According to the Puritans, at what time did the Sabbath start and end?

Puritans hold several different views regarding the exact timing of the Sabbath.  Perhaps the most widespread view is that the Christian Sabbath begins on Saturday at sunset and continues until sunset on Sunday.

New England Puritan Thomas Shepard argues from Old Testament precedent for the evening-to-evening Sabbath:

  If, therefore, the Sabbath began at evening from Adam's time in innocency till Nehemiah's time, and from Nehemiah's time till Christ's time, why should any think but that where the Jewish Sabbath, the last day of the week, doth end, there the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week, begins?1

He clearly understands this to be a 24-hour period, saying that those at high latitudes, when the sun does not go down for weeks in the summer, are to measure the Sabbath day "by the circling sun round about them."1

Sunday night

Some Puritans maintained restrictions into Sunday night.  The Church of England in the early 17th century saw the Sabbath as ending Sunday evening, but Puritans like Nicholas Bownde opposed them on this point:

  Almost all bishops allowed for the use of lawful recreations after evening prayer [on the Lord's day]; a liberty that Bownde and other precisionists found abhorrent and contrary to scripture.

In the 17th century, Murray Rothbard writes, "the New England Sabbath began rigorously at sunset Saturday evening and continued through Sunday night,"2 and, similarly, Jonathan Edwards "preached often and sadly against 'Sabbath evening dissipations and mirth-making.'"3  In response, some derisively said that "New England Christians had improved [God's] law by setting apart a day and a half,"3 rather than just a single day.  But to be fair, at least some of these Puritans argued for a Sunday morning to Monday morning Sabbath, as described by Joseph Clark:

  The Puritans did not all commence their Sabbath on Saturday evening.  Mr. W. Perkins, in his "Cases of Conscience," [...] argues strongly in favor of beginning the Christian Sabbath "in the morning and so to continue till the next morning."4

Thomas Vincent takes this approach and specifies midnight as the beginning of the day, but requires preparation during the prior evening:

  In the evening before [...] we ought to begin to prepare for the Sabbath; but the Sabbath itself doth not begin until the evening is spent, and midnight thereof over, and the morning after twelve of the clock beginneth.5

Daytime Sabbath

Finally, 17th century Puritan John Owen takes a different approach.  He recognizes that this question is "a matter of controversy" but does not consider it of "great importance."  He rejects the 24-hour (evening to evening) view, instead understanding that the Christian Sabbath lasts as long as the daylight:

  The day of labor is from the removal of darkness and the night, by the light of the sun, until the return of them again; which [...] seems to be the just measure of our day of rest.6

Summary

We've seen that the Puritans take several approaches to the question of the time of the Sabbath, as follows:

Saturday evening to Sunday evening
Saturday evening to Sunday night
Sunday morning to Monday morning

including, specifically, midnight Sunday to midnight Monday

Sunday morning to Sunday evening

It's thus not a matter of settled opinion.

References:

Shepard, Works, v3, 252
Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty, Volume 1, Chapter 20, 168
Earle, The Sabbath in Puritan New England, 256–57
Clark, in The Congregational Quarterly, v1, 275
Vincent, Explicatory Catechism, Question 58.6
Owen, A Treatise on the Sabbath, 214–16


Why did Jesus question God on the cross?

I do not think that one reading the Gospel account could say that Jesus was wondering of the plan of God at this point in the salvation history. Here is how Jesus present himself in the good shepherd discourse :

  14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
  The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Jn 10:14–18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
  emphasis added

Jesus came to die on the cross. It was not part of the plan, but the plan all together. Here is how John the Baptist presents Jesus :

  29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
  The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Jn 1:29). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The cross was the plan all along. Why did Jesus quote the psalm 22 on the cross? In doctrine there is a separation in the relationship between Jesus and God, when Jesus bored the sins on the cross. That was the first separation of Jesus with the Father since eternity past. That might be the reason why Jesus quotes this psalm.


Is the Eastern Orthodox opposition to the Immaculate Conception an innovation?

Is the Eastern Orthodox opposition to the immaculate conception an innovation? YES

In light of their own Tradition which already celebrated the Immaculate Conception having their own liturgy during the early Church Father time.

  Fr. Casimir Kucharek in his magnus opus "The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" (1971; Alleluia Press, pp. 355-357) marshals the evidence that the early Eastern Church did believe in and commemorate the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos:

  *Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as "archrantos", "the immaculate, spotless one," no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: "This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary..."; "She is conceived...the only immaculate one"; "or "Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled...." [References: From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast; From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast; From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast.]*

  Has Eastern Orthodoxy always opposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, the Mother of God? She is praised in the Megalynarion hymn in the Divine Liturgy and in Vespers and Matins showing the pre-eminence of Mary among the saints:
  It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cheribum, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word: True Theotokos, we magnify you.

  *How is the Theotokos "most pure"? Most Orthodox would say that she was without sin at the Annunciation, but would disagree that the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate by St. Anne. Fr. Peter E. Gillquist comments in "Becoming Orthodox":*

This is where the problem starts with some if not most of the Orthodox. The question is when is Mary begin to be addressed "All-Holy" or spotless?

Some or perhaps most acknowledged Mary as "All-Holy" at the Annunciation, and this is where the innovation begin as the Eastern Orthodox upheld Mary's dignity even at Her origin coming from a saintly parents.

  No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God's creation. For hundred of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title.

ORTHODOXY AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE THEOTOKOS—UNIQUE TO THE MODERN ROMAN CHURCH OR ANCIENT EASTERN TRADITION?

So, the problem really is Eastern Orthodox must revisit one of their Great Theologian and also acknowledge by the West as Doctor of the Church. The wisdom & teaching of St. John Damascene can harmonize the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Immaculate Conception Dogma even the teaching of the Great Saint St.John Paul II saying "Absolute Enmity".

The question is where does enmity started between Mary and Satan? The one who infected Eve with his malice and tempted Adam to commit the sin of disobedience.

To believe in Eastern Orthodox that Mary contracted the guilt or was born with a fallen human nature would contradict the biblical teachings and Tradition stating Mary was the New Eve and the New Ark of the Covenant.

Aside from this, the Holy Eucharist is the source of Eternal Life which is "body & blood" of the Crucified Jesus which found it's source in Mary's own flesh & blood.

  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John6:53-55)

With Jesus not compromising this hard teaching even if all the Apostles left Him, how come the East would embraced that at some point in Mary's life her flesh was "touch" by Satan?

So, if St.John Paul II stated the enmity is absolute, meaning there is no window or even a slight event that satan ever "touch" the Blessed Virgin Mary. When does the enmity must start?

We found the clear answer from God Himself after the Fall of Adam & Eve.

Genesis 3:15 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

  "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Now let's connect St.John Paul II teaching on "Absolute Enmity" with God declaring "perennial enmity" with St.John Damascene words;

  “O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

  "O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens."

A Little Treatise on Mary by St. John Damascene

  “She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650). -  THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

  492 *The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".*

St.John Damascene teaching is the answer to Catechism of the Catholic Church when it teaches Mary was redeemed in a more exalted fashion. How? right at the very seed that St.Joachim poured-out. The generation of the seed coming from St.Joachim is where the "Body & Blood" the merit of Jesus Christ had been applied and preserved during "marital act" and sustain at Anne pure & holy womb by the assistance of God's singular & unique overflowing graces to exalt the dignity of the future Mother of God. In this way it affirmed all the text in Ineffabilis Deus pointing to the original holiness purity of Mary at the very beginning of Her existence. Satan had never touch Mary right at the very seed, the source of Her flesh or human nature. God redeemed the human nature of Mary by purifying the seed of St.Joachim, like a purified gold.

Reading the whole text of the Dogma of Immaculate Conception will open your eyes to a lot of revealed and acknowledge Truth about the purity,sanctity,holiness,dignity,etc. of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful.

  This sublime and singular privilege of the Blessed Virgin, together with her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness and freedom from every stain of sin, as well as the unspeakable abundance and greatness of all heavenly graces, virtues and privileges

  In like manner did they use the words of the prophets to describe this wondrous abundance of divine gifts and the original innocence of the Virgin of whom Jesus was born. They celebrated the august Virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.

Ineffabilis Deus

Note: Read again the Dogma of Immaculate Concepcion and you will find that this document described Mary's purity right at the very beginning from the mouth of God.Why? She is the Woman destined enflesh the Divine Word to dwell among us and also the Woman destined to give house to the Holy Spirit to indwelt in us.

  721 Mary, the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God, is the masterwork of the mission of the Son and the Spirit in the fullness of time. For the first time in the plan of salvation and because his Spirit had prepared her, the Father found the dwelling place where his Son and his Spirit could dwell among men. In this sense the Church's Tradition has often read the most beautiful texts on wisdom in relation to Mary.101 Mary is acclaimed and represented in the liturgy as the "Seat of Wisdom."

In closing, The Eastern Orthodox must upheld the teaching of St.John Damascene in order for them to embraced the Wisdom in the defined and proclaimed teaching of the Immaculate Conception. And he Catholic Church must embraced the teaching of St.John Damascene too in order for them to described & support their Catechism in how Mary was redeemed in a more exalted way.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was redeemed in a more exalted way better than St.John the Baptist even better than the prophet Jeremiah and to all the chosen souls (patriarchs & prophets) whom the merit of Jesus Christ won at the Foot of the Cross had been applied in advance to fulfill the Divine Plan of Salvation.

"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship[b] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—  to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves."(Ephesians1:4-6)


Did John Wesley reject the Athanasian Creed?

A Google Books search yielded only two documents from the time period you referenced that mention the Athanasian creed — and only one of them actually deals with Wesley's writings during that time period.

John Wesley's father wrote a letter (dated October 19, 1725) to his son during the time he was supposed to have taken orders. The letter is "intended to resolve some doubts with regard to the Athanasian creed":

  "You seem staggered at the severe words in the Athanasian creed. Consider, their point is levelled against, and only against obstinate heretics. A distinction is undoubtedly to be made, between what is wilful, and what is in some measure involuntary. God certainly will make a difference. We don't so well know it. We therefore must leave that to him, and keep to the rule, which he has given us."

  — Memoirs: With A Review Of His Life And Writings

Secondly, an excerpt from John Wesley's journal (towards the end of December 1760). In a letter to Lloyd's Evening Post, he addresses the charge that some earlier comments "falsify the first Article of the Athanasian Creed":

  "But how so? Why, I said 'The fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, whosoever will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith.'"

  — An extract of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley's Journal


Simply put, If you imagine God as a house, then Jesus is the door -

  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6 ESV (cf. John 10:1-9)

If you want to go in, you go through him.  The door is part of the house and inextricably linked to (one with) it:

  [ Jesus: ] "I and the Father are one." - John 10:30 ESV (cf. John 14:9, Hebrews 1:1-3)

Once through the door, you have access to the whole house:

  For through him [Christ] we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. - Ephesians 2:18 ESV (cf. Romans 5:2)

But if you seek to go another way, at best you will only ever get glimpses through a window, you will not actually enter in (to true fellowship with the living God by adoption into His family) and more likely you will either be staring at a blank wall or falling in a ditch!

  No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. - 1 John 2:23 ESV (cf. John 3:35-36, Romans 8)

Note the 'must' in Acts 4:10-12 -

  10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (ESV, emphasis added)

Prior to the New Covenant, God made provision for people to approach him by Faith in His grace and mercy through the ways He showed them to approach him at that particular time (to Abraham it was by believing his word and travelling out in obedience, under the Mosaic Covenant, it was by seeking to be obedient to God's law and exercising faith in the efficacy of the tabernacle/temple sacrifices to atone for sin [which were a shadow of what was to come] when (inevitably!) falling short of God's standard). These means were never meant to be stand alone systems that could provide their benefit independantly of a continued faith in God and obedience to His ways, but they were always contingent on the more perfect means of Salvation that God had prepared to be the substance of their fore-shadowing from all eternity past - which remained veiled until it was finally revealed through the work of the Father's only begotten son - Jesus Christ who represents the clear and infallible (not in any way speculative) way of salvation - if you put your trust in him you must be saved.

  For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
  5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
  “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
      but a body have you prepared for me;
  6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
      you have taken no pleasure.
  7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
      as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”
  8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
  11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. - Hebrews 10:1-14 ESV (emphasis added)

In summary: You asked -

If God is one then why is belief in God insufficient?

The short answer is that belief in God is entirely sufficient if by that you mean trusting him entirely and accepting the perfect way He has shown us to approach Him and fellowship with Him (i.e. Through Christ); If you don't trust in the way He has provided though (especially if you actually reject it!), the (orthodox/Nicaean) Christian perspective is that you are not actually believing (i.e. trusting and obeying) God

So well we might say:

  how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? - Hebrews 2:3a ESV


What was the debate at the Reformation concerning "non extra carnem" vs. "extra calvinisticum"?

I'm not sure I understand the specifics of the issue exactly, but the Essay Library from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod often has good resources on questions like this.

A quick search turned up two essays that seem to speak to the questions:

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/PetersCalvin.pdf

and

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/SchulzGenus.pdf

[EDIT]

Sorry for the format of my initial answer. I went through the first document a bit more carefully and it looks like the difference between the Calvinists and Lutherans was about how Christ's body was present in the Eucharist.

From the first article:

  Calvin’s main objection to the Lutheran understanding of the sacrament
  was that the Lutherans understood the body and blood of Christ to be
  present substantially...and would allow no figurative understanding of
  Jesus’ words of institution. The Lutherans believed that Christ’s true
  body was able to be simultaneously present on many altars by virtue of
  the communication of attributes...and therefore truly present under
  the physical elements of bread and wine.


LDS belief in pre-existence of the human person vs. human physical deformities

As it says in the quotation, "The revelations teach that premortal spirit bodies have general resemblance to their physical counterparts."  The key word there is "general."

The LDS explanation is that such imperfections are tied up with Adam and Eve, and the Fall of Man.

  The man and the woman had now become mortal; through indulgence in food unsuited to their nature and condition and against which they had been specifically warned, and as the inevitable result of their disobeying the divine law and commandment, they became liable to the physical ailments and bodily frailties to which mankind has since been the natural heir. Those bodies, which before the fall had been perfect in form and function, were now subjects for eventual dissolution or death.

  James E. Talmage, Jesus The Christ, chapter 3, The Need of a Redeemer.  (Emphasis added)

As a result of the Fall, the conditions of immortality and physical perfection that Adam and Eve enjoyed while in the garden were stripped from mankind, and we became subject to the problems and tribulations of mortal life.  Humanity was cast out of the paradise of Eden into a harsh, hostile environment that would grow "thorns and thistles" and require a great deal of effort to overcome.  And indeed, birth defects are generally caused by some external factor causing something to go wrong with the gestation process.

However, Latter-Day Saints believe that such physical deformities are just that: physical problems, unrelated to our eternal spiritual identity.  In this video clip, the Apostle Dallin H. Oaks speaks of birth defects and other lasting physical deformities, assuring us that they will be corrected in the Resurrection, when our bodies are made immortal and perfected, restored to "their proper and perfect frame."


The word Dragon occurs 13 times in the Bible but only in the highly symbolic book of Revelation. From the Ancient Greek drakôn (δράκων), meaning "giant serpent", depicting a terrifying monster, a serpentlike devourer. This is an appropriate portrayal of Satan due to him using a snake to deceive Eve in the Garden of Eden.

In European tradition the dragon is typically fire-breathing and tends to symbolize chaos or evil, whereas in East Asia it is usually a beneficent symbol of fertility, associated with water and the heavens. In the Bible it is a “great fiery-colored dragon [terrifying monster, serpentlike devourer], with seven heads and ten horns,” having a tail that draws “a third of the stars of heaven” after him. (Rev. 12:3, 4 NWT)

In my own words, I would view the biblical dragon more like a giant red snake, with seven heads and ten horns; not the stereotypical type of dragon.


What is the biblical basis for God being omnipresent?

David speaks of God's ability to be everywhere in Psalms 139:

  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy
  presence?
  If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in
  hell, behold, thou art there.
  If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost
  parts of the sea;
  Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold
  me.
  If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall
  be light about me.
  Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as
  the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. (Psalms 139:7-12;)

Another passage in the Old Testament is Jeremiah 23:24:

  24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him?
  saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

There are a few other scriptures in the New Testament that could also be referring to omnipresence:

  "For in him we live, and move, and have our being..." (Acts: 17:28)

  "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head
  over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him
  that filleth all in all." (Ephesians 1:22-23)

  "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;"
  (Colossians 1:19)


What is the Biblical basis for the Holy Spirit being God?

In Acts 5:1-4 it says Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit and has therefore lied to God:

  Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a
  piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part
  of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the
  apostles’ feet.
  Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your
  heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself
  some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you
  before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your
  disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied
  just to human beings but to God."

In 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 we see the Spirit is the Lord:

  Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
  is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the
  Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with
  ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

The bold text is my emphasis of course.


Beelzebub or Beelzebul?

The word "Beelzebub" occurs seven (7) times in seven (7) verses in the 1769 edition of the King James Version translation.1 It is transliterated from the Greek word Βεελζεβούλ which is an indeclinable proper noun (i.e., a name). The accurate English transliteration of Βεελζεβούλ is not "Beelzebub" but "Beelzeboul" (or "Beelzebul"). Note the ending of the Greek word Βεελζεβούλ: it is an λ /l/, not a β /b/.

So, why did the committee of men who produced the King James Version write "Beelzebub" instead of "Beelzebul"? It cannot be known for certain, but it could be that they were influenced by St. Jerome who produced the Latin Vulgate. In it, he wrote Beelzebub when transliterating Βεελζεβούλ into Latin.

For example, Matt. 10:25 in the Latin Vulgate states,

  sufficit discipulo ut sit sicut magister eius et servus sicut dominus eius si patrem familias Beelzebub vocaverunt quanto magis domesticos eius

It is interesting to note that the Peshitta also has the Syriac equivalent of "Beelzebub," that being ܒܿܥܠܙܒܼܘܼܒܼ (note the ending: ܒܼ /b/ ather than ܠ /l/):

  ܣܦܼܩ ܠܗ ܠܬܼܠܡܝܕܼܐ ܕܿܢܗܘܐ ܐܝܟܼ ܪܒܿܗ܂ ܘܠܥܒܼܕܿܐ ܐܝܟܼ ܡܪܗ܂ ܐܢ ܠܡܪܗ ܕܿܒܼܝܬܿܐ ܩܪܘ ܒܿܥܠܙܒܼܘܼܒܼ܃ ܚܕܼ ܟܿܡܐ ܠܒܼܢܝ̈ ܒܿܝܬܿܗ܂

Even more interesting is that Symmachus, who produced another Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh in the late 2nd century A.D., translated the Hebrew phrase בַּעַל זְבוּב into Greek as Βεελζεβούλ, the same word (name) which occurs in the Greek NT.

So, why did St. Jerome write Beelzebub in Latin rather than Beelzebul? In his commentary on Matt. 10:25, St. Jerome wrote,

St. Jerome believed that Βεελζεβούβ (rather than Βεελζεβούλ) was a reference to בַּעַל זְבוּב (Báʿal Zḇūḇ), the god of Ekron (a city of the Philistines) in 2 Kings 1:2:

  And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease. (KJV, 1769)

  וַיִּפֹּ֨ל אֲחַזְיָ֜ה בְּעַ֣ד הַשְּׂבָכָ֗ה בַּעֲלִיָּתֹ֛ו אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּשֹׁמְרֹ֖ון וַיָּ֑חַל וַיִּשְׁלַ֣ח מַלְאָכִ֔ים וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵהֶם֙ לְכ֣וּ דִרְשׁ֗וּ בְּבַ֤עַל זְבוּב֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י עֶקְרֹ֔ון אִם־אֶחְיֶ֖ה מֵחֳלִ֥י זֶֽה׃ (WLC)

  καὶ ἔπεσεν Οχοζιας διὰ τοῦ δικτυωτοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ ὑπερῴῳ αὐτοῦ τῷ ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ καὶ ἠρρώστησεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς δεῦτε καὶ ἐπιζητήσατε ἐν τῇ Βααλ μυῖαν θεὸν Ακκαρων εἰ ζήσομαι ἐκ τῆς ἀρρωστίας μου ταύτης καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἐπερωτῆσαι δ αὐτοῦ  (Rahlfs LXX)

The men who produced the LXX translated the Hebrew phrase בַּעַל זְבוּב into Greek as Βααλ μυῖαν, which is actually a transliteration and translation. That is, they transliterated בַּעַל into Greek as Βααλ, and they translated זְבוּב into Greek as μυῖαν, meaning "flies," which seems to be the meaning elsewhere (cp. Ecc. 10:1).

In his commentary on Matt. 12:24, John Lightfoot (pp. 203-204) wrote,

According to this theory, Βεελζεβούλ is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew phrase בַּעַל זֶבֶל ("lord of dung") or בַּעַל זָבוּל ("lord of dunghill"), which itself would be an intentional alteration of בַּעַל זְבוּב ("lord of flies") for the purpose of repudiating idolatry. While the verb זָבַל (zaḇál) and its related derivatives do not occur in biblical Hebrew (to my knowledge), they do occur in later Mishnaic Hebrew, which would have been known during the time of New Testament. Jastrow (p. 379) notes that the noun זֶבֶל (zéḇel) means "manure," i.e. dung.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on "Idol Worship,"

  Although the Jews were forbidden in general to mock at anything holy, it was a merit to deride idols (Meg. 25b), and Akiba decreed that the names of the gods be changed into derogatory names (Sifre, Deut. 61, end, et passim). Thus, Baal-zebub (II Kings i. 2, 6) is called Beel-zebul (בעל זבול = "dominus stercoris") in Matt. xii. 24, 27, and elsewhere, and the word with which the Talmud designates sacrifice to idols (זבל; Yer. Ber. 13b) literally means "to manure."

Satan as the "Master of the Dunghill" and "Prince of Demons"

זָבוּל, or dunghill, was a euphemism for a idolatrous place of worship, and similarly, זֶבֶל, or dung, was a euphemism for idolatry itself. The fallen angels and evil/unclean spirits were considered responsible for inciting humans to idolatry.

For example, in 1 Enoch 19:1-3, it is written,

  1 And Uriel said to me: 'Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods, (here shall they stand,) till the day of the great judgement in 2 which they shall be judged till they are made an end of. And the women also of the angels who 3 went astray shall become sirens.' And I, Enoch, alone saw the vision, the ends of all things: and no man shall see as I have seen. (R. H. Charles)

Since Satan was considered to be the leader of the fallen angels (cp. Rev. 12:9), and the fallen angels and demons were responsible for inciting men to idolatry or "dung," it was fitting for Satan to be known as Baʿal Zevul, the master of the dunghill (i.e., idolatrous place of worship), and thus, the leader of the demons (ὁ ἄρχων τῶν δαιμονίων).

Footnotes

1 Matt. 10:25, 12:24, 12:27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 11:18, 11:19

References

Field, Frederick. Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol. 1. Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1875.

Jerome. Commentary on Matthew (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 117). Trans. Scheck, Thomas P. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008.

Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Vol. 1. London: Luzac; New York: Putnam, 1903.

Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae ("Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations"), Vol. 2. Trans. Gandell, Robert. Oxford: UP of Oxford, 1859.


What sins can be absolved only by a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church?

A priest can absolve any sin; however, a priest cannot absolve from reserved excommunications unless he is given permission to do so by his bishop (cf. the rite for absolving from excommunication).

Some sins (e.g., abortion; cf. Ken Graham's answer above) also incur an excommunication that is reserved to the local ordinary (bishop), and other excommunications (e.g., for illicitly consecrating bishops, as happened in China) are even reserved to the Apostolic See (pope). Thus, while a priest could absolve the sin, a bishop or pope might be necessary to absolve the excommunication (i.e., reincorporate the penitent back as a member of the Church).


Honestly, there are a lot of questions there and rather than skip around I'm going to give one really long background on the birthright and blessing. Just be glad I'm not also giving a treatment to the meaning of firstborn.

There is a TL;DR Conclusion at the end, where I will revisit each specific question.

But first there is a lot of groundwork to lay.

Birthrights and Blessings

First we must understand the meaning of the birthright and blessing.

Birthright gave the son a double portion of the inheritance (Deut 21:17). He also received authority over his father's house and carried the family name. A sort of patriarchal succession. These are very physical, earthly rewards.

The blessing is a bit less specific and often varied. But the first blessing always seems to be the greater. It also often has prophetic meaning, though the people at the time probably thought of it the other way around. That receiving a good blessing ensured the future it promised. They may have physical results, but the giving of the blessing is spiritual in nature.

Covenant with Abraham

There is a third aspect here, however, specific to Abraham's family: God's covenant with him.

Along with the land of Canaan and a promise to be the God of his children, God promised Abraham (Gen 12)

Great number of descendants (Physical)
All the families of the world be blessed through him (Spiritual)

Isaac

Isaac was recognized as Abraham's firstborn, though Ishmael was technically first, but not God's firstborn.

God pledged to establish this same covenant with Isaac specifically in Genesis 17:21, thereby leaving Ishmael out (though Ishmael does receive a lesser blessing of his own).

God also then gives Isaac a blessing when Abraham dies. Whether this was a separate blessing unique from God or this was God honoring the blessing Abraham passed to him, we cannot know for sure. Gen 25:11

  After the death of Abraham, God blessed Isaac his son.

Jacob

The pattern continues with Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob, with Esau as the firstborn.
However, God told Rebekah that the younger would serve the older, implying that the younger would receive the birthright and/or blessing. Gen 25:23

Jacob, in fact, does get both the birthright and the blessing. This is where we first see the birthright and blessing clearly distinguished.  Esau sells his birthright, and is later cheated out of his blessing and refers to them both as separate things. Gen 27:36

  He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing.”

This is also the first time the Covenant has had two legitimate sons to pass to, but instead of passing to Esau or to both Esau and Jacob, it goes solely to Jacob.

Which begs the question:
Did Abraham's Covenant follow the birthright or the blessing?
Or is it both or neither one? Well let's see:

This is Isaac's to blessing to Jacob. Gen 27:27-29

  “See, the smell of my son
  is as the smell of a field that the LORD has blessed!

  May God give you of the dew of heaven
  and of the fatness of the earth
  and plenty of grain and wine.

  Let peoples serve you,
  and nations bow down to you.
  Be lord over your brothers,
  and may your mother’s sons bow down to you.
  Cursed be everyone who curses you,
  and blessed be everyone who blesses you!”

Emphasis added by me. Do those parts sound familiar?
Genesis 22:17

  I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,

Genesis 12:3

  I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Also in this blessing we have bountiful wealth and the authority over his family.
So we see the birthright AND elements of Abraham's covenant being passed in Isaac's blessing.

Jacob later receives a renewal of Abraham's covenant from God himself (Gen 28:14)

  Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

So Jacob receives four promises:

Double inheritance from Isaac (Birthright)
Authority over his father's house. (Blessing and Birthright)
Descendants/Fruitful (Blessing and Covenant)
Bless the nations (Covenant

Quite the haul! So we see Abraham's covenant following those who receive both the birthright and the blessing in the cases of Isaac and Jacob.

Jacob's Sons

Judah was the fourth born son, but due to his older brothers Reuben, Simeon and Levi's failures he rose to the top of the legal "firstborn" rankings. (Genesis 34:25, 35:22)

Meanwhile, Joseph was given visions by God showing him that his father's household would bow down to him. Which his brothers clearly understood as a claim to the birthright's authority. However, Jacob takes note that it isn't just the brothers bowing to Jospeh but Jacob as well! This is highly unusual, for the authority of the birthright has not superseded the father's before ("mother's sons will bow").

It ends up making sense though, as Jacob and his household do end up bowing down to Joseph in Egypt under entirely different circumstances than they could have ever expected. So it seems the vision was not speaking of the birthright's authority, but was only prophetic of Joseph ruling in Egypt.

Then at the end of his life Jacob summons Joseph and his two sons, Manasseh the elder and Ephraim the younger (Gen 48). Jacob declares that they will be counted as his own sons. Not just as his own sons, but as Reuben and Simeon are. Remember who Reuben and Simeon are? The oldest two sons!

Jacob is not just adopting them into his inheritance, he is proclaiming them to be counted as the eldest! This detail is often overlooked (1 Chr 5:1)

Jacob continues on to give them their firstborn blessing, but not satisfied to have upset the normal order just once in placing them ahead of Reuben and Simeon, he crosses his arms and places his right hand on Ephraim, the younger!

First, Jacob proclaims a blessing over Joseph, which we can understand as both sons: Gen 48:15,16

  15And he blessed Joseph and said,
  “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
  the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,

  16 the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys;
  and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;
  and let them grow into a multitude (or fullness) in the midst of the earth.”

Which of the four that Jacob received do we see here?

Many descendants

I will also note that Jacob says "in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac".
It is speculation, but one can say at the least that this ensures their inclusion as equal sons and future tribes of Jacob/Israel. One could also take it to be prophetic in that the name Israel does very much carry on in Ephraim and Manasseh throughout history. Even during David's time, before the division of the kingdom, the army of the north, led by Ephraim, are called the army of Israel, while the army of the south is the army of Judah (1 King 2:32). And of course, when the kingdom is divided God says to Jeroboam the Ephraimite that He is going to be "king over Israel" and indeed the northern kingdom keeps the name of Israel, apart from Judah (1 King 11:37)

Finally, Jacob turns to bless Ephraim and Manasseh specifically, giving Ephraim the greater blessing, a prophecy of becoming great nations (Gen 48:19). Thus Jacob reinforces that while both will receive the blessing from Abraham's covenant, Ephraim receives the first and greater share.

Now Jacob gathers all his sons and gives each their own blessing, as we saw Isaac still give Esau his own blessing apart from Jacob. He gives the blessings in order of birth, not importance.

Judah is given a unique blessing in Gen 49:10

  The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
  nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
  until tribute comes to him;fn
  and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Judah appears to be given the authority to lead. 1 Ch 5:2 affirms that though Joseph received the birthright, Judah lead the nation.

Then Joseph receives his blessing which once again affirms descendants, fruitfulness, and the blessing of God.

The Breakdown

So let's check the score:

Joseph

Fruitful Inheritance, Double Portion in Two Tribes - Birthright (Jos 17:14-18)
Great Descendants - Covenant (Also Jos 17:17)

Judah

Authority - Birthright

There is only one part missing, that all nations will be blessed through him.

Peter identifies the link in Acts 3 and Paul agrees in Galatians 3 that it is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of David of the tribe of Judah who has both received the ruler's staff and in whom all the families of the earth are blessed.

TL;DR Conclusion

  First, why does Jacob pass the birthright to Joseph's sons, and not Joseph himself? In fact, before doing so, why does Jacob essentially say that Joseph's sons are now considered to be his sons? What is the meaning of this?

As I hope to have displayed above, Jacob adopted Joseph's sons as his own and as his firstborn. As for why, we can't be sure, but by doing so and by counting each as full fledged sons, he ensured Joseph received the double portion (one in each) of the birthright. Joseph is 11th in line to be the physical firstborn, but Jacob chooses him above the rest.

  Second, what is the significance of choosing Ephraim, the younger, over Manasseh, the older?

God chose Ephraim just like he chose Isaac, the son of a free woman, over Ishmael, the son of a bondservant (Gal 4). Just like God chose Jacob over Esau before he was born (Romans 9). Ephraim is God's firstborn (Jer 31:9) not man's. This is seen by the New Testament writers to show how God chooses who he wills and that he can adopt anyone as his son or daughter regardless of our physical state of birth.

  Finally, even though Ephraim has the birthright, the lineage of Jesus comes through Judah. Why then, does the birthright not pass to Judah? Why is there a disconnect between this birthright and the importance of Judah in Jesus' lineage?

Joseph is said to receive the birthright, but it is clear he does not quite get all of it. Judah receives the authority. Whilte Ephraim and Judah were the two alpha tribes of Israel , chiefs and later kings came from Judah. (1 Ch 5:2)

Jesus does come from the line of Judah, one cannot help but believe it was for David's sake (2 Ch 21:7). Whether that means God knew David would come from Judah, or whether David was who he was (a king) only because he came from Judah is up to the reader.

Ephraim, through Joseph, receives the double portion half of the birthright and the great descendants half of the Covenant (same as half the Blessing if you agree that the Covenant follows the blessing and birthright). Ephraim is God's spiritual firstborn (Jer 31:9) like Isaac and Jacob were, despite not being physical firstborns according to law.

Judah receives the authority half of the birthright and the half that blesses all the families of the earth through the Covenant. He is the physical firstborn according to law.

The spiritual and physical parallelism of Ephraim and Judah is quite evidence. Judah physically provided, or delivered, the source of blessing in Jesus and Ephraim displays God's ability to spiritually adopt and bless firstborn children from among all the families of the earth through him.


What are the early Church Fathers' views on the veneration/honoring of Saints

The Catholic concept we're talking about is dulia:

a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary

With respect to Augustine, there are a couple of possible sources here:

We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel. [...] What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution.

From Against Faustus (Contra Faustum), book XX, chapter 21.
St. Augustine also talks about worship that is due to God alone in City of God (emphasis and transliterations mine):

[...] we must now, by God's help, ascertain what is thought about our religious worship and piety by those immortal and blessed spirits, who dwell in the heavenly places among dominations, principalities, powers, whom the Platonists call gods, and some either good demons, or, like us, angels — that is to say, to put it more plainly, whether the angels desire us to offer sacrifice and worship, and to consecrate our possessions and ourselves, to them or only to God, theirs and ours.
For this is the worship which is due to the Divinity, or, to speak more accurately, to the Deity; and, to express this worship in a single word as there does not occur to me any Latin term sufficiently exact, I shall avail myself, whenever necessary, of a Greek word. Λατρεία [latria], whenever it occurs in Scripture, is rendered by the word service. But that service which is due to men, and in reference to which the apostle writes that servants must be subject to their own masters, Ephesians 6:5 is usually designated by another word in Greek, whereas the service which is paid to God alone by worship, is always, or almost always, called λατρεία in the usage of those who wrote from the divine oracles.
[...] [λατρεία], we say, belongs only to that God who is the true God, and who makes His worshippers gods. And therefore, whoever these immortal and blessed inhabitants of heaven be, if they do not love us, and wish us to be blessed, then we ought not to worship them; and if they do love us and desire our happiness, they cannot wish us to be made happy by any other means than they themselves have enjoyed — for how could they wish our blessedness to flow from one source, theirs from another?

It's a bit trickier to find an Augustinian reference to Mary in this way. In On Nature and Grace he does imply that the Virgin Mary may have been sinless, unlike other saints:

Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin while they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer?  [...] I put it to you, whether, on having such a question submitted to them, however excellent might have been their sanctity in this body, they would not have exclaimed with one voice: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us? 1 John 1:8

Re: Other Church Fathers' and Mothers' views on the veneration, we have evidence for veneration-like practices at least as early as 155 AD, from the Church of Smyrna (transliterations mine):

Him indeed we adore (προσκυνουμεν) [proskinoumen] as the Son of God; but the martyrs we love as they deserve (αγαπωμεν αξιως) [agapomen axios], for their surpassing love to their King and Master, as we wish also to be their companions and fellow-disciples.

By the fourth century, this was well-established among some of the most famous saints of all time:

In one of his letters, St. Basil explicitly writes that he accepts the intercession of the apostles, prophets and martyrs, and he seeks their prayers to God (Letter 360). Then, speaking about the Forty Martyrs, who suffered martyrdom for Christ, he emphasizes that "they are common friends of the human race, strong ambassadors and collaborators in fervent prayers" (Chapter 8). St. Gregory of Nyssa asks St. Theodore the Martyr "to fervently pray to our Common King, our God, for the country and the people" (Encomium to Martyr Theodore). The same language is used by St. Gregory the Theologian in his encomium to St. Cyprian. St. John Chrysostom says that we should seek the intercession and the fervent prayers of the saints, because they have special "boldness" (parresia), before God. (Gen. 44:2 and Encomium to Julian, Iuventinus and Maximinus, 3).

Here's another bevy of quotations from a Catholic perspective about the intercession of saints.


How do Biblical Unitarians contextually explain Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28?

Thomas’ exclamation at John 20:28 “My Lord and my God!” is the culmination of a major theme in the Gospel of John. Initially, I viewed this as problematic from a unitarian perspective, something of a question mark – now I view it as central to understanding John’s message correctly. Instead of detracting from a unitarian interpretation of John, it buttresses it, once understood in the larger context of John’s Gospel and in particular John 14, which is the previous time Jesus speaks with Thomas in John’s Gospel.
This answer won’t focus on the grammar of the phrase, but a few notes on grammar are in order. The phrase itself could refer to one thing or two things – it is ambiguous. It would unambiguously refer to one thing if it were “My Lord and God.” If John had wanted to unambiguously apply both epithets to Jesus, he could have done so that way (as in John 20:17 – “the Father of you and Father of me”). But neither of these considerations are decisive. One response to this ambiguity is to point to how Thomas’ exclamation is said ‘to him’, i.e., to Jesus, so one could argue that both ought to apply to Jesus as they are both directed towards Jesus. Although this isn’t conclusive either, it is a good point – the comments are indeed directed towards Jesus and so logically it seems they should apply towards him. In this I am in agreement with some Trinitarians, but it doesn’t work out the way many Trinitarians think it does. More on this later.
Option 1.
Thomas is saying Jesus is Thomas’ Lord and Thomas’ God. This is the standard Trinitarian interpretation, and perhaps the most common interpretation of the phrase nowadays. If you think Jesus is claiming to be God in the Gospel of John, this makes sense as a culmination of that theme, this time going from one extreme of doubt to the other of conviction not just that Jesus is alive, or the Christ and the Son of God, but God himself – although of course Thomas wouldn’t have the Trinitarian language to express this more precisely as “God the Son.”
This is problematic, however, when you start to note how many times Jesus is distinguished from God in the Gospel of John. John 8:40 says it very clearly.

“a man, sent by God”

The examples here could be multiplied many times, but a few more will suffice here to drive home the point.
John 5

“I do nothing of my own”

Could God really do nothing on his own? Much of John 5 which features an extended response by Jesus clarifying his relationship with the Father, shows a clear asymmetry between the Son and the Father – the Son is the representative, messenger, and has been delegated authority. These all point towards the Son not claiming to be God, but rather (logically enough!) the Son of God and the Messiah. ‘The Son of God’ was simply a term in common use at the time to single out the Messiah, and is routinely coupled with it (ex., Nathanael in John 1, Peter at Matthew 16:16, and Caiaphas at Matthew 26:63, Mark 14:61). The Gospels clarify that this term ‘the Son of God’ is given by God because Mary will conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit (“And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David [i.e., be King]. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.”” Luke 1:31-35).
Similarly, Jesus distinguishes between himself and God at John 17:3

“And this is eternal life. That they may know you, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

where the context makes clear that the ‘you’ is the Father.
Similarly, John 20:31, just after Thomas’ exclamation, gives John’s summary of the most important points from his Gospel.

“But these [i.e., signs] are written so that you may come to believe
that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing
you may have life in his name.”

What are the important points? That Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. (Note the pairing again – these are closely related in the minds of ancient Jews, as they are in Psalm 2.) No mention of Jesus being God. This is strange, if indeed Thomas’ exclamation was intended to convey that Jesus is not just the Messiah and the Son of God, but God himself.
Obviously, Option 1. is not compatible with Biblical Unitarianism, but is included here to contrast the options that follow. The rest, however, are.
Option 2.
Thomas is expressing surprise. The expression is perhaps similar to saying “Oh my God!” This sounds natural to contemporary English speaking ears, who hear those sorts of mild oaths all the time – but it becomes problematic when transposed to ancient Jewish society, where carelessly uttering God’s name would almost certainly be frowned upon – if not viewed as blasphemous or a violation of a commandment (“Thou shalt not take the Lord your God’s name in vain”). Furthermore, Thomas is making his exclamation to Jesus (“Thomas said to him”), whereas an expression of surprise is generally not most naturally understood as being said to someone.
Option 3.
Thomas is simply mistaken. He thinks Jesus is God, but he’s wrong. You can point to various people being wrong in the Gospel of John as precedent here, including Thomas (John 14). Indeed, a major theme in the Gospel of John is that people are confused about what Jesus is saying and who he is. However, this seems odd coming a) near the very end of John’s Gospel, and b) without correction from Jesus. You might think that the Gospel writer would clarify this error if it were indeed an error of Thomas’. Instead, Jesus seems to approve of Thomas’ exclamation, chiding him only for taking so long to believe.
Option 4.
Thomas called Jesus a ‘god’, not ‘God’. So the phrase would be translated “My Lord and my god,” or more literally “The Lord of me and the god of me.” (With many passages referring to God or a god, context is required in the Greek to know which is which. Ancient Greek did not make a distinction in capitalization.) The commentary to the Revised English Version (a Biblical Unitarian translation) explores Option 4. at length here (and also discusses Option 5. in brief).
This idea of Thomas saying ‘god’ here has the precedent of Jesus himself referring to the gods of Psalm 82 and comparing himself to them in John 10, and has Old Testament precedent in the application of ‘god’ to Moses (Ex.) and judges (Psalm 82), among other things, and it would represent a development of Thomas’ views concerning Jesus and so make sense as a development of a theme within John’s Gospel re Jesus’ identity. However, it is not clear how likely Thomas – an observant monotheistic Jew – would be to use the word ‘god’ to describe Jesus – even with Jesus’ own comparison and Old Testament verses. Also, John does not then go on to note Jesus is a god in his summary at John 20:31, unless you take the Christ and the Son of God to be equivalent to calling Jesus a god. So this shares a problem with Option 1.
This perhaps would be the best option for a Biblical Unitarian – if not for Option 5.
Option 5.
This is the option I will present at length here. As Biblical Unitarian Anthony Buzzard summarizes it in his commentary on John 20:28 (The One God, the Father, One Man Messiah Translation: New Testament with Commentary, footnote 741)

“Finally seeing what he had earlier in ch. 14 missed, that in seeing
Jesus you see God the Father in action and word. This of course does
not mean that Jesus is the Father! No son is his own father! Thomas
certainly did not think that the creed of Israel and Jesus (Mk. 12:29)
was suddenly destroyed! John 17:3 defines the Father as “the only one
who is true GOD.” John wrote his whole book to prove that Jesus is the
Messiah (20:31).”

Buzzard summarizes it well, but a more detailed analysis is in order. (Also see Brother Kel’s commentary here, which has inspired some of the work below.)
The immediate context of Thomas’ exclamation is seeing and more generally having first-hand sensory evidence for the resurrected Jesus, and believing that Jesus is alive. At John 20:18,

“Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the
Lord”[.]”

Then the disciples at John 20:25 similarly.

“So the other disciples told [Thomas], “We have seen the Lord.” But he
said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and
put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will
not believe.”

Believe what? The immediate issue is belief in whether Jesus has resurrected, i.e., is alive. Thomas seems to think the other disciples saw a ghost or perhaps someone else, despite their testimonies (cf. Luke 24:36-43 “While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. He said to them “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”).
After appearing to the disciples again, John 20:27 specifically addresses Thomas who wasn’t there the first time.

“Then [Jesus] said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands.
Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.”

Seeing Jesus’ wounds and touching them will put to rest any idea that Jesus is a ghost or someone else.
Then Thomas 20:28-29

“Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have
you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not
seen and yet have come to believe.”

Again, believe what? The immediate issue is that Jesus resurrected. But is this the extent of belief involved? After all, Lazarus was resurrected, as was Jairus’ daughter. Why was Jesus’ still being alive so important? The answer is given in the next two lines, John 20:30-31.

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book. But these [i.e., signs] are
written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the
Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.”

Jesus’ resurrection is the ultimate sign that he is, indeed, the Messiah (compare “no sign will be given to [this generation] except the sign of the prophet Jonah,” i.e., Jesus’ resurrection, Matthew 12:38-41). The whole purpose of John’s Gospel is not to demonstrate that Jesus is God, but that Jesus is (contrary to what many people at the time were saying) the Messiah.
But why does Thomas say “My Lord and my God!”, seemingly going beyond Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God and calling Jesus instead God Himself?
Having established what the immediate context is about (that Jesus is alive, therefore has resurrected, therefore is the Messiah and the Son of God), we can now move to the larger context of this exchange in John, which gives us the straightforward reason. The larger most relevant context is John 14, which is also the same part of John where Thomas previously speaks to Jesus. Indeed, John 20:28 is a development of John 14. The greatest and final sign of Jesus’ Messiahship is that he has resurrected as he said he would. John 14:18-20

“I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. In a little while
the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live,
you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father,
and you in me, and I in you.”

‘On that day’. Which day? The day the disciples see him, because he is still alive despite being crucified. What will happen ‘on that day’? The disciples will know that Jesus is in his Father.
John 14:20 here also nicely clarifies the idea that Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Jesus. Similarly, the disciples are in Jesus and Jesus in them. Just as Jesus’ co-inherence with God does not make Jesus God, the disciples’ co-inherence with Jesus does not make them Jesus.
Now let’s move a bit further back in John 14 to Thomas’ interaction with Jesus, John 14:5-7.

“Thomas said to [Jesus], “Lord, we do not know where you are going.
How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way [to the
Father], and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From
now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Then Philip picks up the exchange (John 14:8-10).

“Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be
satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time,
Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the
Father. How can you say ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that
I am in the Father and the Father is in me?”

Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father. After resurrection, Thomas sees Jesus and exclaims “My Lord and my God!” Thomas is stating his belief in what Jesus is saying here at John 14. Thomas has seen Jesus, and therefore has seen the Father, i.e., God.
That Jesus understands just the Father to be God is made clear repeatedly throughout John, perhaps most straightforwardly at John 17:3 which was quoted in assessing Option 1. above, “And this is eternal life. That they may know you [i.e., the Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
Why is seeing Jesus seeing God? Because Jesus is the Messiah, as John makes clear in his statement of the purpose of his Gospel at John 20:31 – the messenger, representative, and one with delegated authority from God, who co-inheres with God (as the disciples will co-inhere with Jesus) and therefore says what God tells him to say and does what God tells him to do. Co-inherence is about a deep and abiding spiritual connection with God or Jesus, not identity.
Much more can be said about passages from John which inform Thomas’ exclamation, but the basic point is that John 20:28 must be read in context. The context strongly points toward Jesus claiming to be the Messiah and the Son of God, not God. The character development of Thomas, from John 14 to John 20, gives us the key to understanding Thomas’ exclamation. Now he sees Jesus’ true identity for the first time, and therefore sees his Lord, i.e., Jesus, and his God, i.e., the Father, because he now knows that Jesus co-inheres with the Father and is, indeed, the Messiah and the Son of God who does and says what the Father, i.e., God wants him to do or say.


According to the RCC is it allowed to have more then one wife?

No, it is not allowed:

Canon  1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
(Code of Canon Law)

In other words, if you are currently married, you may not marry again. To handle one possible objection, a man may not simultaneously marry multiple women; there are several points both in canon law and in the catechism at which marriage is referred to as being between a man and a woman. Canon 1057, for example, states:

§1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.
(emphasis added)

In other words, what makes a marriage a marriage is the consent given between the parties; and this consent can be given only between one man and one woman.
There are indeed several situations such as you describe in the Old Testament; however, it doesn't follow in general that such situations are still acceptable under the New Covenant. Indeed, it isn't clear that even in the Judaism of Jesus' time it was considered acceptable—for example, in his famous discussion about marriage with the Sadducees, both sides appeared to take it as given that the husband would only have one wife at a time.


What is the Catholic Church's position on recreational marijuana use?

Under Respect for health in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2291 the Church teaches

  The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and
  life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave
  offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are
  scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil,
  since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral
  law.

Thus the recreational use marijuana, considered a drug, would not be permissible.

And from the Vatican?

  Other churches take more of a hard-line approach to marijuana. The
  Catholic Church says that drugs "constitute direct co-operation in
  evil" and does not seem to make exceptions for marijuana. The Vatican
  has condemned legalizing "soft drugs" like marijuana, and its
  newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, recently scolded Italian lawmakers
  for liberalizing pot-possession laws. - Source: What Would Jesus
  Smoke? By Torie Bosch | Slate.

Please see also:

A real cure and prevention | On the campaigns to legalize drugs | L'Osservatore Romano, June 9, 2011.

  In this health emergency, the attempt to muddy the waters by
  classifying as a drug everything from wine to LSD is pathetic. So is
  the attempt to say that one need only know how to take them in
  moderation, without remembering that wine is a food nutrient and
  tobacco does not make you lose your head, but marijuana does. We are
  the first to be scandalized by the early consumption of tobacco and
  alcohol by young people and we ask for strong restrictions for youth
  and a clear campaign to dissuade binge drinking or the use of
  nicotine, but this does not mean that one needs to add a third
  disaster to the first two, especially at a time when the first two are
  showing signs of success.

And the first link below where Pope Francis is quoted as condemning the legalization of marijuana.

Please see also:

Pope Francis condemns legalization of marijuana | Google search.
AMERICA/URUGUAY - The legalization of marijuana will destroy family.
To Puff or Not to Puff, by NISSA LAPOINT | NCR.


Who bought the Field of Blood, Judas or the Priests?

They both did - it just depends on perspective for application of the word "bought".

It was Judas' money, and it was the priests who used the money he returned to them to buy the field.  They bought the field because they could not accept blood money and return it to the temple treasury.

In essence, the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas.

This is just like when my mother would give me money to go to the store to buy some groceries; we both bought the groceries - I did the physical act and she did through providing the financial resource (and, back in the day of single income families, so did my Dad in earning the income to begin with).


Here is a text - Rom 1:18-25 that describes people who know God but refuse to obey him and thus become depraved.  V21, 22 summarises this:

  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give
  thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their
  foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became
  fools

Here are three more (radical) suggestions that answer the question but may not satisfy the question(!?!)

Judas Iscariot met and knew Jesus (while on earth but who was still God, John 1:18, 5:17, 18, 20:28, etc) but later, betrayed Jesus and then went out and hanged himself.
The rich young ruler, Matt 18:18-25, who went away very sad because he loved his riches more than Jesus.
There is also the instance in Rev 6:15-17 where the wicked see Jesus (the "Lamb" on the throne) and ask to be destroyed because they do not want to be in His presence.

In all these cases, the people know and recognise God but refuse to have Him as their God.


Where does the story of the spider on the cross come from?

Okay, I did a lot of Googling using various search terms, all with "spider" and including one of "Jesus", "Christian", "Christianity", "Catholic", or "Orthodox" and one of "myth", "folklore", "folktale", or "legend". This is what I've found.
Web over the mouth of a cave
There are several versions of this one, but in every case, one party is fleeing from another and hides in a cave. A spider spins a web over the mouth of the cave, so the searching party assumes that their quarry is not inside because otherwise the web would have been broken.

David hiding from Saul (likely the original) - Wikipedia and spiderzrule.com
Mary, Joseph, and Jesus hiding during the flight from Herod - The Sutton Companion to the Folklore, Myths and Customs of Britain
Muhammed and Abu Bakr hiding from Quraysh soldiers - Wikipedia and spiderzrule.com
Saint Felix of Nola and Bishop Maximus hiding in an abandoned building. Twice! - Wikipedia
A World War II United States Marine - St. Luke the Evangelist Orthodox Church
Bonus: Yoritomo, a warrior from Japanese mythology hiding in a hollow tree - spiderzrule.com

Web over Jesus' cradle
This is where a spider spun a web over Jesus' cradle/manger and it protected Him from all harm.
I only found two sources with this: spiderzrule.com and The Encyclopaedia of Superstitions, Folklore, and the Occult Sciences of the World Volume 2 (twice).
The Christmas spider(s)
In this German/Ukrainian legend, spiders create cobwebs all over a Christmas tree and then something or someone changes the threads into gold and/or silver. This is believed to be the source of the traditions of hanging tinsel on the tree and putting a spider ornament on it.

Sunlight - Wikipedia
Father Christmas - spiderzrule.com (also mentioned on Wikipedia)
Child Jesus - kraftmstr.com (also mentioned on Wikipedia)

Spider on the cross
Unfortunately, I did not find any source with a story like this. In fact, the top Google results for "spider on the cross crucifixion" are almost all from this very website, Christianity Stack Exchange. If the tale does exist, I guess there isn't a record of it online. In that case, this question and answer is now the only record of it online!
So the answer to your question is (probably) nobody knows! If anyone does, they haven't said as much online (or in a book or article indexed by Google).


If Jesus was sinless then why was he baptized?

Jesus' baptism was not a confession of guilt. He fulfilled the rite of baptism because He identified Himself as one of us, taking the steps we are to take. His life of perfect submission here on earth is an example to us.

  Matthew 3 (NKJV)

  14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by
  You, and are You coming to me?”

  15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for
  thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he
  allowed Him.


According to the Catholic Church, do conjoined twins have two souls?

This is a pretty popular question on the web 2.0 Internet forums and apparently is still relevant in web 3.0 (or whatever StackExchange is).  But the Truths of the Church are still to be found on the old EWTN forums.
In the happy case where you have two distinct persons, you necessarily have two bodies (like Lake Michigan and Lake Superior are two bodies of water)

If two twins are connected physically, we still have two bodies with two  individual [sic] persons and, therefore, two souls. There has to be two souls if there are two persons involved. This situation is a mistake of nature, so to speak. So we may assume that at the resurrection of the body the twins will be in an ideal state of existing each on their own.
EWTN Q and A - Dr. Richard Geraghty - 1/23/2004

However, in the sadder case, there are instances where a second body was never formed where there is no concrete evidence that a second human was ever necessarily meant to exist:

A[n unformed] body, even though living but not having a head, is not a human being. So in this situation another human being was not killed.
EWTN Q and A - Dr. Richard Geraghty - 11/17/2007

Still, given the formation of the body or bodies God still has a plan in place, the natural function of twinning didn't fully take place.

Presumably, God would know about the upcoming twinning and would place both souls in the zygote and they would share a body for a time until they are separated [sic]. It certainly shouldn't be problematic to speak of two souls sharing a "body" because we conjoined twins. In essence they have never completed the "twinning" fully to the point of becoming two separate [sic] bodies
Jimmy Akin via Judie Brown - EWTN Q and A - 06/08/2006

You don't lack a soul simply because you were born with half pinky toes (I hope not, I've got half pinky toes).  But the opposite can happen too, even in the womb a body can be said to "not exist" because it was consumed (apparently as an act of healing by the rest of the cells)

In other words, the initial zygote can, under the right circumstances, dismiss a cell or group of cells that becomes that second baby (twin.) In the case of an anomaly that also occurs like the conjoined twins, we cannot say that two persons do not exist, but we can say that a circumstance has occurred [sic] which is tragic and, in the particular case you site, deadly.
Judie Brown - EWTN Q and A - 05/06/2002

So, there you have it,  conjoined twins have two souls, what they do with them is between them and God.

(just in case you were wondering, the people on EWTN's forum are "Experts" not shmoe's like me)

Dr. Richard Geraghty is a professor of philosophy.

Jimmy Akin is a "noted red-headed Internet apologist"

Judie Brown is the President of the American Life League


What's the first ancient document composed by a non-Christian denying the resurrection?

Tacitus a Roman historian and Senator wrote an account to help explain the fire at Rome circa CE 116.  He references Christ, His death, but nothing about a resurrection, unless that is to what the "mischievous superstition" points.

  Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
  -Annals

In other words the Christian belief was that Messiah would suffer and rise again on the third day.  That is a "package" belief.  Tacitus denies it all as a superstition and merely points to its "fallen leader".


What is the origin of the idea that the baby Jesus did not cry?

Did this idea originate from historical Christian doctrine?

I suggest the answer may be "no".  (I'm not citing any specific authoritative documents to prove this theory.)

Where did this idea come from that baby Jesus didn't cry?

When I was first exposed to this song, I recall thinking this:

People don't appreciate babies crying.  People know that babies cry, but people appreciate babies being quiet.  When a baby is sleeping, or otherwise just being quiet, people will sometimes refer to the baby as "being good".

Jesus was perfect.
That means Jesus was good.

I doubt that the song implied that Jesus never cried.  I think the song was just portraying a nice situation, including a moment of time when Jesus was being good (by not crying).


In broad terms there are two schools of thought on this. One concerns apostolic succession - the idea that the authority of the original 12 apostles has been passed down through the generations, relay-race style. For those who follow the doctrine of apostolic succession, apostolic authority belongs only to those who have inherited it from a predecessor, which in theory can be traced back to the original twelve.

The second notion of apostolic authority is that anyone can be ordained (I use the word in a very loose sense here) by God to have an apostolic ministry. In it's broadest interpretation it could include all Christians, because we're all called to act the way apostles do - but more often than not it's applied to individuals who demonstrate the characteristics of an apostle in a very clear way that is recognised by their peers and others.

Dr. Martin Schmaltz provides this succinct definition:

  Apostolic Authority is being sent by Jesus Christ with an
  authorization to use His inherent power to fulfill His purpose. This
  apostolic sending has four parts:

  First, the source of authority comes from outside the one operating in authority.
  Second, authority has a specific area or place to operate.
  Third, there is usually a specific mission or purpose for the use of authority.
  Finally, it requires obedience and complete follow-through for authority to be effective

  Apostolic Authority is acting as Jesus' representative to this world
  to accomplish His purpose.

while Dr Steven Lambert offers a much more lengthy answer to the question, which also deals with people who self-identify as having apostolic authority. He points out that different churches will recognise different people as having apostolic authority.


The answer to your question is Mgr. Guido Marini.
Unfortunately, he is not a Cardinal or even a Bishop.

Mgr. Guido Marini is the Papal Master of Ceremonies also known as the Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations. The title was once known as the Priest Assistant in the days of old.

Guido Marini (born 31 January 1965) is an Italian priest of the Catholic Church, who has been the Master of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies since 1 October 2007. Pope Francis has extended his appointment to 2022. He previously served as chief liturgist for the Archdiocese of Genoa.
Marini was named Master of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies on 1 October 2007, appointed to another five-year term by Benedict XVI, confirmed in that office by Pope Francis in April 2014, and appointed to another five-year term in 2017. Francis also named him a member of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches on 19 February 2014.
Marini, following his appointment as Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, restored some traditional elements of papal ceremonial. During his time as Master of Ceremonies the Papal Altar was rearranged. The seven candles and crucifix were placed in a line across the Altar rather than clustered on the sides. This arrangement has become known as the "Benedictine arrangement".
In a January 2010 speech, Marini supported calls in the church for a "reform of the reform" of liturgy. He said: "For some years now, several voices have been heard within church circles talking about the necessity of a new liturgical renewal," adding that a new renewal movement would be "capable of operating a reform of the reform, or rather, move one more step ahead in understanding the authentic spirit of the liturgy and its celebration."
In 2015 Pope Francis made changes to the public ceremony of investiture of the pallium on metropolitan archbishops emphasizing that the investiture is an ecclesial event of the whole diocese, and not merely a juridical or ceremonial event. Marini said that from now on – starting from 29 June this year – the ceremony of investiture of the pallium will take place in the Metropolitan Archbishops' home dioceses and not in the Vatican.
During Marini's time as Master of Ceremonies Pope Benedict ceased to use the papal staff made for Paul VI and began to use an older one made for Pius XI. Due to the weight of that staff, Benedict had his own made which is much lighter, and shares a similar style with the previous one. Pope Francis occasionally makes use of this one also in order to emphasize continuity with his predecessor. He also made decisions about the use of papal vestments at Mass and other pontifical celebrations, dressing Cardinal-Deacons in dalmatics when serving pontifical celebrations.


How can Protestants authoritatively declare something wrong or heretical under Sola Scriptura?

Speaking as a lifelong Protestant, I would say that in genuine Protestantism, the Head of every man is Christ. There is no hierarchy. None is above another. The greatest is as the least. But it is true that a man's gift will make room for him and spiritual men will appreciate and be voluntarily subject to others more spiritual than themselves.

I have added this edit in answer to the comment made below. It is fundamental to what Protestantism is. Otherwise the question itself becomes invalid as it is not a question that can be asked of Protestantism. (Though it could be asked of other, hierarchical bodies or of hierarchical and individualistic particles of Protestantism).

==================================================================================

The short answer is that if one is utterly meticulous in one's study of the scriptures - in their original language - then there will be no ambiguity, no latitude for personal interpretation, no question of opposing arguments and there will be one, single expression of truth.

It can be seen - and it can be proved by many examples - that the reason for conflicting movements in Protestantism is the untutored, undisciplined, inexact and ignorant expressing of what is advertised as 'biblical' but is in fact not meticulous enough in its expression of the word of God.

These holy scriptures leave me stunned at their accuracy, their careful wording, their staggering revelation and their consistency throughout many volumes by multiple authors over a period of, I would say, just over two thousand years.

It is staggering.

My own, personal, Protestant studies, after twenty five years of tutorage and twenty five more of personal searching, leave me in no doubt that :

  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. [II Peter 1:21 KJV]

The problem is that unholy men, who are not filled with the Holy Spirit (or even holy men who are, temporarily, swayed by nature and not spirit) speak forth things that they should not.

However even then, their peers ought to be able to correct them, as Paul corrected even the Principal Apostle Peter, to his very face, when he was to be blamed, Galatians 2:11, in a matter of Christian doctrine and resultant Christian practice, and this at a time of crisis when even Barnabas was almost carried away as well, in the dissimulation.

Had this been a Catholic situation Pope Peter would have prevailed and we would all have to be circumcised.

But Paul Protested - and quite rightly so.

For the Lord himself is above all and he says :

  I will build my church [Matthew 16:18 KJV]

and he does so . . . in every generation.


How to make driving out demons reasonable for non-christians?

There's a lot of baggage that comes with belief, but it's simple to explain:

God exists and he is pure spirit
God made Angels which are pure spirit

Some Angels are good
Some Angels are bad

God made the world
God made people with a body and a spirit

Humanity's ability to comprehend this ends at "people with a body".  Philosophers can come up with the rest without the assistance of revelation.  But all that is directly observable is that we exist because the rest is supernatural.

As G.K. Chesterton wrote

  The strange truth about the matter is told in the very word "holiday." A bank holiday means presumably a day which bankers regard as holy. A half-holiday means, I suppose, a day on which a schoolboy is only partially holy. It is hard to see at first sight why so human a thing as leisure and larkiness should always have a religious origin. Rationally there appears no reason why we should not sing and give each other presents in honour of anything—the birth of Michael Angelo or the opening of Euston Station. But it does not work. As a fact, men only become greedily and gloriously material about something spiritualistic. Take away the Nicene Creed and similar things, and you do some strange wrong to the sellers of sausages. Take away the strange beauty of the saints, and what has remained to us is the far stranger ugliness of Wandsworth. Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural.

  G.K. Chesterton - Heretics

So, when someone asks you if you "really believe all that stuff", ask them whether it's more likely that Santa Claus conquers mars or that St. Nicholas is a member of the Church Triumphant gloriously giving his intercession to all those who call upon him in the communion of saints.

Specific to driving out demons.  Consider what it means, the mission of the Church and the Apostles was and is to go into places where people believed in demons, gave homage to them and worshiped them, and drive them out.

  The new kingdom has an eminently spiritual character. To enter it, it is necessary to repent and believe in the Gospel, to be freed from the power of the spirit of darkness, to submit to the power of God's Spirit, which Christ brings to human beings. As Jesus says: "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you"

  Pope John Paul II - General Audience 11/4/1987

Whether or not the fellow you're in conversation believes in demons, he or she can certainly believe their absence is a good thing!  Maybe that's a place to start.


Does God punish babies and children who die in sin?

If we can determine what sin is, we can determine if God would be able to punish a child for it.  Fortunately Jesus will never leave us in the dark.  He gives us a definition of what sin is in the book of 1 John 3:4 which states “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1  Sin is the transgression or the breaking of God’s law, His Ten Commandments.  Because of this we must ask which of the Ten Commandments has a child violated?  Has an infant murder, lying, theft, adultery, Sabbath-breaking or blasphemy?  Certainly not.  Is crying a sin?  “Jesus wept”.  (John 11:35) Jesus gives us great insight into how God judges sin when He said…

  “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’
  Therefore your sin remains.” (John 9:41)

Listen closely, children are born with a sinful nature that is we have this inward pull or desire to sin but we are not born sinners.  Sin is the breaking of God’s law.  And we have concluded that babies have not broken the Ten Commandments.  Even if they did, Jesus told us in John 9:41 that were there is no understanding, there is no sin. Again Jesus said

  “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now
  they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:22)

Where there can be no knowledge, there can be no sin.

Imagine if one day a group of police officers showed up at your door.  They quickly handcuffed you, you were taken to a courtroom and declared guilty of war crimes.  “War crimes, I’ve never fought in a war!” you plead.  The judge responds and says “your great grandfather committed war crimes in World War 1 and we are punishing you for the crime, I hereby sentence you to death”.

Certainly a human judge would never make such an unfair sentence.  How could you be judged for a crime that occurred when you never even were alive? Yet would God throw someone in hell because of the sins of their parents, or grandparents?  Or because of the sins of Adam in the garden of Eden?  Does the guilt of one generation pass on from generation to generation through a bloodline?  The Bible gives us the answer in Ezekiel 18:20 when it says

  “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the
  father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of
  the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked
  shall be upon himself.“

Here the Bible says the son shall not bear the guilt of the father.  Again the Bible says “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)  You are not punished for the sins of any past generation.  “God is a just judge” (Psalm 7:11) and God is much fairer than any human court.  It is true, sin does have consequences. If your parents were abusive you may have suffered the consequences, when Adam sinned the earth received the curse of death, but the guilt of one generation does not pass from generation to generation.  This would be unfair.  Only those who have sinned will be condemned.

The book of Isaiah chapter 65 tells us that yes, infants will be in heaven for it is written

  “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;  And the former
  shall not be remembered or come to mind. I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
  and joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in
  her, nor the voice of crying.  No more shall an infant from there live
  but a few days”. Isaiah 65:17,19-20

When Exodus 20 talks about visiting the iniquities to the third and fourth generation, it means sinful tendencies are transferred from generation to generation (example, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all struggled with lying, David and Solomon struggled with women, etc).  It does not mean people are thrown in hell for the sins of their grandfathers.


How do paedo-baptists interpret the Great Commission?

With regard to this particular verse there is nothing to explain beyond a very understandable misreading of a grammatical ambiguity.

The KJV has "teach all nations, baptizing them". The word "teach" is a translation of the Greek word mathetosate. The NIV translates this as "make disciples of," bringing out a somewhat stronger meaning of the verb. It is however still a verb.

In the following phrase "baptizing them," "them" refers to the antecedent noun, the only noun, "all nations."   It is easy to misread "them" in the NIV as referring to the noun "disciples" but here it is not a noun at all.

Jesus said to baptize all nations.


How come Easter is associated with Eggs, Bunnies and Flowers?

It isn't... Or rather, they are associated with the seasonal event but not the Christian event of Easter.. Pagans and general common folk had celebrated spring with signs of new life for a long long time before Christ. Easter then became associated with the spring festivals (in particular, but not limited to, the equinox) in the same way that Christmas became intermingled with pre-existing winter (and in particular, solstice) celebrations. All of the "popular" symbols of Easter are nothing to do with what Christianity calls Easter.

http://www.home2b.nl/susan-office-easter-pagan.html
http://www.witchology.com/contents/march/ostara.php
http://atheism.about.com/od/easterholidayseason/p/PaganChristian.htm
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/holidays/easter-problems.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism

Eggs and bunnies have as much to do with the resurrection as trees and sleighs have to do with the birth.

To a community where much of the population are involved in food production, the seasons (and spring/winter in particular), and the signs there-of, are all-pervasive.

The crucifixion story is a pretty gruesome thing, and frankly doesn't "market" as well as eggs and bunnies.


How was Judas Iscariot, as the son of perdition, able to work miracles and cast out demons?

Only the Holy Spirit anoints offices in the church with miraculous gifts. It is best to think of 'gifts' as temporary and associated with a calling to an office and sanctification as permanent calling to salvation'. Even those sanctified by faith may not be given unusual gifts unless called to an external office requiring those externally anointed abilities.

The problem with Judas is that he temporarily was assigned the former but did not partake in the latter. Judas was not 'saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.' (2 Thess 2:13)Jesus seems to clearly mark him out of sanctification while including him in a temporary called office here:Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (John 6:70, NIV)

This does by no means indicate that God often calls people without sanctification to an office in the church with gifts. Rather it is the rare exception where he infrequently calls sinners to an office and gives them gifts, temporarily using them in order to declare his message according to his sovereign pleasure. He does not call and use them while saying a different message, for he will not manifest miraculous support of those who declare the opposite of his purpose and will in choosing them. He used Saul, Balaam and Judas in this way. He is not the author of confusion. That is why while in the office and anointed with special gifts to perform it, Judas could say on behalf of Christ, 'If you do not believe Jesus by my words about him believe the works he is doing through me under his office'.

  But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:38, NIV)

John Owen makes this distinction between sanctification of the Holy Spirit and an office anointed by the same Holy Spirit clear:

  The end of God in election is the sonship and salvation of the elect, “to the praise of the glory of his grace,” Eph. 1:5, 6; and this cannot be unless his image be renewed in them in holiness or saving graces. These, therefore, he works in them, in pursuit of his eternal purpose therein. But gifts, on the other hand, which are no more but so, and where they are solitary or alone, are only the effects of a temporary election. Thus God chooseth some men unto some office in the church, or unto some work in the world. As this includeth a preferring them before or above others, or the using them when others are not used, we call it election; and in itself it is their fitting for and separation unto their office or work. And this temporary election is the cause and rule of the dispensation of gifts. So he chose Saul to be king over his people, and gave him thereon “another heart,” or gifts fitting him for rule and government. So our Lord Jesus Christ chose and called at the first twelve to be his apostles, and gave unto them all alike miraculous gifts. His temporary choice of them was the ground of his communication of gifts unto them. By virtue hereof no saving graces were communicated unto them, for one of them never arrived unto a participation of them. (The Works of John Owen, Vol 4, P430)

Judas could only work miracles and cast out demons by being directly chosen by Christ to an office that the Holy Spirit anointed with gifts to do so. God in scripture rarely does this strange thing (using his enemies to represent him) but only in an orderly way according to his divine purpose. God is not an author of confusion. Miraculous gifts are proof that God has sent and approved the message of his messengers even when temporarily are rarely overwhelming his enemies to be his mouthpieces.