Issues with legal documents and marriage

I read in the comments that you're not looking for an answer from a particular denomination, but a purely biblical answer.

Well, if you're a Christian, then you'd know that the OT laws (besides the 10 commandments) are not what we follow any more, as they have their completion in Jesus. Further, you are aware that you must render unto Caesar what is Caesars.  It would see as though the formalities in civil marriage are little more than a tax on marriage and don't constitute a legitimate marriage in the eyes of God.

Just as heresy can shed a lot of light on what the true Church teaches.  Divorce can shed a lot of light on what marriage is. Owing to what Jesus said (Matt 19:8), in the beginning it was not so, in the beginning you had Adam and Eve, the first married couple and the example for all marriage.  The coupling which took "it is not good for man to be alone" to "woah, this is indeed flesh of my flesh!". If anyone says Adam and Eve weren't married in the eyes of God and didn't have a perfect marriage in the beginning, they'd have a long and complicated argument.

So, if they had the best possible marriage, if you find it is impossible to be wed in a Church in the way you'd best see fit, getting married in the most prudent possible way is always better than being consumed with fire, as St. Paul might say.  If you want, you can have your marriage blessed later.

Then, to go back to divorce, Jesus says that divorce is only OK if the marriage is unlawful, which means there must be something that makes the marriage lawful.

To a Catholic, a lawful marriage requires consent of the man and the woman,  full knowledge of what they're getting in to, nothing previous encumbering the marriage.  There is a biblical pretext for all this, as I think there is for all Catholic tradition, but that's a bit beyond the scope of the question (or at least my capacity to answer)


Difference between Eutychianism and Monophysitism

The Wikipedia article on Monophysitisism answers your question when it says:

  There are two major doctrines that can indisputably be called "monophysite":

  Eutychianism holds that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature: His human nature was "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea".
  Apollinarism or Apollinarianism holds that Christ had a human body and human "living principle" but that the Divine Logos had taken the place of the nous, or "thinking principle", analogous but not identical to what might be called a mind in the present day.

In other words, Eutychianism is a subset of Monophysitisism.


According to Pentecostals, when were names added to the Book of Life?

I suppose I am qualified to answer this question as a “Pentecostal”.

From my perspective (as the question asks), since all mention of the Book of Life refers to names that are already written in it, then every name has been written in it from a time-independent source/power/etc, and therefore names can only be removed from it from a time-dependent human point of view.

My reading usually begins in KJV. Revelation 13:8 looks appealing but one cannot be sure that “the foundation of the world” describes the Book of Life or the Lamb or both.

  “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Revelation 13:8 KJV

AMPLIFIED seems to support my initial perspective that “the foundation of the world” does pertain to the Book of Life.

  “All the inhabitants of the earth will fall down and worship him, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb who has been slain [as a willing sacrifice].” REVELATION 13:8 AMP

ESV is similar.

  “and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.” Revelation 13:8 ESV

GW and NIV seem to point toward “the foundation of the world” pertaining only to the Lamb.

  “Everyone living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life. That book belongs to the lamb who was slaughtered before the creation of the world.” Revelation 13:8 GW

  “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.” Revelation 13:8 NIV

To add to my perspective, I’d say the question of when the names were written is an unfathomable concept since I stated that a power “outside of time” was/is the author.


When was Sunday first called the Sabbath?

The first writer to clearly make this connection appears to be Petrus Alphonsi in the 12th century.  This is argued by 17th century historian Peter Heylyn, who writes:

  The first who ever used [the word Sabbath], to denote the Lords day, (the first that I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus Alfonsus, he lived about the times that Rupertus did; who calls the Lords day by the name of the Christian Sabbath. (The History of the Sabbath, II, 158)

Heylyn is not controverted by more recent authors, such as James Augustus Hessy  (Sunday, 119), nor Kenneth Parker (The English Sabbath, 19).  Heylyn quotes Alfonsi's Latin text, Dialogi contra Iudaeos, which does not seem to be available online in full.  But the key sentence is:

  Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit, Christianorum Sabbatum est.

Translated:

  The Lord's day, that is, the day of resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation, is the Christians' Sabbath.

Technically the translation of the last phrase as "the Christian Sabbath" is not possible; Christianorum is genitive (indicating posession) and not an adjective.  But "the Christians' Sabbath" is so similar that Heylyn considered the phrases essentially equivalent, and we might as well.

Granted, Haylyn is quick to argue that Alfonsi's phrase was meant only analogically, in the sense that Easter is the Christian Passover.  But Kenneth Parker relates several other pre-Reformation authors who connected the Sabbath and Sunday (though not with the phrase "Christian Sabbath"), such as a 6th century homilist (18), the author of Dives and Pauper, and Archbishop Arundal (21).

These last comments serve only to provide a bit of context – the first use of a phrase like that requested comes from the 12th century, in the writings of Petrus Alphonsi.


What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Thomistic understanding of vocation?

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses the role of the Holy Spirit in leading one into religious life in his Contra doctrinam retrahentium a religione (Refutation of the Pernicious Teaching of Those Who Would Deter Men from Entering Religious Life) ch. 9, "Answers to the Arguments Used to Prove That Before Entering Religious Life a Man Ought to Deliberate for a Long Time, and Take Counsel of Many":

[…] there is another way [besides Holy Scripture] whereby God speaks interiorly to men, viz. the way alluded to in Ps. 84:9: “I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me.” Now this interior voice is to be preferred to any external speech. St. Gregory says (Homil. Pentecostes):

The Creator does not speak to the understanding of a man, unless He speak to that same man by the unction of the Holy Spirit. Before Cain slew his brother he heard a voice saying, “You have sinned; stop.” But as, on account of his sin, he was admonished by a voice alone, and not by the unction of the Spirit, he was indeed able to hear the word of God, but refused to obey it.

If then we are bound to obey immediately the audible voice of our Creator, how much more ought we not, unhesitatingly and unresistingly, to obey the interior whisper, whereby the Holy Spirit changes the heart of man. Hence, in Is 50:5, it is said by the mouth of the Prophet, or rather of Christ Himself: “The Lord God has opened my ear (i.e. by interior inspiration), and I do not resist. I have not gone back.” “Forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching forth myself to those that are before,” as we read in the Epistle to the Philippians (3:13). St. Paul, again, says (Rom 8:14), “Whoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” The Gloss of St. Augustine has the following comment: “Such men do not perform anything, but act under the impulse of grace.” But he who resists or hesitates, does not act by the impulse of the Holy Spirit.
It is then the distinguishing mark of the sons of to be carried forward by grace to better things, without waiting for counsel. This impulse of grace is alluded to in the Prophet Isaiah (59:59), “When he comes as a violent stream, which the spirit of the Lord drives on.” St. Paul teaches us that this impulse of grace is to be obeyed: “Walk in the Spirit” (Gal 5:16), and again (5:25), “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” St. Stephen thus reproached certain men, “You always resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51). St. Paul says (1 Thes 5:19), “Do not extinguish the Spirit.” On which words, the Gloss comments: “If the Holy Spirit should at any time reveal something to a certain man, do not forbid him to make known what he has heard.” Now, the Holy Spirit gives His revelations not only by teaching man what he ought to speak, but by suggesting to him what he ought to do (John 14). When, therefore, a man is inspired by this Holy Spirit to enter religious life, it is his duty to follow the inspiration at once, without waiting to take counsel of human advisers. This is shown us by the words of the Prophet Ezekiel (1:20), “Wherever the spirit went, they went, and the wheels rose along with them.”
[…]
Interior inspiration has efficacy to enable those to whom it is given to accomplish great deeds. We read in the Acts of the Apostles [2:11] that when the disciples were gathered together, the Holy Spirit came upon them and made them speak of the wonders of God. The Gloss says on this passage: “The grace of the Holy Spirit of God knows no obstacles.” Again, the Book of Sirach (11:23) has these words: “It is easy in the eyes of God suddenly to make a poor man rich.” St. Augustine speaks of the efficacy of internal inspiration in his book De praedestinatione Sanctorum [ch. 13]. He quotes the words recorded in St. John (6[:45]), “Everyone who has heard of the Father and has learned, comes to Me.” On these words he says, “This school where the Father is heard and teaches, in order that men may come to the Son, is far removed from the senses; for in it we hear not with ears of flesh, but with the hearing of the heart.” Again he says: “The grace which, by the Divine munificence, is secretly bestowed is not rejected by any hard heart; for it is given in order that hardness may be entirely taken away.” St. Gregory, in his Homilia Pentecostes, treats of the efficacy of interior inspiration: “Oh, how cunning a workman is this Spirit. He makes no delay in teaching what He wishes. As soon as He touches the heart, He teaches it. His touch is teaching. He changes the human mind as soon as He enlightens it; and the man taught by Him at once forsakes what he was, in order to show what he was not.” He who hesitates to obey the impulse of the Holy Spirit for the sake of taking counsel either knows not this impulse, or else resists it.


Do Catholics refer to all martyrs as Saints?

The process is called canonization.  Wikipedia's article on canonization describes the process.  Martyrdom is not a requirement for sainthood, although being martyred does suggest that a person may very well be a saint (think John 15:13, Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.).  Mother Theresa is a great example of a non-martyred saint, canonized because of the great witness of her life of love and compassion for the poor in India.

In summary, a person is recognized by a bishop or other church person with sufficient authority as a possible candidate for sainthood, and an investigation is started.  The Congregation for the Causes of the Saints investigates this information, and eventually may make a recommendation that the pope make a declaration that the Servant of God is 'heroic in virtue'.  At this point, the potential saint becomes known as 'Venerable', meaning that Catholic may encourage veneration of this person, such as prayers for intercession, but the church has made no official statement on whether or not it is believed that the person is in Heaven.

The next step is where martyrdom matters.  If the Pope makes a declaration of martyrdom, then the martyr can be canonized, as the Catholic church teaches that all martyrs go to Heaven, and being in Heaven is the definition of a 'capital-S' Saint.

If the person was not a martyr, then the person is considered a 'confessor', a person who bore witness to Christ (confessed Christ) through the way they lived their life.  A miracle achieved through the intercession of the venerable must be documented before a confessor can be beatified, and can be called "Blessed" (but still not a saint yet!).  There are strict guidelines in evaluating miracles to determine their authenticity.  For a confessor to be canonized, and declared a saint, two miracles are required.

Note that this is a summary, and I am leaving details out - such as requirements for time to pass before canonization.  Also, I am not an expert in Catholic canon law; while the general information is accurate, I could have details wrong.  If you want to hear from an expert, you could go to Catholic Forum's Ask an Apologist subforum and send in your question.


Why did Jesus ask his disciples to collect the fragments of bread in baskets?

While the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are not clear as to whether the fragments were of bread alone (they only mention 12 baskets of leftovers), the gospel of John indicates that the fragments were indeed of bread.

Quoting John 6:13 from NASB translation:

  So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten.

It is the same with KJV and NIV translations. See parallel view of all three translations.

And the reason why Jesus asked the disciples to gather the leftovers is found in the previous verse, John 6:12

  When they were filled, He said to His disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be lost.”

Jesus wanted all the leftover fragments to be gathered, but the leftover fragments in this case only happened to be fragments of bread. (The crowd must have really loved the fish!)

And note that the bread and the fish were given by a lad (John 6:9) and Jesus gave thanks to the Father for them (John 6:11), blessed them (Matthew 14:19), broke them (Luke 9:16) and asked the disciples to distribute them.

The message Jesus wanted to convey was that: What is given to Him will be received with thanks, blessed, broken and be used to bless others. Nothing of what is given to Him will be wasted.

Another thing we learn from this is indicative of the principle we find in the life of Jesus: He was not wasteful. And He wanted His disciples also to learn this principle from Him.


What is the weight of authority behind a teaching of the Papal Magisterium?

Ecumenical Councils are the top of the list, simply because the whole of the Church gets together to promulgate doctrine. These doctrines are signed by the Pope at the end of the Council, and are binding. Some of the doctrines are administrative in nature, and can be modified, changed, added to, or removed. Others, which deal with faith or morals, are eternally binding. An example of this would be in the Council of Trent, where the Catholic Church defined the books of the Bible explicitly (they had done so in the past, but they chose to reiterate it because Luther was removing books), faith vs works, etc., in response to the Protestant Reformation. Those decisions are binding and infallible.

Encyclicals are next on the list, because they deal with specific matters of faith. An example of this would be Humanae Vitae, the encyclical which banned birth control from use in the Catholic Church. Again, that teaching is binding. When the correct wording is used, they also become infallible, such as Ineffabilis Deus, which defined infallibly the Immaculate Conception:

  Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private
  prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father
  through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind
  by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the
  help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete.
  Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of
  the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the
  Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and
  for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of
  Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by
  our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which
  holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her
  conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God,
  in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race,
  was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine
  revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by
  all the faithful."[29]

  Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise
  than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is
  condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the
  faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that,
  furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by
  law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other
  outward means the errors he think in his heart.

The bold would be what makes it infallible. Another Pope could not undo this doctrine, as it is an infallible statement on a matter of faith. Note too that it is binding on ALL the Church as well, as stated in the last paragraph of the quote.

An Apostolic Exhortation is more of a letter of encouragement. It too teaches, but they tend not to impose a whole lot on the faithful. Rather, they are written to encourage holiness and growth as a Christian.


Christian significance of Tolkien and C. S. Lewis putting "heaven" across the sea?

Before Elijah was taken away into heaven, he “crossed the Jordan,” and ever since, “crossing the Jordan” has been a metaphor for dying, or crossing over into heaven. By the time of Pilgrim’s Progress (1670s or so) this was an established metaphor for gaining entry into paradise.

Now, having seen the Jordan River firsthand, I can tell you that it isn’t much larger than a creek in many parts, but in the Western European imagination it grows wider every day. As such, it being compared to a sea (long a metaphor for the underworld of death) is not a stretch.

It should also be noted that baptism — immersion in water, even if not practised that way — is explicitly tied with death and paradise in both in the Baptist and Episcopal traditions. In Baptist understanding, when one is dunked under the water they are said to be “buried with Christ and raised again.” In the Episcopal baptism ceremony, explicit reference is made to the parting of the Red Sea as we pass from death into life, all during the thanksgiving prayer over the waters.

C.S. Lewis also places heaven over the sea in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and across space (or at least a Garden of Eden on Venus) in Perelandra, by the way.

In short, the water itself is a metaphor both for the death of sin and the passing into new life. Whether it is a river or the Red Sea is just a matter of breadth.


The monastic name is given at the Small Schema tonsuring by the person that performs it (a bishop or an abbot). It is him that chooses this name. He may or may not consult the monk himself or his community about it.

The names don't have to be Greek. But they should be the names of existing saints or ones that relate to some Truths of Faith.

The name is meant to honor a particular Saint and to endow the monk with a holy patron and a figure to imitate.


Did the Catholics or Orthodox suspend the Lenten fast during times of war?

1917 Canon 1244 (1983 Canon 1244) says:

  It is only for the supreme ecclesiastical authority to establish, transfer, or abolish feast days and days of abstinence and fast common to the whole Church.

1983 Canon 1245 says:

  Without prejudice to the right of diocesan bishops mentioned in ⇒ can. 87, for a just cause and according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop, a pastor can grant in individual cases a dispensation from the obligation of observing a feast day or a day of penance or can grant a commutation of the obligation into other pious works. A superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life, if they are clerical and of pontifical right, can also do this in regard to his own subjects and others living in the house day and night.

Related to this is St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II q. 40 a. 4 question "Whether it is lawful to fight on holy days?"


What guidance has Scripture or church fathers offered on how to deal with sacred objects of other religions?

My answer has to do with an assumption that the prayer book of another religion can essentially be viewed as an idol, given that some may attempt to get something "spiritual" from an object constructed by humans.  And here are some verses that apply to answer your excellent question:

1) Don't bow to the idol.
There are degrees of reverence to the object  that those in other religions may deem necessary (one can imagine other religions bowing to it-- for example, I've seen a Catholic priest bow to the Bible during a worship service). Biblical principle: don't participate.

  "Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him." 1 Kings 19:18

2) Tactful destruction of a tract may be biblically warranted.
There are biblical cases where idols of other religions were destroyed (2 Kings 19:18).  For example, I have picked up a free music CD from a store, played it at home, found it to contain violent sexual lyrics, and then quietly broke CD in half and thrown in garbage.  I have also quietly pocketed and trashed a tract left out in public for something I found spiritually harmful.

3) The idol is mere wood.
Treating a book as a mere book might be a better witness than an elaborate display of going after it like you need to stop its spiritual power from infecting everyone.

  And have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed. 2 Kings 19:18

4) Physically attacking symbols of religion may be less effective than witnessing to the foolishness of the religion.
Paul waded into the midst of idols an gave sermons where he told those in false religions about the true religion.  The text does not record him knocking down the idols.
Similarly, I cannot count the number of times my pastor(s) have given detailed instruction on other religions. To be clear, kids who didn't know about other religions, knew more about these religions after the class.  So information about other religions isn't necessarily harmful.

  For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. Acts 17:23

5) Mockery, incisive Socratic questions are okay.
Jesus mocks the Pharisees' religion with several unflattering analogies in Matthew 23.


Did God kill the first borns in Exodus, according to Jehovah's Witnesses?

Jehovah's Witness have a particular affinity for "Jehovah" as the proper name of God.  One of the issues they often point out is that "the LORD," which translates the Tetragrammaton YHVH, is a Jewish superstition that hass somehow corrupted and dishonored the one of whom it speaks.

In [their understanding]  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs) of the Godhood (which is assuredly non-Chalcedonian, and non-Trinitarian), YHVH is a very different character from the more mainstream perspective. In their understanding, God is a force, albeit an approachable one, rather than a person.  (Note: In this perspective, Jesus as the son of God is not God, but rather a god or godlike being.)

Between these two things, I suspect that the issue of disagreement was less one of "what actually happened," than of one of terminology - or perhaps the nature of God in this instance.  The Biblical narrative (which many JW's reject as being corrupt, preferring instead their own NWT) indicates that Jehovah (whom Trinitarians view as God the Father) was in fact the one doing it. Exodus 11 states:

  And Moses went on to say: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘About midnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt,  (New World Translation)

  Moses said, “Thus says the LORD: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt" (NET Bible)

The question then, is what their understanding of "the LORD" is.  From their perspective, it's not God - that is Jehovah. From a Chalcedonian perspective, however, it is a distinction without a difference.


Jesus speaks of false prophets elsewhere, and lays out the appropriate test:

  Matthew 7:15-20

  15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
  but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

  16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
  or figs of thistles?

  17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
  tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

  18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
  tree bring forth good fruit.

  19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
  cast into the fire.

  20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

A false prophet, therefore, is someone who claims to be a prophet, but whose works are evil, whereas a true prophet will bring forth good fruit, and his works will be edifying and uplifting of those around him, as per the teachings of Jesus and the principles of the Gospel.


To what extent did BC gentiles have access to the Old Testament?

During the Jewish exile in Babylon, Daniel (Belteshazzar) was appointed as the "chief of the magicians" (Daniel 2:48; 4:9). This was probably the same group as the magi (source). During Daniel's time in Babylon, he interpreted many dreams both for the king and for himself. One such vision foretold the year of the crucifixion of the Messiah, or "Anointed One".

In Daniel 9:24-27, he is told of a period of 70 weeks (which are understood to be weeks of years) that are fixed for the Jewish people. There are seven weeks, then sixty-two weeks, with the final week being a subject of controversy among Christians. However, the first sixty-nine weeks point to the year of Jesus' crucifixion.

The magi were no doubt familiar with Daniel's prophecies since he was such an important figure in Babylon and Persia during Judah's seventy-year exile. Thus they likely were expecting something to occur in their lifetimes.

Regarding the star, the magi might have been looking for it because of the prophecy of Balaam, the sinful prophet in Numbers 24. In verse 17, he said, "A star shall come forth from Jacob, a scepter shall rise from Israel." Some have speculated that Balaam was an early magi since he lived in the general vicinity of Persia, so the magi might have known about this prophecy through him.


Where does the Body, Soul and Spirit of man go after Death?

I read the bible as teaching that you do not have a soul, but that you are a soul. This being the combination of body and spirit.

Eg, read Genesis 2:7 account of Adam’s creation where God breathed the breath of life into the clay and Adam became a living soul (nephesh) in Hebrew.

Animals are the same. “Nephesh” is used with them too.

The soul, and in particular the idea of an immortal soul, comes from Greek philosophy and is not a biblical teaching. The Bible teaches that you die (which is like sleep in that you are not aware of your surroundings or the passage of time). You cease to be. The breath of life, the spirit, returns to God.

Jesus: “into your hands I commend my spirit”. On his death, Jesus, slept until his father called him from the tomb and returned his breath of life (spirit) to him.

Note that the simple words “breath of life” hide a transformative effect, a massive alteration of the clay in Adam’s case, or the body as in the case of Jesus or Lazarus.

Taking Adam as an example, the breath of god turned clay into living cells in exquisite detail, DNA, blood, brain, muscles and a nervous system, but also included a fully “programmed” or “imprinted” brain. IE, A character. Adam received the knowledge of language, co-ordination, the ability to focus his eyes, to walk, to reach out and grasp, all those things a new born baby does not have though it is otherwise complete and perfect.

To Jesus and to Lazarus were returned their original characters, knowledge and memories. It was everything that made Jesus Jesus, and Lazarus Lazarus. In the case of Jesus he received also the power and authority that he had laid aside when he “emptied himself” and took the form of humanity, but that is another topic entirely.

——
Addendum:

Lesley has asked below for more references re “soul sleep” as the statement is given that most christians, protestant or catholic, believe in an immortal soul.

True, it is a catholic teaching and originated with them, and from which many churches have inherited the same.

I will refer to the original protestant, the well known Dr Martin Luther who said the following:

"But I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as The Bread and wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament. The essence of God neither generates, nor is generated. The soul is the substantial form of the human body. The Pope is the emperor of the world, and the king of heaven, and God upon earth. THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals, that such as his faith is, such may be his gospel, such his disciples, and such his church, that the mouth may have meat suitable for it, and the dish, a cover worthy of it."

(Edit 3: FULL CAPS added by me for easy reference to the pertinent comment. I should also add, as others have in quoting this passage, that this forthright and coarse-sounding language was used frequently by these robust Reformers. To ears accustomed to the suavities and euphemisms of our times, they sound rough and uncouth. But such phraseology was part of the common parlance of the time, employed by outstanding men of the day who were desperately in earnest. They were fighting a relentless, merciless and deadly foe at close quarters and against terrific odds, and in so doing they used blunt phrasings. Martin Luther escaped death only by the protection of German nobility else he too would have ended as did Huss and Jerome)

Luther further wrote:

“For just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, so we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death. We shall sleep, until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, Doctor Martin, get up! Then I shall rise in a moment and be happy with Him forever."

It is also a Seventh-day Adventist teaching, but as you can see, originated centuries before them and not from them.

For biblical reference see Jesus referencing death as sleep, and the statement that the dead know nothing in Ecclesiastes.

Further reference that the bible teaches that immortality belongs to God, and is not a human trait. God said if you eat of the tree you will surely die. Satan said you will surely not die.

The teaching that you (the essence of you, your soul) does not die is the same thing that Satan taught. The teaching is his, not God’s.

When you believe that the soul is immortal you get into all kinds of trouble with the resurrection. Jesus returned to the tomb to fetch his body why? He returned to the tomb, entered his dead body and then waited a moment or two till Gabriel told him his Father was calling him back “and this time bring your human body with you”? Does Joseph return to earth to collect his dried bones? For those who died millenniums ago, for which no trace of body remains, why do they return to the earth to be resurrected? Only good old earth clay will do?

No, Martin Luther hit that nail on the head 500 years ago, this is an invention of Catholicism. It is not a biblical teaching.

——
Addendum 2:

For a good reference to Greek philosophy being the originators of the soul being distinct and separate, then try https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/


When was the word "trinity" first applied to God in Christianity?

Without question, Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183) is your man. He wrote in Greek:

[God's creations on the first three days--light, sky, and vegetation--] are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth [day, the creation of the moon and stars,] is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.
Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II

You often hear Tertullian's (155 - 240) name in connection with this, but he was the first Latin writer to use the term (trinitas in his case), as well as the first to connect it with the word "persons."


What does the Bible say about people who see dead people?

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the bible calls this necromancy and describes it as an "abominable practice":

  Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (ESV): 9 “When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. [emphasis mine]

To inquire of the dead is to intentionally initiate this activity, and a medium is someone who engages in necromancy professionally.

Unfortunately, your friend's experiences are most likely due to the influence of a demonic spirit as per the slave girl in Phillipi. Her visions and conversations may seem very real to her and she may even receive special knowledge that she would not have access to through natural means. This doesn't mean that she is really seeing dead people however - demons can and do deceive people about such matters.  I suggest you seek pastoral counsel for the best way to help her.


If loves/desires 'point' to something beyond our imagination...what of enjoyment for fictional villians?

I'll take your question as, "Are there any Christian doctrines reinforced by the typical use of villains in literature and film?".  Here are a few:

1) Demonstration of natural law that people who do bad things can end up with bad consequences.

2) Demonstration that "bad guys" can undergo repentance. Examples: Darth Vader, Gru from Despicable Me, Megamind, Sharon from Battlestar Galactica, Edmund in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Eustace in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

3) A demonstration that getting what we want, in terms of earthly goods, may have horrible consequences and leave us spiritually unfulfilled.  Consider the victory song Dr. Horrible sings, "Everything you Ever" in Dr. Horrble's Sing-A-Long Blog

4) A demonstration that our heroes too can be fallen. In many examples in literature, there are cases where the bad guy has more of a moral conscience than the good guys, or where a good guy who uses "bad guy" tactics hurts everyone.  Examples: Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica, Johnny Snow wanting to fight Dr. Horrible in park where kids play in Dr. Horrble's Sing-A-Long Blog.


On what basis was Jesus’ death sufficient for redemption according Non-Trinitarians who maintain that Jesus was not eternal God as God the Father is?

This is from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses. A full explanation of Jesus' ransom sacrifice can be found in chapter 5 of the book, "What Can the Bible Teach Us?"

Jesus' death is sufficient for redemption from sin on the basis that Jesus was a perfect man, without sin, just as Adam had been.

When Adam was created, he was perfect, but when he disobeyed God, he became sinful, selling himself and all his children to sin and death. (Romans 5:12; 7:14) In order for Jehovah God to have a legal basis to repurchase mankind, forgive sins, and restore humans to a perfect state with the opportunity to live forever, there must be a corresponding ransom to replace the life that Adam lost, one who lives their whole life without sin, obedient to God. (1 Tim. 2:6; Romans 5:19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22) No descendent of Adam can serve as this ransom because we are all born sinful, imperfect. (Psalm 49:7, 8)

To provide the ransom, Jehovah miraculously caused one of his perfect spirit sons to come to earth as a human. (1 John 4:9; Luke 1:35) This was Jesus. Jesus remained obedient to God until death. Later, when Jesus returned to his Father in heaven, he presented the value of his perfect human life to Jehovah as the ransom. (Hebrews 9:24) Furthermore, Jesus disproved Satan's accusation that no human would remain obedient to God if that person was severely tested. (Job 1:9-11; Prov. 27:11)


what is "the argument" of Jesus in Luke 24:39?

The Greek word translated as “ghost” in Luke 24:37 and 39 is ‘pneuma’.  This word can mean many different things, such as wind, air in motion, breath, spirit, a spiritual being, a bodiless spirit or specter, or a foul spirit.  According to my William D. Mounce Greek Interlinear, the meaning of this word in Luke 24:27 and 39 is “a bodiless spirit, or specter.”

If Jesus wanted to say that he was not a demon, then the Greek word ‘daimonion’ would have been used.  This word is used in Luke 11:14 when Jesus was driving out an evil demon and in Matthew 8:31 the Greek word is 'daimon’ which means a malignant demon or an evil angel.

Jesus was not trying to reassure his disciples that he was not a demon, presenting himself as a human.  Jesus was showing his disciples that he was made of flesh and bones, a body that bore the marks of his crucifixion, evidence that his body had been physically resurrected.  Jesus’ purpose was to reassure his disciples that he was not a disembodied spirit.  At His incarnation Jesus took on human flesh, and at His resurrection His body was glorified—although He retained the scars.

  “Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” (John 20:27).

I regret I am unfamiliar with the Sola Scriptura Church and what it teaches and so I can’t comment on that.

Edit: In response to your comments, if "ghost" means “spirit beings,” then yes, they exist. If "ghost" means “spirits of people who have died,” then no, they do not come back to earth and appear to people. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are spirit beings, both good and evil. But the Bible negates the idea that the spirits of deceased human beings can remain on earth and appear to the living.


What did the carnivores/predators eat on the Ark?

Genesis 6:21 has your answer

  You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”


What does the account of pigs and demons mean?

In the case of the devils wanting to have permission to enter the pigs rather than be cast into no particular place it seems to be under a simple desire of destruction. The demons are enraged to destroy and in this story we clearly see the bounds of the destruction they seek are under the power of God. They are tied to a divine leash, not being permitted to destroy without boundaries.

The reason why Jesus actually permits them might be as an opportune time to prove to those watching that the demons were not imaginary but as they left the man who then had peace of mind, external evidence showed that they were real by immediately destroying the pigs.

Furthermore we see the curse for sin brought on man includes a curse upon nature and even animals. Jesus did not make his primary mission to protect the rights of animals or upholding good environmental practices but to put an end to the power of the Devil by his death:

  Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil —(NIV Hebrews 2:14)


What is the relationship between YEC and rapture theology?

I am unfamiliar with any polls or studies on this topic but I do think the two are related though not necessarily by theological foundations. The link appears to be an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible biased toward recent history.

For example, young earth creationism interprets the Genesis account of creation strictly literally despite being fairly unfounded although I'm sure some would disagree. For example,

There is no clear consensus either way by modern science.
Obvious problems with literal interpretations like days before the sun and moon and God's speaking despite speech requiring a mouth, a spoken language, and a medium to transmit it
Jewish tradition treats Genesis 1 as a poem [1] (also see the torah and commentary).

Similarly, the belief in the rapture was 'discovered' relatively recently and results from an extremely literal interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

  After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up
  together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so
  we will be with the Lord forever.

NT Wright in Surprised by Hope says this was a figurative expression which would have been easily understood by the readers of the letter as referring to a real event. When Caesar would pass through the city, it was customary to ride out to meet him in order to escort him with celebration back into the city.

Instead of suggesting being whisked away into some ethereal heavenly realm, it alludes to the return of Christ in the manner in which he left and our escorting our Ruler to his Kingdom with celebration.


What is an overview of arguments for and against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus?

Simon Greenleaf, one of the principal founders of the Harvard School of Law and author of the 3 volume "A Treatise On The Law of Evidence", which is still considered a classic of American jurisprudence, also wrote a book entitled "An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice."
In this book he applies U.S. trial court rules to the accounts of the 4 gospel eyewitness accounts and finds them not only acceptable witnesses, but exemplary as pertaining to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There is far too much to even begin to cut and paste into an answer but a full, free pdf is available many places including here:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34989/34989-pdf.pdf


What is the biblical basis for a post-tribulation rapture?

Revelation 1:9

  I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and
  kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called
  Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The "great tribulation" is not a future event, it is an ongoing event. The Apostle John speaks of himself as enduring the tribulation of Jesus Christ during his lifetime. This tribulation will continue straight up until Jesus returns. His return marks the end of the tribulation, and the immediate beginning of eternity.

Many scriptures speak of the last trumpet, the seventh trumpet, or the great trumpet.

Matthew 24:31

  And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they
  will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of
  heaven to the other.

1 Corinthians 15:52

  in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the
  trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we
  shall be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4:16

  For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the
  voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in
  Christ will rise first.

Revelation 11:15

  Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven,
  saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our
  Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

My understanding of these scriptures is that they all describe the same event:

The Lord comes, raises the dead, and gathers the elect to bring them immediately to heaven. This is an apantesis, when a delegation leaves a city to escort in a dignitary and escorts that dignitary into the city. Examples in scripture are:

King David greeting the Ark of the Covenant when it was brought into his city
Jesus being greeted on Palm Sunday and escorted into Jerusalem.
Paul the Apostle being escorted into Rome for his visit.

Thus Jesus is leaving the heavenly city with a delegation of angels to welcome in his Church, only to quickly return to that heavenly city. It will not be secret, and when it happens, all wars will cease. There will be no more tribulation after Christ's appearance.


Catholic priests in China that reject the papal primacy, are their administration of sacraments considered valid?

According to  "Letter of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, To the Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons, and Lay Faithful of the Catholic Church, in the People's Republic of China:"

... sacraments administered by such Bishops and priests are likewise valid.

More details if you don't want to read the whole letter yourself:
In Section 8 of the letter, he talks about the Chinese Episcopate and mentions a few different groups of Bishops:
There are some:

...Bishops who have received episcopal ordination in conformity with Catholic tradition, that is to say, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter, and at the hands of validly and legitimately ordained Bishops in observance of the rite of the Catholic Church.

There are also:

Other Pastors, however, under the pressure of particular circumstances, have consented to receive episcopal ordination without the pontifical mandate, but have subsequently asked to be received into communion with the Successor of Peter and with their other brothers in the episcopate. The Pope, considering the sincerity of their sentiments and the complexity of the situation, and taking into account the opinion of neighbouring Bishops, by virtue of his proper responsibility as universal Pastor of the Church, has granted them the full and legitimate exercise of episcopal jurisdiction.

These two groups are validly and legitimately ordained Bishops, so of course their administration of sacraments would be considered valid.
Then he talks about another group:

Finally, there are certain Bishops – a very small number of them – who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for or have not yet obtained, the necessary legitimation. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they are to be considered illegitimate, but validly ordained, as long as it is certain that they have received ordination from validly ordained Bishops and that the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination has been respected.

Of this last group, he says:

Therefore, although not in communion with the Pope, they exercise their ministry validly in the administration of the sacraments, even if they do so illegitimately.

The full sentence that I excerpted above is:

Concerning Bishops whose consecrations took place without the pontifical mandate yet respecting the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination, the resulting problems must always be resolved in the light of the principles of Catholic doctrine. Their ordination – as I have already said (cf. section 8 above, paragraph 12) – is illegitimate but valid, just as priestly ordinations conferred by them are valid, and sacraments administered by such Bishops and priests are likewise valid.

In the very next sentence, he says that the faithful should seek Bishops and Priests who are in communion with the Pope, but:

... where this cannot be achieved without grave inconvenience, they may, for the sake of their spiritual good, turn also to those who are not in communion with the Pope.


Are there any Christian denominations that deny the existence of an afterlife?

I would have to say no.

Now, I'm not an expert on ABSOLUTELY EVERY denomination, but I have never heard of a denomination that denies the existence of consciousness after death.

Note that there may be small groups that are nondemoninational, who have unconventional beliefs. Seeing that nondemoninational is such a general term, we can't really give an answer, seeing that a small church in somewhere might believe that.

But to my knowledge, there are no other denominations (other than nondemoninational, as stated) that deny the existence of an afterlife, though the idea of the afterlife might be morphed a bit across denominations.


Are the words that Jesus spoke the Logos?

Yes, there is something amiss. The Word of God (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) is enhypostatic, that is, He possesses a hypostasis and personality. However, the words of God which the Word of God spoke are anhypostatic, just like the words you and I speak. The apostles worshipped Jesus, the enhypostatic word of God, but they did not worship the anhypostatic words which he spoke.


Why was Yeshoua interpreted as Jesus in the new Testament?

It's not an issue of interpretation, just the representation of the same name in different scripts. You point out correctly that Jesus' name (in Hebrew/Aramaic) was Yeshua. This is the same name of Moses' successor, "Joshua." The difference is that the name "Joshua" (coming from the Hebrew Bible) is a direct transliteration from Hebrew to English (as was pointed about above, the "Y" comes to English as a "J"), whereas the name "Jesus" comes to English from Hebrew through Greek Iesu. The vowels are different, and the "s" at the end is just the Greek case ending.


On what day of the week did Thomas first meet the resurrected Christ?

The quick answer is Thomas met the resurrected Lord on a Sunday, eight days, counting inclusively from when the others had met Him.

There are a few ideas being presented that only make sense from an 8 day counting inclusive understanding.  One is between the first day (Sunday) and the eighth day (Sunday), from old creation to new creation.  Two is for the count to Pentecost.  Three would be a priest connection.  I'll only look at number two.

  John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week...
  John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: ...

At John 20:19, as it's phrased, the first day after the Sabbath (week) is Sunday at 20:19.

At John 20:26, the word translated "after" is meta, which may also be translated "with", as in with the eight days, a full period, from the previous Sunday to the next Sunday.  And with the eight days, the disciples had gathered again.
 Jesus again appeared to them.

One might ask why did they gather again 8 days later (counting inclusively) on the next Sunday?  Did they have Christians in mind?  They had begun their count of 7 weeks plus the one day to get to Pentecost (50 days).  They would have gathered to count on the morrow of the Sabbath, as they had done the previous Sunday.  Christ was fulfilling the shadows (Tabernacles, Passover, Unleavened Bread, First fruits, Pentecost).  Don't miss it.

  Lev. 23:15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

Sunday (tomb empty), Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri, Sabbath is 1 week and 1 Sabbath.
Sunday (Thomas present), Mon .... Sabbath is 2 weeks and 2 Sabbaths.

This count of course led to the well-known pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2.

Is this a reason to meet on the first day aka the eighth day?  Absolutely.  I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.  Sunday, not because of resurrection, but because its the day the Spirit was poured out.


Creator and Lord

I suppose the Biblical basis for Theonomy begins with the fact that God created everything and everyone, and is therefore Lord of all creation.

  "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  (Genesis 1:1, NASB)

  "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”  (Revelation 4:11, NASB)

Indeed, all creation is charged with acknowledging Him as Lord and praising Him.

  "Praise the LORD!  Praise the LORD... all His angels... all His hosts... For He commanded and they were created... Praise the LORD from the earth... Kings of the earth and all peoples; Princes and all judges of the earth"  (from Psalm 148:1-11, NASB)

Authority to Rule

As Lord, He has the authority to "call the shots."  The proper response to His Lordship is submission to His will.  These roles become immediately apparent when He takes His newly formed creature (man) and begins informing him of His requirements.

  "Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.  The Lord God commanded the man, saying,..."  (from Genesis 2:15-16, NASB)

After "the fall" of Genesis 3, God began the process of redemption.  After some time of working with men on an individual basis, He chose to work through His friend Abraham, and set apart a nation of his descendents (Israel) who could serve as a light to the rest of the world.

  "Now the LORD said to Abram,'Go forth from your country... To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you,... And so you shall be a blessing... And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.'"  (from Genesis 12:1-3, NASB)

  "Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens... gives breath to the people... And spirit to those who walk in it, 'I am the LORD... I will appoint You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations... I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another...'"  (from Isaiah 42:5-8, NASB)

  "'O LORD, the God of our fathers, are You not God in the heavens? And are You not ruler over all the kingdoms of the nations? Power and might are in Your hand so that no one can stand against You. 7 Did You not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel and give it to the descendants of Abraham Your friend forever?'"  (2 Chronicles 20:6-7, NASB)

God's Law

As part of the establishment of His new nation, God gave them a "law" - but not just any law - the most righteous law ever given.

  "...what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?"  (from Deuteronomy 4:8, NASB)

Although this law was given to Israel, it is important to remember that Israel was supposed to be an example for the other nations.  This law was not just for Israel - it was for all mankind, and even Gentiles will be judged by their intuitive knowledge of its precepts.  The law is important for all of mankind, because it is only by this law that we have an awareness of sin, and so the law is what shows us our need for Christ.

  "...when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law,... [they] are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,... their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them..."  (from Romans 2:14-16, NASB)

  "...I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind..."  (from Romans 7:7-8, NASB)

  "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ..." (from Galatians 3:24, NASB)

Intended Government

It is important to understand that God's original intent was that He be King of all creation.  After mankind turned away, part of His redemptive plan was to be King over Israel, as an example to the other nations.  Sadly, even Israel rejected Him from being their King.  They demanded a human king, and became like "all the other nations" (with human-run government.)

  "...Israel gathered together... and they said to [Samuel], '...Behold, you have grown old... Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.' ...The LORD said to Samuel, 'Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods...'"  (from 1 Samuel 8:4-8, NASB)

Consequences

Of course, the vast majority of nations throughout history have rejected God and His law (as have the vast majority of people.)  This has led to various treatments throughout history ranging from complete destruction of all inhabitants to displacement or some other form of judgement.

  "'Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant... All the nations shall serve him... It will be, that the nation or the kingdom which will not serve him... I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine and with pestilence,' declares the LORD, 'until I have destroyed it...'" (from Jeremiah 27:6-8, NASB)

Justice and Restoration

Inevitably, Jesus, the Lord of Creation (John 1:1-3,14) will be given His rightful place as King over all the earth and will rule all of the nations.

  "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven
  One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom,
  That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed."  (Daniel 7:13-14, NASB)

  "And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war... He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God... From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron... And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”  (from Revelation 19:11-16, NASB)

  "then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.  For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet... For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET."  (from 1 Corinthians 15:24-27, NASB)

Justice will finally be served.  The original divine order (which we are presently failing at upholding) will finally be restored by the power of God.


Did Jesus have a physical body before his incarnation?

The doctrine of the Trinity is only about the nature of the divinity of Jesus, whether it's less than or equal to God the Father.  So you are right that the Son is eternal like God the Father.  The council of Nicaea went even further into defining that there is no time when God the Father existed but Jesus did not.

The human nature of Jesus, on the other hand, was a completely different problem called the hypostatic union.  It has to do whether Jesus was 100 percent human & 100 percent God, less than 100 percent human & 100 percent God, whether Jesus truly suffered as a human, whether the union of human and God was mere appearance, etc.  A convenient list of other options of solving the problem can be found here, but the majority of mainstream Christianity have settled on a definition agreed at the Council of Chalcedon since 451 AD.

You can read the details and the development into the final agreement in the wikipedia article, but what was NOT an issue to the Church Fathers was the nature of the birth.  Jesus was in Mary's womb for the usual 9 months just like a normal baby, but it was just the conception that was special (i.e. not through sexual intercourse), but (pardon me for a little colloquial) it's like the Holy Spirit inseminated Virgin Mary's egg in a miracle.

"Shrinkage" was not necessary because before conception Jesus was in heaven with the Father, responsible for the creation of the universe John 1:1. As to Jesus's form in heaven before coming down to earth, we don't know.  But many Christians believe that being conceived as a baby within Mary's womb wasn't the Son of God's "first trip" to earth, and that he had appeared to Abraham (Gen 18) and possibly several others in the Old Testament, although at that time those who saw him thought of him as an angel in bodily form.

At any rate, I agree with curiousdannii's comment that the theology of pre-incarnate Christ's visitations on earth is far less established than the Incarnation itself, and may I add, it's far less critical to be believed as well.  Even if Jesus appeared prior to the virgin birth, as curiousdannii reminded us, the form may not be fully human either, so maybe it's safe to say that probably the answer to your question is a hard NO.  I'm including this wikipedia article on 'Christophany' to round off the answer.

In response to MegaAwp's follow up question on the definite starting point of the physical form of Jesus, I think most Christian theologians agree that God reveals only what is necessary for salvation and for our hope after the second coming, i.e. how we can pass the day of judgment and how we obtain eternal life in a resurrected body, just like Jesus.

So one of the main purposes of Jesus's assuming human form (besides to fulfill prophecies about the suffering servant, and to become the righteous second Adam who reverses the curse of the fall) was to provide a preview / deposit of hope so we are not too attached to the earthly bodily life, since in the era of the restored heaven and earth, we will have a resurrected body that is BETTER than what we have now.

In my opinion, the starting point is less important than the ending point.  That is probably why God didn't reveal to us in what form Jesus existed in heaven prior to His incarnation, except to assure us that Jesus is 100 percent God in heaven and earth (doctrine of Trinity), and 100 percent human and 100 percent divine, during his sojourn on earth (doctrine of hypostatic union).


How is "their angels always behold the Father in heaven" a warning?

Commentator Albert Barnes has some thoughts. First he points to Hebrews 1:14. The entire verse and his commentary are worth reading but here are some excerpts.

Are they [angels] not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Are they not all - There is not one of them that is elevated to the high rank of the Redeemer. Even the most exalted angel is employed in the comparatively humble office of a ministering spirit appointed to aid the heirs of salvation. "Ministering spirits." A "ministering" spirit is one that is employed to execute the will of God. The proper meaning of the word here - λειτουργικὰ leitourgika - (whence our word "liturgy") is, "pertaining to public service," or "the service of the people" (λαός laos) and is applied particularly to those who were engaged in the public service of the temple. They were those who rendered aid to others; who were helpers, or servants. Such is the meaning as used here. They are employed to render "aid" or "assistance" to others - to wit, to Christians. "Sent forth." Appointed by God for this. They are "sent;" are under his control; are in a subordinate capacity.
...
The following methods of angelic interposition in behalf of man are noted in the Scriptures: (1) They feel a deep interest in man. ... (2) they feel a special interest in all that relates to the redemption of man. ... (3) they appear for the defense and protection of the people of God. ... (4) angels are sent to give us strength to resist temptation. (5) they support us in affliction. ... (6) they attend dying saints, and conduct them to glory.

That's just background. Here's what he says on the verse in question:

Do always behold the face of God - This is taken from the practice of earthly courts. To be admitted to the presence of a king; to be allowed to see his face continually; to have free access to him at all times, was deemed a mark of special favor 1 Kings 10:8; Esther 1:14, and was esteemed a security for his protection. So, says our Saviour, we should not despise the obscurest Christian, for he is ministered to by the highest and noblest of beings by beings who are always enjoying the favor and friendship of God.

The Almighty God is a loving shepherd and merciful father to his little ones, and a general to an army of angels. Cross one of his little ones and you'll endure his wrath.


What is the thesis of the church towards asexuality?

Plus one for a decent, albeit unusual, question.

After reading your question for the first time, I thought immediately of Jesus' words to his disciples in the context of His teaching on divorce:

  "'For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  He who is able to accept this, let him accept it'" (Matthew 19:12 NASB, Updated Edition).

Compare Jesus' words with Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, where the apostle says, in effect, it is better to be single than to marry, but

  "each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that" (7:7b).

Combine these two teachings with other teachings throughout the Scripture, which for brevity's sake I'll not cite, and the message is clear:

Marriage is good and right and proper, and it is better to marry than to burn with lust and be tempted into sin by Satan because of a lack of self-control.
Singleness is good and right and proper, whether a person never marries or a person marries and is divorced, but then decides not to re-marry.  Each person has his or her gift from God, so there is no hard and fast rule as to whether to marry or not to marry.
Neither marriage nor singleness is superior.  As Constable has noted, ". . . neither Jesus nor the apostles viewed celibacy as an intrinsically holier state than marriage (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Heb. 13:4; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5). They viewed it as a special calling that God has given some of His servants so they can be more useful in His service."
A eunuch can be a eunuch in the flesh (i.e., he is castrated), but he can also be a eunuch in spirit, and for the sake of the kingdom decides to remain single.  If he is so gifted, that is the sensible thing to do.  Married life has many distractions and complications that the single life does not, whether you are a single man or or a single woman!  A woman, too, needs to be guided by her "gift" in this regard, and there is nothing inherently bad about choosing to marry or inherently good about choosing not to marry.

The number of Christians who are truly asexual is probably very small indeed.  The number of Christians who have a normal sex drive--neither weak nor strong-- but decide in effect to put their sexuality on hold for the sake of the kingdom is probably a little higher.  This is not to say they will never be tempted.  Moreover, in light of the Bible's silence on  masturbation, I am of the opinion that occasional, private, individual masturbation is understandable for these gifted believers and does not mean they should necessarily reconsider their calling.

The number of Christians is likely very large, if it does not in fact constitute the vast majority of adult Christians worldwide, who have a normal sex drive (albeit of individually different strengths) and who neither desire nor have the gift to be single.

In conclusion, God has a wonderful plan for all His children's lives, whether that plan involves marriage, singleness, or even the pain associated with divorce, remarriage, or widowhood.  The key is for us to function within the parameters of our giftedness, to do so in the strength and joy of the Lord, and to be content in all circumstances (Philippians 4:11-13), because as Paul said,

  "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me" (v.13).


What were the Nephilim, and what role did they play in the Bible beyond just being mentioned?

The Nephilim are a subject of much debate. There are a number of views on what they were, the two prominent views being the Sethite view and the Angelic view. Both are an opinion on who or what the "sons of God" are.

The Nephelim are most notably mentioned in Genesis and seem to be a driving decision to send the Flood of Noah.

  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4

A few things stand out in this one verse:

The "sons of God" procreated with "daughters of humans" which created the Nephilim.
They are "heroes of old, men of renown." They did fantastic things.
They were on the Earth "afterward" presumably the Flood.
This short narrative on them is right in the midst of the introduction to Noah and the Flood, hinting that they may have been a reason God brought on the Flood.

Generally, the Sethite view holds that the Sons of God were the righteous men descended from Seth; they praised and worshiped God. The daughters of men are women descended from Cain, who came from wickedness. This view contends that there is nothing particularly special about these persons and it is meant to highlight that the mixing of the righteous people of Seth with the wicked people of Cain led to further wickedness and their subsequent total destruction by the Flood.

Generally, the Angelic view holds that the Sons of God were angels or some other spiritual creatures that procreated with human women. This view contends that this act alone was wicked and an indication that these angelic beings were fallen from God's grace, therefore the offspring were inherently wicked. This view also contends that the offspring were giants and beyond human capabilities.

With both of these views, there is very little Biblical support. However, I find the suppositions and theories very interesting and even fun to research in a science fiction kind of way.

The extent to which your exact question is answered depends on which view you want to hear. From the Sethite view it pretty much stops at Goliath, if you call him a Nephilim because he was a giant. From the Angelic view, we can go all the way through Revelation. Outside of the Bible we can make many suppositions and links to mythology, but that is a bit outside of the scope of this site.

Here are some of the major points concerning the Nephilim:

Points from the scripture

A people in Canaan are later called Nephilim and giants in Numbers.
A man named Anak is listed as a forefather of them. His father is listed as Arba.
It seems that in ancient times, they also went by Anakin, Anakim, or Anakites, all clearly derivatives of the name Anak. They also went by Rephaites; that name's origin is a little less clear.
Three sons of Anak are mentioned by name as if they are still living.
Goliath was a giant; so were his four brothers. This implies that they may have been part of a nearly extinct family of giants, possibly Nephilim descendants.
Some of the Apocrypha go into detail about the Nephilim, the Book of Enoch is most notable.

Points from the Sethite View

Typically, those holding the Sethite view are not biblical literalists and do not believe in the infallibility of the Scripture. Therefore, their explanations are quite naturalist.
Heroes of old is difficult to explain, but it is usually thus: being persons from both lines, the Nephilim united the two lines, setting themselves up as kings and such, and led Earth into prosperity, although at the cost of righteousness.
They were 'on the Earth afterward' is a scribal insert from the original text. The few times they are mentioned in Numbers is by exaggerating scouts; they even went so far as to call them giants. Though they may have been, the source is shaky.

Points from the Angelic View

Typically, those holding the Angelic view are biblical literalists and believe in the infallibility of the Scripture. Therefore, their explanations do not hesitate anything so long as the text of the Scripture mentions it.
They were heroes because they were giants. That much we can know for sure. There are obvious advantages to being larger than everyone else. Goliath is often pointed to as evidence that the Nephilim must have been giants, too. Being half angel or something else non-human they might have had impressive abilities. They may have been able to do things that we cannot even comprehend. I have heard everything from the ability to levitate to supernatural strength to unsurpassed cunning. This easily puts them in line to seize and rule the entire Earth and become "heroes".
There have been many draws from mythology and pagan gods to the Nephilim, with some even arguing that characters like Hercules and Ra were real at least in part and were Nephilim.
A reason the Flood was decided was to wipe out the Nephilim, which were an abomination to God. The fact that some survived was reason for the flat out genocide of some of the peoples of Canaan; the Nephilim needed to be destroyed.
Some have purported that demons are the disembodied Nephilim that have perished. Demons seem obsessed with possessing persons because they are disembodied. Their soul is not like a human soul. They would surely not be allowed in heaven and perhaps there angelic abilities keep them from spiritual imprisonment elsewhere. The story of the group of demons called "Legion" in Mark 5 illustrate this.
I read a fascinating, and frankly creepy, book that connected the Nephilim with alien abductions and went on further to name them as the 2nd beast of Revelation that makes the world bow down and worship the image of the 1st beast. It is completely outlandish, but water tight once a few assumptions are taken.

Wikipedia has a fantastic article on the Nephilim, however, it seems very disorganized to me.

*I wrote an essay on the topic, but I could not find it. I did find my preliminary notes. Here they are.

The following are all the verses that are or might be related to the Nephilim.

Gen. 6:4—The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Gen. 14:5—[They] went out and defeated…the Emites[see Dt. 2:10].
Gen. 23:2—Kiriath Arba is a name for Hebron which is in Canaan.
Gen. 35:27—Kiriath Arba is Hebron
Nu. 13:28—They went up through the Negev and came to Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai, the descendents of Anak, lived.
Nu. 13:33—We saw the Nephilim there (the descendents of Anak come from the Nephilim).
Dt. 1:28—We even saw the Anakites there.
Dt. 2:10—(about the land of Ar) the Emites used to live there—a people strong            and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites.
Dt. 9:2—(on lands across the Jordan) The people are strong and tall—Anakites!
Jos. 11:21,22—Joshua destroyed the Anakites. No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod, did any survive.
Jos. 14:12—(Caleb talking) You yourself heard then that the Anakites were there and            that their cities were large and fortified.
Jos. 14:15—Hebron used to be called Kiriath Arba after Arba who was the                  greatest man among the Anakites (Hebron is also mentioned other times in the Bible, but long after the Anakites were all ran out).
Jos. 15:13,14—Arba was the forefather of Anak. Caleb drove out the 3 Anakites: Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai from Hebron.
Jos. 21:11—Kiriath Arba is Hebron; Arba was the forefather of Anak.
Jdg. 1:10—They advanced against the Canaanites living in Hebron (formerly            called Kiriath Arba) and defeated Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai.
Ne. 11:25—People of Judah lived in Kiriath Arba.
1 Sam. 17—The story of Goliath begins here. Goliath is clearly described as a giant. He is from Gath. This was during war with the Philistines.
1 Chr. 20:4-8 & 2 Sam. 21:15-22—In these verses we learn Goliath had a giant brother named Lahmi and was descended from Repha, though he was called a Gittite. There is also a short description of a 6-fingered, 6-toed giant Rephaite named Sippai or Saph. David is almost slain by a Rephaite named Ishbi-Benob.
1 Chr. 20:8—Seems to be the nail in the coffin for the Rephaites at Gath. Says they fell at David's hands.

The following were preliminary conclusions. They are from a biblical literalist view.

The Nephilim were a real people who lived before and after the flood. That is very clear in the Scripture. They received the name Anakites from Anak who was a descendant to Arba
who was "the greatest man among them." The land they lived in was called Kiriath
Arba, but it was later called Hebron. The mention of the Emites leads me to conclude that these people were also from the Nephilim, but perhaps their lineage was lost or unknown. Dt. 2:10 shows the confusion of who they were, but it strongly asserts that they were also large and strong people. "Rephaites" is only mentioned in passing in a few areas. It is possible, that because of confusion and different people using different names, that Anakites, Emites, and Rephaites were all the same people; it is also possible that Gittites were the same people as well. Dt. 9:2 hints that there were other tribes of people who may have been related to the Nephilim through the Anakites, or they may be directly related to the Nephilim. Perhaps like Israel, they were divided into tribes, maybe from the sons of Arba or Anak. The mention of Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai in Nu. 13:28 and Jos. 15:13,14 hints at this possibility; it is not a stretch to assume that these three persons were chiefs, kings, or some other kind of leaders fr their people. When we look at Goliath the scriptures clearly call him and his family Rephaites, who are descendants of Anakites. There are quite a few details about them, and they are all surrounded by stories of war with the Philistines. The Philistines clearly were allied with them or perhaps the Rephaites were Philistines. Considering the Philistines were eventually completely destroyed, the last of the descendants of the Nephilim were either killed or integrated into other, normal races. If there were (or are) surviving Nephilim the Bible does not explicitly record it.


Jesus' sacrifice covers our eternal hell?

Jesus' death was sufficient simply because DEATH is the punishment for our sins, not suffering. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Savior must suffer for a long time to cover our sins, only His death.

If you look at all these verses, we'll see that "Christ died" and it is enough: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=christ+died&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

The punishment the law required for our sins was not the whippings on His back or even hell, but death. Jesus’ substitutionary death perfectly fulfilled the offerings of the OT.

In the OT, the sinner needed to bring an offering to the priest to atone for his sins. It was enough for the animal to die, not for the animal to suffer, and suffer, and suffer.


Which, if any, of the seven Church Councils viewed as "Ecumenical" by Eastern Orthodox Christians are rejected by the Roman Catholic Church?

Each and every one of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils are recognized as valid councils by the Catholic Church. No Roman Pontiff has ever decreed it otherwise. You will not find any Papal Bulls or any other decrees of condemnations on this point!

In fact, any truly orthodox Catholic website will always list the first seven Ecumenical Councils in the list of their 21 recognized Ecumenical Councils.

Although the Council in Trullo is not officially recognized as an "Ecumenical" Council  by the Church, there is so be found no formal condemnation of the council either.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about the Council of Trullo:

  Rome had recognized fifty of the Apostolic Canons, therefore the other thirty-five obtain recognition from this council, and as inspired teaching (see APOSTOLIC CANONS).

  In the matter of celibacy the Greek prelates are not content to let the Roman Church follow its own discipline, but insist on making a rule (for the whole Church) that all clerics except bishops may continue in wedlock, while they excommunicate anyone who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife, and any cleric who leaves his wife because he is ordained (can. iii, vi, xii, xiii, xlviii).

  The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, "Conciliengesch." (III, 345-48).

THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO REVISITED: ECUMENISM AND THE CANON OF THE COUNCILS states that neither the Pope or his Legate signed this document. The Emperor indeed had hoped for an Ecumenical Council, but the West was not represented!

  The space for the signature of “the pope of Rome,” the second
  after the emperor, is indeed blank in the manuscripts, showing that the
  pope did not attend the council personally or through a delegate, but
  room had been made for the later papal reception (“confirmation”) of the
  council.

  After the signature of “Paul the Bishop of Constantinople” in the
  third place, there follow those of patriarches of Alexandria, Antioch, and
  Jerusalem—disproving the assertion of certain Western polemists that
  these patriarchs did not take part in the council, and that therefore it was
  not ecumenical (emphasis mine). Of the 227 participants at the Trullo Council, 190 were
  from the patriarchate of Constantinople; the others were the patriarch of
  Alexandria, 24 Antiochians, two participants from the patriarchate of Jerusalem,
  and ten bishops from Illiricum orientale. - (Page 16).

  In more recent times, Pope Paul VI cited the Trullan Council (c. 13) to
  confirm the tradition of the Eastern Catholic Churches regarding the
  married clergy.54 And Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic constitution
  promulgating the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, referred expressly to the first canon of Nicaea II, which confirmed the canons of
  “the six holy and universal synods,” thus implicitly recognizing the Trullan
  Council as the sixth ecumenical council. - (Page 22).


How many times does the New Testament quote the Old Testament?

No authoritative answer to this question can be given, because New Testament authors did not explicitly mark all the places where they quoted or alluded to the Old Testament.  Indeed, many of them probably would not have been able to do so even if they tried, since they had internalized the Old Testament text so thoroughly, and thus they adopted its language as their own.

As a result, researchers have broken down New Testament uses of the OT into categories like "direct quotation," "indirect quotation," "allusion," and "possible allusion," and, not surprisingly, they disagree on what fits into each category.  So in the end, no two lists are the same.

That said, there are still some helpful resources that begin to tackle the question.  The first one I'll mention is a free project from the Blue Letter Bible, "Parallel Passages in New Testament Quoted from Old Testament," which has the following goal:

  The list contains not only the direct or indirect citations, but also the allusions which are particularly worthy of attention

Thus it will not necessarily contain all the quotes/allusions, just ones considered particularly noteworthy.  A quick analysis of this list gives the following totals:

Quotes: 302
Allusions: 493
Possible allusions: 138
Total: 933

The second resource, a more in-depth one, is the book Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by Beale and Carson.  It works through the entire New Testament, calling out many parallels between the NT and OT texts.  Depending on your locale, you may be able to preview parts of this work for free on Google Books.

One final caveat: Besides the aforementioned difficulty in compiling such a list, both of the resources mentioned here come from Protestant sources, and thus will not typically take note of references to any deuterocanonical books recognized as part of the Old Testament by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.  Thus if such references are also desired, these sources will be incomplete in that respect as well.


Are Catholics not supposed to pray the St. Michael Prayer?

The faithful may recite the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel freely.

The prohibition from Pope Leo XIII is against the faithful’s use of the rite of exorcism—in other words, the pope is prohibiting the faithful from attempting an exorcism themselves, as only a priest or bishop may do this.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1673, explains,

  The solemn exorcism, called “a major exorcism,” can be performed only by a priest [evidently, a bishop may perform it as well] and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church [emphasis added].

The Prayer to St. Michael, on the other hand, is a popular devotional prayer (at one time recited as a part of the so-called “low Mass”), which is never a problem to recite. (It is never a problem for people to ask for the intercession of the saints in protecting them from the influence of Satan.)

The similarity of the Prayer of St. Michael to the rite of solemn exorcism in use at the time does not itself make the devotional prayer illicit. In fact John Paul II recommended its popular use at least once in a 1994 Regina Coeli address.


What is the name of this painting of Mary and the infant Jesus?

It is a copy or replica of a painting by Roberto Ferruzzi called "Madonnina" (commonly known as the "Madonna of the Streets").

The original has slightly different colours, different facial features, and it is in more of an impressionistic style, with thick visible brush strokes.

I think the painting in the question is probably this following one, because the facial expressions are the same. However note that the cloak in this version is slightly different from the one in the question, and the door frame (?) on the right isn't clearly defined, so it may be yet another reproduction. This one is confusingly shown on the Wikipedia page for Ferruzzi (instead of the original), but it doesn't have any details of who made it. The actual version posted above has been retouched as neither Ferruzi's original nor this copy have a halo.


How do proponents of the Prosperity Gospel interpret Matthew 6:19-21 and Luke 6:20-26?

And why do you worry about clothes? See how the
  flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.
  29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his
  splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is
  how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here > today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he
  not much more clothe you—you of little faith?

  Matthew 6:28-30

Addressing the Matthew 6 verse, if you take an anti stuff position in v19-20,  how do you handle v28-30, above?

God clothes the grass better than even Solomon dressed Himself.  And, at a face value reading of v30, it says He will "much more" clothe us, apparently compared to the grass itself.

v18-19 is talking about storing up and treasure.  These are both qualities of the heart, and so the emphasis is on a covetous attitude, not having things.

The Luke passage is likewise more concerned with a willful blindness of heart.  It is not primarily concerned with "stuff".  This is shown by verses such as John 6:63 and Mark 10:30.  Of course, that is also its own balance--while prosperity can be seen in the NT, people should not be "money minded".  Even the late Kenneth E. Hagin, "father of the Prosperity Movement", said as such, and wrote "The Midas Touch" as a warning / exhortation against taking such preaching where it should not go.


Why does the bible say that David kept all the commands of the Lord when he so clearly didn't?

This is one place where the NIV translation falls short.  The quoted passage says “[David did not fail] to keep any of the LORD’s commands.”  However the Hebrew word used here is soor, which means to turn aside.  Note that the NIV cross-references Deut. 5:32 and 1Ki 9:4, which both talk about turning away from God’s commands.  This is one passage where other translations give a better picture:

  because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. (1Ki 15:5, NASB)

Or

  because David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. (1Ki 15:5, ESV)

So, where the NIV’s talks about keeping the commands, these other translations talk more about a lifestyle.  David knew of God’s mercies that bring forgiveness for his sins (Ps 25:6-7).  The sacrificial system of the OT provided a means for sinners to come into communion with God (though not as perfectly as the sacrifice of Christ).  From this passage we see that David’s lifestyle, similar to many Christians today, was one where he would sometimes mess up, but he always saw his mistake right away and he came right back to God.

The exception of Uriah was a sin that David did not repent of right away.  First, we know he hid it until at least after Bathsheba announced her pregnancy.  Apparently he had relations right after her period (2Sam 11:4) and if we assume she knew about the pregnancy when her next period was due, that was about one month in between.  Then add the time to kill Uriah, and we have easily have weeks to months of him living in this sin before he repents (2Sam 12:13, Ps 51).  So, while he did eventually repent, this was one point where David was clearly walking outside of God’s laws, vice a quick fall and get back up.


Does the Roman Catholic Church embrace theistic evolution?

The position of the Catholic Church is necessarily consistent with the position espoused by the pope, which position can also be described as having evolved since the middle of the twentieth century as:

Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that
there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the
faith and that he considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious
hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that
of the opposing hypothesis;
Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), said that new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as "more than a hypothesis";
Pope Benedict spoke of "theistic evolution" which considers that God created
life through evolution with no clash between religion and science.
In 2014, Pope Francis told an audience from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Vatican City, "When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything. However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness."

This is the position as stated by Catholic Answers:

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

As we can see, the Church holds that the soul is not part of physical evolution, not having been inherited from our parents.  The first parents to have souls were Adam and Eve, whether they were the first of creation or evolved from previous soul-less hominids. Only Adam and Eve, and their successors can look forward to salvation, because only we have a soul.
The Catechism of the Church takes a carefully ambiguous position, neither supporting nor refuting evolution, thereby allowing catechumens to hold either beliefs:

283: The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."