vincent Ferrer of the Order of Preachers: His Life, Spiritual Teaching, and Practical Devotion, tr. from the French by the Rev. Fr. T. A. Dixon, O.P. (London: R. Washbourne, 1875), p. 181 [available online through Google/books].

Blessed Marie of the Incarnation (Madame Acarie), quoted by Lassus, Le renouveau charismatique aujourd’hui, p. 154. Blessed Jordan of Saxony (1190-1236) had to exorcise a certain Brother Bernard. Possessed by the devil, he preached in such a penetrating manner, with such a touching accent, such a pious air, and such profound words that he brought everyone who heard him to tears. Once the possession was discovered, however, he switched tone and pronounced only obscenities. When the Blessed asked him “Where are your beautiful speeches?” he answered: “Since my ruse has been discovered, I want to show myself as I am.” (Jordan of Saxony, O.P., Libellus de principiis ordinis praedicatorum, §110-119.)

See above, Question 1.

John XXIII, Apostolic Constitution Humane Salutis officially convening the Second Vatican Council (December 25,1961).

The Constitution Lumen Gentium (on the Church), §12:It is not only through the sacraments and the ministries of the Church that the Holy Spirit sanctifies and leads the people of God and enriches it with virtues, but, “allotting his gifts to everyone according as He wills,” He distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts He makes them fit and ready to undertake the various tasks and offices which contribute toward the renewal and building up of the Church, according to the words of the Apostle: “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit.” These charisms, whether they be the more outstanding or the more simple and widely diffused, are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation for they are perfectly suited to and useful for the needs of the Church.

The Decree Unitatis Redintegratio (on Ecumenism), §3, in The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., editor (New York: The America Press, 1966), p. 346. See above Question 47.

Ibid., §4, p. 349.

“As Catholics, they had been reassured by the Council, which had stated: ‘Whatever is wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification.’ After studying the matter, they decided to ask a group of Pentecostalists to pray for them and over them.” Mario Panciera in Présence Chrétienne, No. 12 (April 1989), cited in the Courrier de Rome (SiSiNoNo), No. 111 (February 1990), p. 2.

The confusion between faith and the religious sentiment is the fundamental error of modernism condemned by St. Pius X. See above, Question 11.

The members of the Well of Jacob community conduct P.H.R. sessions (Personality and Human Relations) in the spirit of the American psychologist Carl Rogers, who played an important role in the elaboration of the techniques of group dynamics (Lassus, Le renouveau charismatique, pp. 69-70). The New Pathway community, which recruits heavily among health professionals, proposes a medicine integrated with spirituality. The Beatitudes community is also heavily involved in psychotherapy. It is paradoxical that to perpetuate itself a movement that identifies itself as “charismatic” should need to specialize in human psychology, which the charisms of the Holy Spirit, on the contrary, should be able to move effortlessly and alone.

One of them explained it thus: “We sometimes see someone begin to be cured but then relapse several days later; that person preferred being sick and helped by others to a healthy autonomy, or else refused to make the efforts to persevere and progress towards complete health, physical, psychic, or spiritual.” (Yves Jehanno, L’Enjeu du renouveau charismatique [Paris: Fayard, 1988], p. 93.) It could not be more clearly shown that it is a question not of miracles but of simple prodigies (which help nature to produce an effect, but do not have power over it).

[*The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church*][1] by [Fr. Matthias Gaudron][16] was edited in collaboration with the [Dominican Fathers of Avrillé][17].
Fr. Gaudron was trained by the Society of St. Pius X, whose seminaries' curriculum adheres to the saintly pope's admonition in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi §45

that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. […] And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy We prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas Aquinas] has bequeathed to us […]. In seminaries where they may have been neglected let […] Professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment.

(cf. the magisterial quotes in Lumbreras, O.P.'s intro. to the 24 Thomistic Theses)
The Dominicans of Avrillé are Thomists in the "Strict Observance Thomism" sense, too.
#Strict Observance Thomism vs. Resourcement Thomism
Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, et al. were adherents of the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology) / Resourcement Thomism, which asserts that St. Thomas's philosophy and theology doesn't have perennial value but can only be understood in his medieval historical context. It was condemned in Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis.
Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. condemned the Nouvelle Théologie movement in his 1946 Angelicum paper "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?" His answer: back to the heresy of Modernism.
Congar supported ecumenism and the Charismatic Renewal movement, too. He said: "The charismatic renewal is a grace for the Church."
From The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church ch. 3 "The Church's Magisterium" §22:

Who is Yves Congar?

Yves Congar (Dominican, 1904-95) was the father of the “new ecclesiology,” that is, the new way of conceiving the Church. A disciple of Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu, he took classes at the Protestant Faculty of Strasbourg just after being ordained to the priesthood. He decided to consecrate his whole life to the rapprochement of the Church with the heretics and schismatics, going so far as to claim:

Luther is one of the greatest religious geniuses of all history. In this regard I put him on the same level as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, or Pascal. In a certain way, he is even greater. He entirely rethought Christianity....I studied Luther a lot. Scarcely a month goes by without my revisiting his writings.54

Subject to strict surveillance after 1947, (he would later say: “From the beginning of 1947 until the end of 1956, I experienced nothing but an uninterrupted series of denunciations, warnings, restrictive or discriminatory measures, and mistrustful interventions”55) he cleaved to the same ideas (in his intimate diary, he relates that twice while at Rome he went to urinate against the door of the Holy Office as a sign of revolt!56). Nevertheless, Yves Congar was summoned as an expert to Vatican II by John XXIII and greatly influenced the Council. John Paul II named him cardinal in October 1994.

**Footnotes**

Congar, Une Vie pour la Vérité (Paris: Centurion, 1975), p. 59. Pope Adrian VII, in the Bull Satis et Plus, designated Luther as “the apostle of the Antichrist,” and St. Alphonsus Liguori called him “a baneful monster from hell.”
Informations Catholiques Internationales, June 1, 1964, p. 28.
On May 17, 1946, and then on November 27, 1954. See Yves Congar, Journal d’un théologien (1946-56), presented and annotated by Étienne Fouilloux (Paris: Cerf, 2001), pp. 88, 293.


If I am a Christian does this mean I need to support the modern state of Israel?

While I believe there are political reasons to support or not support Israel, I don't feel any of those are "Christian" reasons to support Israel.

  God has blessed Israel and therefore is guiding them, in general, in the correct direction, and we should support this.

Israel is a Jewish state.  Unless God is guiding the people to follow Jesus, I'm not sure what the correct direction would be.

  Based on the Old Testament, God has promised this land to the Israelis, so it is their right to have it.

If it is still their right to have it by God's will, then they will have it.

  The modern state of Israel is the embodiment of many of the end-times prophecies (see Hal Lindsey’s "[Late, Great Planet Earth][1]")

I'm not sure I know of any end time prophecies that require Israel to be held by Jewish (or any other) government.

  That Israel is the only true democracy in the region, and as Christians we should support democracy, especially in a region such as this.

While politically many will say we should support democracies, I don't think the Bible tells us to support democracies.

  That Israel is surrounded by Muslim dictatorships/extremist who would like to see it destroyed. As Christians we are against Muslim dictatorships/extremist (esp. here in the last 10 years) and therefore should support Israel.

I don't think we should be declaring war on Islam.  As Christians we are called to be peaceful.


What does Eastern-Orthodoxy teach about the Law and Gospel division?

The Eastern Orthodox being Christians also believes in the teaching of saint Paul on the subject, but they have a different theology than Lutheranism.    Probably the Best way to answer your question (without spending tons of time researching it) is to point you to an article that covers the correspondence made between Lutheran theologians and an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch that took place a few decades after the death of Martin Luther.

Justification by Faith Alone?
The Reply of Patriarch Jeremiah II to the Lutheran Tübingen Theologians, Concerning the Augsburg Confession (16th cent.)

"... The same also do the ancient writers of the Church teach; for Ambrose saith: 'This is ordained of God, that he that believeth in Christ shall be saved, without works, by faith alone, freely receiving remission of sins." —Article VI of the Augsburg Confession

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/faithalone.aspx

Here is another article that covers the basic areas of Agreement and disagreement between Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox in regards to that early contact by the Tubingen theologians.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130128052302/http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/sixteenthcentury.htm


How does Catholic doctrine differ from LDS doctrine concerning God the Father?

Catholic doctrine does not agree with LDS doctrine

CCC 370

  In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.

LDS doctrine on God

  God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's” (D&C 130:22).


What reason is there to believe that 1st C Jews thought that being the Son of God = God?

My answer! The Jews have what is called "idioms." One of those idioms is called the "son of" idiom and can be found both in the Old Testament and New Testament.
For example in the OT you have "Sons of prophets." (1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3, refer to men belonging to a prophetic band. "Prophethood" (that which distinguishes "prophets" from "non-prophets") is the very nature that unities the "sons of the prophets" with their metaphorical fathers, "the prophets."
The same holds true for the following examples. "Sons of the goldsmiths at Nehemiah 3:31. Sons of the troop (2 Chronicles 25:13) are men of the army. Sons of affliction (Proverbs 31:5) are afflicted ones. I think you get the idea.
In the NT, "Son of peace (Luke 10:6 refers to a peaceful person. Who was the Son of perdition?" (John 17:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:3) is the lost one, This is applied to Judas and the antichrist. One more, "Sons of thunder" was the appellative applied by Jesus to James and John at Mark 3:17 because it signified something outstanding about their character.
What about Jesus Christ who identified Himself on numerous occasions as "the Son of Man" and as "the Son of God." The idiom DOES intend the meaning of a shared nature between ANY father, and his son and thus between "THE Father and THE Son."
The "Son of God" title is entirely consistent with trinitarian doctrine which states explicitly that the Son is of the same NATURE of the Father. Christ really IS the "son" of God and therefore, BY DEFINITION shares the distinctive nature of his father just as ALL sons bear the distinctive nature of their fathers.
That Jesus is ALSO the "Son of Man" (obviously in the metaphorical sense, given the fact that his actual father was NOT any man) is also consistent with the doctrine of the trinity which claims that Christ was indeed truly a man.
There was a reason why the Apostle John ends his gospel account by stating his authorial intent at John 20:30-31. "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; vs31, but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is (1) Christ/Messiah, (2) the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."
If you read the context of the following verses you will notice a pattern or trend in what the Jews conclude by Jesus' words. John 5:18, John 10:30, John 19:7 and the trial record at Matthew 26:57-65. It boils down to, "Are you the Christ/Messiah, and are you the Son of God?"
This is the question the high priest Caiaphas said to Jesus at Matthew 26:63. "And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether (1) You are the Christ/Messiah, (2) the Son of God." Caiaphas puts Jesus under oath to swear as to His true identity. Jesus answers at Luke 22:70 by saying, "Yes, I am." (NASB)
Most of the information regarding Jewish "idioms" is taken from the following site. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/23a-Prophets/Text/Articles/Bess-SonOfGod-GTJ.pdf
The article was written in 1965 and I only had some written notes of it from many, many years ago. I decided to look it up and I found the complete article. He also deals with the terms "Firstborn" and the term "Only Begotten."


What is the "veil" that covers the heart when the Old Testament is read?

Moses, after speaking with God, had a shining face.  When he came out from speaking with God he would give the people God's commands under the Law with the glory of a 'shining face' which they feared with trembling and fright.  Before the glory faded, signifying the non lasting nature of the covenant under the law, Moses would put a veil over his face. He was hiding something, not God's glory but its fading.  This means the nature of the law under the old covenant, especially its temporary aspect, was not revealed fully and openly to the people but hidden.  Moses was not trying to deceive them, making them think that his face always shining but was simply doing whatever God required of him.  Possibly it would made no sense to the the people to clearly see at that time in progressive revelation that the law was merely a 'fading glory' when first introduced. That would be counter-productive according to God's purpose of that stage of history.

Now Paul is grabbing this old fact about the veil and transferring the symbolism to the Jews, for although the gospel had come and superseded the law, Christ superseding Moses, yet they still clung on to the law thinking its glory will 'never fade'.  Now the gospel is declared 'openly' with no hidden parts because it will never fade or need something in addition (not like Moses who put a veil over the temporary nature of the law). Yet the Jews were not seeing it. It must therefore be a veil upon the heart, i.e. a stubborn unbelief blinding their minds from seeing the truth of the gospel and the temporary nature of the law.

Sin blinds the mind and so even carnal Christians have a certain kind of veil making them unable to see the glory of the gospel.  That is why Paul writes to the Ephesians:

  I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength. (NIV, Ephesians 1:18-19)

For all unbelievers this veil is thick and damming, not just blurring the vision:

  The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (NIV, 2 Corinthians 4:4)

In conclusion the veil is the ignorance to spiritual truth by which sin blurs the mind of a believer or totally blinds the mind of a sinner under the bondage of the Devil.  This covering of the eyes through ignorance is metaphorically called a veil.


Has a parable originally used by Jesus been left out of Luke 14?

I think you might be loading a 21st century definition of the English word "parable" onto a 1st century Greek word.

παραβολή [parabole] is also translated "proverb", "figure", "saying", and "teaching" elsewhere in the New Testament, as well as in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.

Examples:

  Luke 4:23 (RSVCE)

    And He said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb [Gr. παραβολή], ‘Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at
    Capernaum, do
    here also in your own country.’”

  Hebrews 9:8–9 (RSVCE)

  By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing (which is
  symbolic for [lit. a figure - Gr. παραβολή - of] the present age).

  Sirach 1:25 (RSVCE)

    In the treasuries of wisdom are wise sayings [Gr. παραβολή],   but
    godliness is an abomination to a sinner.


Biblical support of a Quadrichotomous view of Man

The four words that come in this scripture come from a variance in the translation of Deuteronomy 6:5. The Greek Septuagint translates "strength" as "mind".  This translation of what Jesus said in Aramaic accommodated both the familiar Greek translation as well as the more accurate Hebrew translation of the word.

It does not, however, suggest a Quadrichotomous view of man, even though that is a pretty cool word.


What part did the Psalms play in Jewish worship?

Josephus mentions the Temple singers of his day:

  Those of the Levites...who were singers of hymns urged the king to convene the Sanhedrin and get them permission to wear linen robes on equal terms with the priests....Nor did they fail to obtain their request; for the king, with the consent of those who attended the Sanhedrin, allowed the singers of hymns to discard their former robes and to wear linen ones such as they wished.  A part of the tribe that served in the temple were also permitted to learn the hymns by heart, as they had requested.  Antiquities 20.216-218.

Those "hymns" were probably psalms.

We are less well informed about the use of psalms in Jewish domestic or synagogue worship.  But Saint Paul gives us a clue (1 Corinthians 14.26)

  What then, brethren?  When you come together, each one has a psalm, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.  Let all things be done for edification.

This use of psalms in Christian domestic worship may have been modeled on the similar use of psalms in Jewish domestic worship.

The modern-day synagogue liturgy makes extensive use of psalms.  We don't know how far back this practice goes.


According to Catholicism, will those who are alive on the Day of Judgement die physically?

Short Answer
Yes, the people alive on the last judgment will go, body and soul, into their final destination, and thus not experience a separation of the body and the soul, i.e. death.
Long Answer
What is death?
Death is understood in the Catholic faith as a separation of the soul and the body. As Father John Echert writes:

At the moment of death, the soul is separated from the body and no
longer sustains order within the natural body

What happens upon death?
When someone dies, they undergo particular judgment defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia as:

The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that
immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is
decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal
definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union
Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their
bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed
in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once
admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et
trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with
original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality
of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus). The
doctrine is also in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in
1274, in the Bull "Benedictus Deus" of Benedict XII, in 1336, and in
the professions of faith of Gregory XIII and Benedict XIV.

After the particular judgment, their soul will be in the condition of eternal suffering (Hell), eternal happiness (Heaven), or a purging period for temporal punishment due to sin (Purgatory) then eternal happiness. Eternal happiness is eventually guaranteed when a soul reaches purgatory since no soul in purgatory ends up in Hell according the the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of
the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the
damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory
especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the
Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a
cleansing fire
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final
Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever
utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in
this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that
certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in
the age to come.

Once a person faces particular judgment, there is no changing that judgment as Father Paul K. Raftery writes:

The state of the dead up to this point [after particular judgement] had been one of souls abiding
in separation from the body. But at the general judgment this
separation of body and soul will be for ever ended. From this moment
on men will have that union of body and soul God always intended for
them. However, the appearance of the body for these two groups will be
vastly different. The bodies of the blessed will be radiant with
divine light, but those of the condemned will manifest the twisted and
dark soul that is within (See Suppl. 75, 2, ad 3). Whatever the state
of the soul is, that the body will reveal.

What happens at the last judgment?
At the last judgment, the souls of the dead will be reunited with their bodies, and the consequences of their actions will be made known to all according to the Catechism paragraph 1038:

1038 The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the
unjust," will precede the Last Judgment. This will be "the hour
when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and
come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and
those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." Then
Christ will come "in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . .
Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them
one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and
he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
. . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous
into eternal life."

and paragraph 678 respectively:

678 Following in the steps of the prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus
announced the judgment of the Last Day in his preaching. Then will
the conduct of each one and the secrets of hearts be brought to
light. Then will the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of
God's grace as nothing be condemned. Our attitude to our neighbor
will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love. On
the Last Day Jesus will say: "Truly I say to you, as you did it to one
of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

So how does the last judgment apply to those who are still living?
The same happens for the living at the time, and they will NOT die (and thus, strictly speaking, not face particular judgment), but rather directly undergo the last judgment and be sent to their final condition, body and soul, for eternity.
The parameters that apply to both the living and the dead, however, will be identical, save that those living at the time of the last judgment will not need to have their soul reunited with their body.
And thus we go full circle. Your reading from 1 Thessalonians confirms this:

Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with
them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always
be with the Lord.


Judas' moral state becomes clear with the later disclosure by John that Judas was stealing and, by that theft, was depriving others of much needed charitable contributions.This deliberate moral state - the repeated act of theft - needs to be considered in juxtaposition to the stated question, as it paved the way for Satan's entrance.

Judas had not been resisting Satan over the matter of secret theft.

This paved the way for much greater sin, later. Then, Satan came in like a flood and took him over completely.

  Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. John 12 5,6 KJV.

The covetousness is apparent, the very calculation of value (and lost revenue to the thief) gives him away. This precipitated something within him. Was his betrayal a matter of recuperating the lost opportunity ?

What a shocking state he was already in ! He is irked by the loving act of the woman who 'squandered' the treasure of the spice on Jesus, anointing him for his burial, which was the only preparation received since, later, the women who went to anoint him, found him already risen.

Those around Judas were involved in charitable works, and in devotion to the Lord. He was fixated with money.


How do Modalist and Oneness Pentecostals interpret Revelation 3:12?

Oneness Pentecostal Jason Dulle writes regarding this verse and others like it:

The solution to understanding these types of Scriptures will not be found in denying Jesus' deity, nor will they be solved by positing a Godhead in which two beings known as "God" share equality of deity. The solution lies in the acknowledgment of Jesus' complete, authentic, and genuine humanity; a humanity which imposed limitations (accepted willingly and intentionally) upon His deity so that He could live on the same plane as any other human, sharing in all of their experiences.
When God assumed humanity, He acquired a consciousness and identity which He never possessed before the incarnation. He had a human psyche not overwhelmed or consumed by His deity. The exercise of Jesus' human nature (such as His consciousness, spirit, will, mind, emotions, and flesh) in such a way requires that in the incarnation, Jesus be spoken of as possessing an identity distinct from, but not separate from the Father. Just as we find a distinction, but not a separation of Christ's two natures, we also find a distinction, but not a separation between God and Jesus; the Father and the Son. This view does not "compromise the deity of Christ or the radical monotheism of biblical theology. But it does give credit to the completeness and genuineness of His [Jesus'] human nature. Any other explanation compromises the completeness of His deity or His humanity."

Throughout this passage Dulle refers to Daniel L. Segraves, Systematic Theology, a Oneness Pentecostal text, and that's the source of the quote he gives at the end of the preceding paragraph.  Dulle concludes:

All of the above Scriptures demonstrate the relationship between the genuine and complete humanity of Jesus (latent deity in genuine humanity), and the transcendent Spirit of the Father. Because Jesus would not rely upon His deity in order to experience the limitations of humanity, He needed a relationship with God. As pertaining to His humanity, Jesus could say that His Father was greater than He Himself. The Father was greater, not because His deity was greater than that of Jesus' (Jesus was Yahweh become flesh), but in the respect that the Father (God as the all existing Spirit) was not subject to any of the limitations of human existence as was Jesus.


How do Christains argue that "messianic psalms" are messianic and refer to Jesus Christ?

The interpretation of the Old Testament in the New is an extremely complex subject and I recommend the book referenced in this summary article about the perspectives involved. However, there is significant support from Jewish sources for reading at least a some, but not all, of the Psalms as Messianic apart from the New Testament and according to Jewish (non-Christian) sources - which to be fair was largely written by Jewish writers as well.

Exhibit A: Psalm 2

Cited several times in Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation, Psalm 2 has been interpreted as Messianic by the Babylonian Talmud, Maimonides, and the Midrash on Psalms just to name a few. That these sources do so after the first century suggests that in spite of the temptation to interpret them apologetically as being non-messianic, it is a genuinely Messianic Psalm.

Exhibit B: Psalm 110

Although less conclusive than Psalm 2, an article entitle "Is Psalm 110 a Messianic Psalm"  says that (footnote 32):

  ...even the first-century Jewish leaders considered the reference to [my Lord] in Psalm 110:1 to be prophetic of Messiah and to be used only of the
  Messiah and not of an earthly Davidic king...

This is especially significant because this is the verse most cited by Jesus himself to prove his Messianic identity.

Exhibit C: Psalm 22

On the other side, a previous discussion (here) seems to suggest conclusively that Psalm 22 has not been interpreted Messianic-ally by Jewish interpreters.

These are just three examples that show there is diversity in the way 'Christian' Messianic Psalms were viewed outside of Christianity. But two final points are worth noting:

(1) As "Dan" in the discussion on Psalm 22 notes, it is often difficult to find actual pre-Christian Rabbinic commentary which means that (a) there is apologetic incentive in later sources not disagree with NT interpretations and (b) significant potential for disagreement about what first century Jews really thought. See this article for the dates of Rabbinic literature.

(2) Considering Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and most of the early church were Jewish - some of them highly educated in the Law - so while we can assume bias on their part, this should not cause us throw out their testimony whole-sale, or discount its Jewish-ness. In fact Acts 17:11 tells us it is reading the scriptures eagerly that convinced the Bereans and many others of the validity of Jesus' claims to be the Messiah. This was before the writing of the NT and therefore means it was through reading directly from the Jewish scriptures that they were convinced.


Why do women have inferior rights in the Bible?

It is easy to take a few verses and try to draw a conclusion about women being inferior, but there are so many verses that run counter to this common understanding.

We start near the beginning of the Bible:

  The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will
  make a helper suitable for him." (NIV, Genesis 2:18)

The Hebrew word for helper, ezer, is also used to describe God himself in  Psalms 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11.

So, we have that women were made to be a helper, not a servant to men, and, don't remember where this came from but, God didn't pick a bone from his feet to be under man, nor from his head to be over him, but from his rib to be equal with him.

Then in Genesis 2:27-28 and Genesis 5:1-2 they were created in the likeness of God.

In Genesis 3:16-19, when they were both booted out of the Garden, both were punished by God.

In the OT we have writings and examples of influential women, such as:  Deborah, Esther, Hannah, Huldah, Jochebed, Miriam, Noadiah, Rachel, Rebekah, Rahab, Ruth and Sarah

In the 10 Commandments we also see that we need to honor both of our parents: Exodus 20:12

In the NT Mary and Elizabeth were models of virtue and faithfulness as both put their trust in God: Luke 1:26-45.

Jesus allowed women to travel with him and the Apostles, Luke 8:1-3, though women were normally relegated to just staying at home.

"Proper" Jews didn't talk with Samaritans, and especially the women, but Jesus had a long talk with the woman at the well: John 4:4-30, 39-42.

Women were generally not well educated, nor given roles in religion, but a lady named Mary sat at the feet of Jesus while he taught, and he suggested her sister Martha do the same: Luke 10:38-42.

In the early church women were held as near-equals and given positions of authority: Acts 1:12-14, 9:36, 16:14, 18:24-26, 21:7-9, Romans 16:1-16.

We also have that there is no difference based on gender, status or wealth, for example, in the early Christian church: Galatians 3:26-29.

OK, so we see in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 that women shouldn't speak in church, but in  1 Corinthians 11:5  we see that women were allowed to pray and prophecy, so if we look at 1 Cor 14 there was some problem in the church in Corinth, as this was about some disruptive practices, so it may be that some women were causing issues based on talking too loud or often, but 1 Cor 14:33-35 was not to be taken as a church norm.

We see in Ephesians 5:21-30 that though men should be in charge of the family, women are not slaves, but should be treated with honor by the husbands.

So, if we remember to love each other as we see in 1 Cor 13, and treat our wives with the same respect as Jesus showed to the church by willingly being crucified, then we should see that women are treated carefully, with love and respect.

To see how modern times change the role of women we can look at Mary Magdalene (http://www.marypages.com/MaryMagdalene.htm).

She was not a prostitute, but was a vital part of Jesus' ministry, as is evident as the first person He appeared to when He was resurrected was her, not Peter.  It was in the middle ages I believe that the story that she was a prostitute was created.

She was called the Apostle to the Apostles,and was seen to have been held in high regard by the early Church.

This would have been unusual for a woman to be seen this way, but the early Church, and Jesus, were not always bound by cultural mores, but there were times when they did give in, such as telling women to wear veils, as they were focused on spiritual issues and not on worldly ones (2 Corinthians 5:17).