According to Catholicism, does faith or trust in God guarantee protection from poverty?

The short answer is no.

If it were that easy to avoid poverty, there would be no poor left in the world.

Monks take vows of poverty. Some lived in very real poverty such as Blessed Charles de Foucauld.

How many martyrs were dispossessed of their property before being tortured and killed.

Last but not least, we have the words of Our Lord in regards to the poor:

  You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." - John 12:8

Many of the saints were poor!

Our faith and trust in God can and will always help in dealing with real poverty, for our true hope should always be in Our Lord.

Just as St. Paul was not relieved of his thorn in his side (2 Corinthians 12:7–9), so how can we believe that by being confident in trusting and having faith in God will protect us from poverty and/or a lack of food? It can not.

  And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (KJV)

Even the example of the saintly Job as mentioned in Geremia’s answer is not an example maintained for the average individual. Life is very fragile at the best of times.

Our greatest form of poverty is sin itself and not the lack of material possessions or lack of food. Thus we are all poor in some sense. Serious sin will deprive oneself of one’s ultimate good (Beatific Vision) forever if not forgiven before one dies.


What was the Original Purpose of Fasting from "Wine" and "Olive Oil" in the Orthodox Tradition?

Wine and oil are both blessings from God: "wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine," as it says in Ps. 104:15. We forego these with other pleasures on the strictest fasting days.

With respect to wine, you are misinformed. In most Orthodox churches we abstain from all alcoholic beverages on strict fasting days. (The Russians seem to make an exception for beer. For people whose normal drink is vodka, I suppose beer is like water.)

Opinions vary regarding why we fast from olive oil. Some say it has to do with the fact that olive oil was once stored in animal skins, which made it an animal product. Others think it is connected to ancient classifications of foods that are no longer widely understood. For most of us, we are just faithfully following the current fasting rules without questioning why. My priest says it only applies to olive oil, and I believe that is the current consensus. But as with most things in Orthodoxy there is disagreement.

These fasting rules originated in a monastic context. With the collapse of the Byzantine cathedral rite after 1204, the monastic typikon came to govern Orthodox worship in non-monastic churches. The fasting rules of the typikon were also adopted, to a large extent, by the laity. But the laity are not monks, and the rules have never been applied strictly to the laity in their totality. (If they were, we would not eat at all during the first three days of Lent.)

It is also important to remember that we are to avoid being pharisaical. Being overly legalistic is just as bad as being too lax. For reasons of health, many Orthodox loosen the fasting rules, in consultation with their pastors. Most of us, when dining with non-Orthodox family and friends, will eat what is set before us, other than meat. (The rules are intended for our discipline, not for the inconvenience of others.) In some diaspora jurisdictions these days, fasting is barely practiced at all.

Even in Lent, the fast is eased slightly on weekends. We are permitted wine and oil on Saturdays and Sundays in all fasting seasons. For most of Advent and the Apostles' Fast we are permitted wine and oil on Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well.


How far was Peter from Jesus when he denied him?

Proximity

  (Luk 22:54) Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.

This is the question. He followed, from some distance.

  (Luk 22:55) And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

The gap is narrowed here. What was the occasion of the fire, the crowd, the spectacle, and Peter with them? Here we are, with Peter, and they, in the midst of the hall. This passage is dedicated to Peter's denial, and his second, and his third; the crow of the cock, which had to come.

  The Lord turned (strapheis ho kurios). Second aorist passive participle of strephō, coming verb. Graphic picture drawn by Luke alone (Robertson).

  G4762
  στρέφω
  strephō
  stref'-o
  Strengthened from the base of G5157; to twist, that is, turn quite around or reverse (literally or figuratively): - convert, turn ((again, back again, self, self about), Strong).

  Looked upon Peter (eneblepsen tōi Petrōi). Ingressive aorist active indicative of enblepō, an old and vivid verb, to glance at (Robertson).

  ἐμβλέπω
  emblepō
  em-blep'-o
  From G1722 and G991; to look on, that is, (relatively) to observe fixedly, or (absolutely) to discern clearly: - behold, gaze up, look upon, (could) see (Strong).

Luke is the only one who gives this account, and in such a way, as it is meant, to convey personal affectation; real in this case. The wording is deliberate, in other words. It would be unnatural, and strenuous, to attempt to interpret this, in any way, other than cause and effect.

I agree, as the comment, I see above, that Jesus knew all things. However, Peter did not. Though Jesus told him beforehand, he would learn his heart like we all do; in the trial of our determination.

He "looked back" on Peter; also how Tertullian reads it, making allusion to this, in terms of a sudden awakening, of that knowledge of sin to be repented of.

  "...the occasion indeed demands that I should note down; but (to do so) may seem to be unnecessary. For when the Lord is known, our spirit, having been” looked back upon” by its own Author, emerges unbidden into the knowledge of the truth (Tertullian On Repentance: Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 3."

How close? Close enough to meet each others eyes. Close enough that Jesus was able to hear the denial? We know that Peter was in the court. Verse sixty-two says that he went (escaped), out (outside, of doors), and wept bitterly. (The morpho. analys. are taking up more room than I would like. I will supply them @ req.).

Mark 11:11? Because, I see no relation in this to Mark 16:17, but 11:11 he looked round upon, different; and 1 John 1:1

  θεάομαι
  theaomai
  theh-ah'-om-ahee
  A prolonged form of a primary verb; to look closely at, that is, (by implication) to perceive (literally or figuratively); by extension to visit: - behold, look (upon), see. Compare G3700 (Strong).

Also different. I feel like Tertullian captured it, in a separate, though not unrelated, context. In an almost mystical, naked, and revealing sense.

Conclusion

It may be conjecture, but, Peter was close enough to hear, to be heard, and to be seen.

  Robertson, Archibald T. Word Pictures in the New Testament Published in 1930-1933; public domain. See Luke 22:61 this commentary.
  Strong, James. S.T.D., LL.D., 1890. W/TVM


Mormonism doctrine of a flesh & bones God

Good question.
God is a spirit as we are spirits—each human has a spirit residing within a mortal body. Likewise, Mormons believe God is a spirit residing within a perfected, glorified, and immortal body.
From lds.org:

The Greek text of John 4:24 contains no article before the word spirit. Thus, the Greek phrase can also be understood to mean “God is spirit,” or “God is spiritual.” The Apostle John also wrote that “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8), but these statements do not mean that God is only light, or that God is love and nothing else. Neither do we understand the statement that “man is spirit” (D&C 93:33) to mean that man is only spirit and nothing else. In the same sense, John 4:24 does not mean that God is only spirit. From latter-day revelation, we know that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22).
In the context of the Savior’s teachings about true worship, the statement in John 4:24 can be seen as commentary more about the nature of worship than the nature of God. Since God is a spiritual being, people must worship Him “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), not merely through outward rituals performed at certain locations (see John 4:20–21).
Introduction and Timeline for John 2–4


Do Catholics consider saying "Jeez(e)!" to be a violation of the Second Commandment?

The term "using God's name in vain" comes from the Ten Commandments, which were given to Moses in the Old Testament:

  "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Exodus 20:7, KJV).

The New International Version renders it as follows:

  "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God" (Exodus 20:7, NIV).

For there to be an incorrect way to use God's name, there must also be a correct way. God's power is manifested where his name is used appropriately. Some of the contexts where the use of God's name is appropriate are:

Praying (Matthew 6:9, John 14:13–14).
Doing God's work (Matthew 28:19, Acts 4:30, James 5:14).
Preaching the gospel (Acts 9:27, Acts 17:3).

Taking the name of the Lord in vain is a form of blasphemy. To use God's name in vain means to use it in a way that doesn't show proper respect – to use it out of context, or in a demeaning way. Some of the definitions of "vain" are "not yielding the desired outcome" or "lacking substance or worth." Using God's name without the desire to invoke Him; not really meaning it.

Therefore, to bring it back to your question, yes, using the slang term "Jeez" is taking God's name in vain because, as you stated, it is a corrupted form of the name Jesus, which is one of the names of God.

Imagine how annoyed you'd be if people kept using your name without looking to you – yelling out your name as if to call your attention but then turning their back on you; referring to you by a nickname you didn't like; using your name as a filler word or as an insult. I'm sure God doesn't get annoyed in exactly the same way we do, but it's something to think about.


According to LDS (Mormon) theology, is friendship eternal?

There's no official doctrinal statement on eternal friendship that I'm aware of.  However, there is something that can be reasonably inferred from doctrine.  In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 130, we read:

  1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.

  2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.

This tells us that the Afterlife is not intended to be some alien experience that would render the concept of "mortal life as a preparatory state" meaningless, but that it will be a truly familiar thing, organized around the same social structures that we know in this life.  For that concept to be valid, it is reasonable to infer that it would have to include friends as well as family.

People are sealed to their families because family bonds are formal and eternal, but friendships are a much more informal and loosely-defined thing.  (You can probably name two people, both of whom you would call "a friend," but with whom you have two very different types of relationship.  And likewise, you have people who became your friend long after you first met them, or who stopped being your friend.  But a brother or a sister is always your brother or your sister.)  So it's reasonable to assume that, within celestial society, we will have the same inherent freedom of association with people that we have no formal relationship with as we do in mortality.


What is the basis for the position that only Paul's writings are applicable to the church today?

Mid-Acts dispensationalist here, and yes, we do believe only Paul's letters are applicable to the church today. (So when I say "we", I mean mid-acts dispensationalists)

The main verse we use is 2 Timothy 2:15:

  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Here we are told to "rightly divide" the word of truth. To put it more simply, all of the bible is for us, but not all of it is to us. In order to determine who the author is writing to, you have to look at who they say they are writing to.

If you were to just open your bible and look at a verse, say Genesis 6:14, you might read: "Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."

So, are Christians supposed to go out and build arks? Of course not. But why? If all the bible is for us then why wouldn't we follow this verse? It is because this verse is not to us. Looking at the previous verse tells us, "And God said unto Noah". Likewise, we should use the same logic for every other verse/book.

I'm sure you've heard of the "interesting" laws in Leviticus, such as: you are not allowed to mix certain fabrics. Do Christians today need to follow this verse? No, because that verse was written to those under the law, specifically, those under the dispensation of the law.

Let's move farther into the book, there is a highly quoted verse in Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." You've probably seen it on plaques and sold around town. Again, mid-acts dispensationalists believe this verse is not to us because we search for whom the writer is talking to. If we look at the first verse in this same chapter, we see who this verse is talking to "the residue of the elders which were carried away captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon". That description does not fit any of us today, therefore that verse is not for us today.

As you can see, any book in the "Old Testament" is either written to those under the law, or in the dispensation of the law (or prior when reading Genesis).

Another thing we notice is that there is God's chosen people, Israel, and the rest of the world, Gentiles. Looking at the first 4 books written in the "New Testament" (Matt-John) we see that these describe the teachings of Jesus. When Jesus was teaching, everyone he talked to was still "under the law". We see this when Jesus says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments," when responding to the question from the rich man of "what must I do to inherit eternal life". We are also given a clue to Jesus' audience when he says in Matthew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Jesus' message was to Israel. And his apostles' message was to Israel: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6). Why did He only want to deal with Israel? Because salvation was of the Jews:"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22)

We, today, are not Jews. We are gentiles. So why would we take mail addressed to Jews and apply it to Gentiles?

When we get to Paul and his letters, we see he is writing to us, the Gentiles. Romans 11:13 "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office". And Romans 15:15-16 "Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost."

Paul clearly tells us who he is writing to.

Looking at Hebrews - Jude, those books were written to "the little flock" or "12 tribes" who are believers during the 70th week of Daniel (See James 1:1) based on the context clues/verses within the books. What I mean is that there are verses that "contradict" what Paul says. But we believe the bible does not contradict, so those books must be talking to different people during a different dispensation. These books talk about "enduring to the end" and "obeying the law" and "if you sin then God is not with you". These are all signs of the New Testament, as described by Jesus and the prophets from the Old Testament. A time when God will write the law on their hearts.

Revelation describes future events, and isn't really doctrine. So, it's hard to say it "applies" to anyone specifically. It's just telling future events, not ways to be saved that should apply to your daily life.

References to show that this isn't only me:

Why Do You Call It Mid-Acts Pauline Dispensational Right Division? by Justin Johnson
Is All the Bible Written For Us? by Justin Johnson
Shorewood Bible Church (IL) statement of beliefs (see #17)


For since the creation... men are without excuse

As I'm sure you know, if you continue to read on, you will eventually come to Romans 2:12, which reads: (KJV)

  For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:
  and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

and Romans 3:23

  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Assuming that this is true, and also that Christ was not a liar when He said

  I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,
  but by me

and also assuming that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God, we must assume that people who have not come to Christ, and know nothing about Old Testament law, much less salvation through Christ are lost.  The only way to reach them is by getting the Gospel to them, and having them understand, repent, and turn to Christ for salvation.

The general thrust of your question has been answered here and here as well.


Do the people God sends to challenge His people (for His Glory) have salvation?

I think the rest of the letter to the Romans can give a thorough answer to this question. Let's bear in mind, first of all, that the book is written by Paul (who formerly persecuted Christians, but was called by God to become his apostle to the Gentiles) to the church in Rome, the capital of the Empire that was occupying the Holy Land, persecuted Jews and Christians, and was the symbolic successor of all the big bad empires of the Old Testament. It's safe to say that the people who first read the letter would be very interested in knowing whether they, as Romans, could be saved, and what might happen to the other Romans who counted themselves against Christianity.

The theme of the book is set out in the first lines:

  I have an obligation to Greeks as well as barbarians, to the educated as well as the ignorant, and hence the eagerness on my part to preach the gospel to you in Rome too. For I see no reason to be ashamed of the gospel; it is God's power for the salvation of everyone who has faith - Jews first, but Greeks as well - for in it is revealed the saving justice of God: a justice based on faith and addressed to faith. As it says in scripture: Anyone who is upright through faith will live. (Romans 1:14-17, NJB)

So the text affirms, strongly, that salvation is available to anyone; and Paul's personal history proves that even previously being an "enemy" does not mean that one is cursed forever. Paul goes on to say that "there is no favoritism with God" (2:11), quoting Deuteronomy 10:17 (which goes on in v19 to say "Love the stranger then, for you were once strangers in Egypt"). Even worse,

  Are we any better off [than the condemned]? Not at all: we have already indicted Jews and Greeks as being all alike under the dominion of sin. (3:9-10)

However, faith is available to everybody - it is not the case that acting as an enemy of God cuts one off from salvation. If this were true then there would be no hope for anybody, since we are all slaves of sin. This theme is expounded throughout the letter. In 9:25-26, Paul loosely quotes Hosea, saying

  I shall tell those who were not my people, "You are my people," and I shall take pity on those on whom I had no pity. And in the very place where they were told, "You are not my people," they will be told that they are "children of the living God."

Even the governing authorities of Rome are meant to be respected (13:1-7, and likewise 2 Timothy 2:1-2, Titus 3:1). So it is clear from these passages that even those who set themselves up against God may be saved, in the same way as anybody else. This doesn't mean that they necessarily do enjoy salvation, just that they are not "cursed". Paul says in 13:14, "Bless your persecutors; never curse them, bless them," which is of course a direct echo of the words of Christ, in Matthew 5:43-44, "You have heard how it was said, You will love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

The remaining issue from your question is whether people like Pharaoh might be "automatically" saved or blessed because they are carrying out God's will. Paul dismisses this possibility in Romans 3:7-8,

  You might as well say that if my untruthfulness makes God demonstrate his truthfulness, to his greater glory, then I should not be judged to be a sinner at all. In this case, the slanderous report some people are spreading would be true, that we teach that one should do evil that good may come of it. In fact such people are justly condemned.

So, no such luck for Pharaoh: just because God managed to make something good out of the bad things he did, doesn't mean he gets a free pass. But, much more importantly, the "enemies" of your question have just as much access to salvation as anybody else.


OP asks:

  Do Catholics believe everything in the bible is true as written?

<meme>You keep using that word, "true". It does not mean what you think it means.</meme>

The short answer is "Yes, and not quite", if by "true" is intended a flatly literalistic understanding of everything written in the Bible. (On the problem of "literalism", not restricted to Catholic interpretation of Scripture, see James Barr, "Literality", Faith and Philosophy 6(4) (1989): 412-428.)

Dei Verbum

A good way to get a handle on Catholic understanding of Scripture is to read the document from the Second Vatican Council (which met throughout 1962-1965) entitled Dei Verbum (which also has a helpful article on Wikipedia). That document both affirms that

  the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation (Ch. III ¶ 11).

It also immediately goes on to acknowledge that

  since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words" (Ch. III ¶ 12).

[Emphasis added by me.] In practice, then, one needs to consult approved teachers of the church to know in any particular case whether such-and-such a case is to be taken as literally true. (And the church has a teaching office in this regard: "It devolves on sacred bishops 'who have the apostolic teaching' to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels" [Dei Verbum, Ch. VI ¶ 25].)

Examples

OP gives two examples: "...Noah actually having 2 of every animal on one ark, Jonah living inside of a whale...". Between them, they suggest the scope of possibilities open to Catholic "belief" about the Bible, as displayed by the Jerome Biblical Commentary, published in the wake of Vatican II, and having the nihil obstat (explanation) and imprimatur  (also explained):

Noah - The article on Genesis describes its stories as "history", but in a heavily qualified way, since this "history" has a divine origin, purpose, and unity:

  Because it is supernatural, the purpose is beyond the effective control of modern scientific history. Therefore, the ultimate meaning of Genesis, like that of the other books of the Bible, will always elude the historian who works outside its religious postulates. (p. 8)

Meanwhile, the events of the "primitive history" (Genesis 1-11) are "facts", "events of a cosmic order that affected universal man", so that the "first 11 chapters of Genesis present truths based on historical facts" (p. 8). In practice, for the flood story, the composite nature of the biblical account -- made up of material from "J" and "P" -- is a given, and the source of the story found in Mesopotamian flood accounts, with parallels noted and discussed: "The non-biblical versions reflect pagan mythology... In the biblical story, the one God, supreme lord of the situation, decrees the flood because of man's sin" (p. 15). The "cosmic" nature of the whole story is repeatedly stressed.

There is no special consideration given as to the pairs of animals (6:20; nor the tension with there also being "seven pairs" instructed in 7:2-3).
Jonah - is taken to be a product of the period 400-200 BC (p. 633; and roughly Hellenistic, then), and asserts

  Although scholars differ as to the term that should be used in determining the literary form of Jonah, they would agree that the book is not to be classified as history. ... Jonah is to be classified as a didactic narrative, satirical in tone with a profound theological purpose. (p. 634)

Conclusion

Hopefully this makes clear how it is that Catholic teaching affirms that the Bible is true, but that at the same time, this is not to be understood in terms of taking all its statements "literally".


Do all Catholic seminary schools require instruction in Latin and/or Greek?

Not all Catholic seminaries require their seminarians to learn Latin unfortunately. Greek is often an elective in many seminaries. If a seminarian is studying from the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, then yes. The traditional  Mass is said in Latin and a working knowledge of the Latin language is necessary.

  More and more, younger priests are requesting more Latin in the seminaries.  Chant is popular, and there's reams of it in the Graduale Romanum - in Latin.  Architecture of chapels employs Latin in most classical schema.  Biblical studies require Latin.  Studying many Latin Church Fathers requires Latin.  One cannot, for example, fully read Aquinas without sometimes turning to the Latin.  Latin is not going away any time soon. - Do Catholic seminarians still learn Latin?

In any case Latin is required to be taught in Catholic seminaries according to Church Law.

  Fr. Daniel Gallagher, a colleague here at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, has just published a fine essay on the importance of Latin training for men preparing for priesthood. Of course, I think that anything promoting Latin, and anything by Fr. Gallagher, warrants reading, but among the many excellent points made about the importance of Latin competence was Fr. Dan's highlighting of 1983 CIC 249, which calls for proficiency in Latin among those seeking ordination, as well as competence in other pastorally useful languages. Nice use of canon law by a non-canonist.

I personally know of Catholic seminaries that do not teach Latin at all, yet will offer Greek to their students as an elective!

For those having a hard time with languages perhaps it would be fitting to invoke the aid of St. John Vianney who had a very hard time learning his Lain.


There is indeed much evidence that silent prayer was taught and practiced in the early church. Several examples from the first few centuries will demonstrate this:
Clement of Alexandria (150–215) writes:

Prayer is, then, to speak more boldly, converse with God. Though whispering, consequently, and not opening the lips, we speak in silence, yet we cry inwardly. For God hears continually all the inward converse. (Stromata, 7.7)

Cyprian (200–258) writes regarding Hannah:

she prayed to God not with clamorous petition, but silently and modestly, within the very recesses of her heart. She spoke with hidden prayer, but with manifest faith. She spoke not with her voice, but with her heart, because she knew that thus God hears; and she effectually obtained what she sought, because she asked it with belief.  (Lord's Prayer, 5)

As far as the prevalence of the practice, this is a bit more difficult to confirm, but we do know that Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386) commanded it of women in his catechetical lectures:

let the married woman also [...] pray; and let her lips move, but her voice be unheard

It's also specifically commanded in the canons of the Council of Laodicea (363):

After the sermons of the Bishops [...] there should then be offered the three prayers of the faithful, the first to be said entirely in silence, the second and third aloud

Similarly, in the Apostolic Constitutions (380), Book 2, Section 7:

After this let the sacrifice follow, the people standing, and praying silently

Summary
It's tough to demonstrate exactly how common the practice was among individual Christians in the early church, given the documentary record that has survived. But the record clearly shows, particularly the last two documents cited above, that silent prayer was widespread in Christian churches by the 4th century, if not earlier.


What is the meaning behind this coin of Pope St. John Paul II?

When visiting Rome, it is quite a common thing to see pilgrims and tourists buying souvenirs either close to the Vatican or right in Vatican City itself.

Buying a souvenir of the reigning Sovereign Pontiff is very popular when near the Vatican. Traditionally any medal of a reigning pope will have his image on one side. In the case of the medallion at hand it is of Pope John Paul II with the inscription: "Ioannes Paulus II Pont[ifex] Max[imus]"  which simply means "John Paul II Supreme Pontiff".

Medallions showing the image of Saints Peter and Paul (the two great Apostles of Rome) on the reverse side are still somewhat common. I am confident that this is what is portrayed on this medal as both person portrayed are bare foot and are bearded. Underneath the two Apostles of Rome one can read the inscription: S. Johnson (the artist who designed this particular medal). I have several such medallions of previous popes.

Medallions of with the images Saints Peter and Paul have been around since the third century.

  The 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia verifies the authenticity of this bronze medallion and identifies other sources for the likenesses of Saints Peter and Paul. This bronze medallion is  in the Vatican Museum in Rome.

  The medallion is unique, not only because of its age, but for its iconography; for it shows us the typical images of Peter and Paul that we know through our Church’s sacred art. St Paul (on the left) is portrayed with bald head and full beard, and St. Peter is portrayed with a full head of hair and a full beard. - 3rd Century Bronze Medallion of Saints Peter and Paul


This is an odd passage, since, as you noted, he would certainly have known his household.  Also, the Law of Moses strictly forbade human sacrifice, particularly the sacrifice of one's own children, categorizing it as an abomination before the Lord, so such an offering would never have been acceptable to God anyway.

It's interesting to note that the mourning of Jephthah's daughter and her companions was not for her life, but for her virginity; she would never have the blessing (it was still unequivocally considered a blessing back then) of having children.  And verse 39 says "she had never known a man" in the ESV, but the KJV renders it in present tense: "[Jephthah] did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man"

Taken together, these points suggest that she may have been "offered to the Lord" in a different way: as a consecrated servant of God of some sort which would preclude her getting married and having children.


Why doesn't faith heal like it did when Jesus was alive? Aka, "yes-no-wait"

"This assumes that the request is in God's will, which I think is a safe assumption for healing (?)."

This is a safe assumption based on the life and works of Jesus.  Jesus is the exact representation of the Father and as such revealed the Father's will to heal in never refusing to heal someone who came to Him and never suggesting that someone needs to wait for their healing.

Bill Johnson expresses this idea like this:  "Jesus is perfect theology".

This "healed all who came to Him" experience is not unique to Jesus. In Acts 5 we read of the Apostles performing many signs and wonders ... then in v16 we have " Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed."   Also later in Acts we see Paul heal all on Malta.

It has been said that you can't pray a prayer of faith unless the will of God is known.  So, knowing that it is God's will to heal in a specific healing prayer situation is important. All the healing evangelists that I have read about have this issue sorted - they believe it is God's will.

A prayer that says: "If it be Your will heal Bert ... "  is not a prayer of faith.

There is another dimension to healing - as well as faith and God's will is the idea of authority.  When Jesus sent the 12 and the 72 He gave them authority (not faith) before He sent them. At the Great Commission Jesus says "All authority is given to Me. Go, therefore ...".

So to answer your question, with a little modification: yes - if there is faith (which comes from knowing God's will to heal) and prayer is made in the authority that a believer has then God promises to deliver.

All that said, one of the first times I saw God heal when I prayed for someone I was rehearsing in my mind what I would say to explain why they hadn't got healed - and then the healing came.  Where was the faith in that situation?  I have heard that John Wimber had a similar experience - after praying for about 1000 people he was praying for another and rehearsing how to explain why the prayer didn't work when the healing came. (Not that I'm comparing myself to Wimber).


Where can I find the text of "Prayer" by Father Faber?

You must be referring to:

Faber, Frederick William & John Fitzpatrick, O.M.I. 1920. Prayer: Selections from Father Faber. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne.

You can find it in a library near you by clicking the above link.

Chequamegon Books (Washburn, WI, U.S.A.) has a copy of it for purchase, only $10.


What views are there about the necessity of Jesus' murder?

Although not from specific denominations, here are some different views on the necessity of Jesus' death:

1) The prophecy:

Jesus often foresaw and talked about his impending betrayal and death. For example, at Caesurea Phillipi, the watershed moment of Mark's Gosepl, it is said:

  He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. -Mark 8:31

Some could argue that this was divinely given, and no matter what happened, this had to be fulfilled. This is often the basis of Judas Iscariot's innocence, as there had to be a fulfiller of this definitive deed, it was just unfortunate that Judas was the one who had to do it.

The reasons why this prophecy existed is all down to atonement. Jesus' mission is to take upon himself all of man's sins. He undergoes flogging, mockery, corruption, betrayal, isolation and death. Maybe it is not so much the death that is important, but the overall passion narrative, where he endures out of love for us. You could also argue that without the crucification, the resurrection would not happen (or at least not in the same light if it were to happen at old age). The importance of triumphing over the sins of man would not be possible without the resurrection, and therefore crucifixion.

2) Riot

The Sanhedrin were the puppets of the Roman empire, as well as people of religion and therefore the law. In the gospels, they are the questioners and accusers of Jesus.

Their main role was to prevent civil unrest. Jesus, who could easily be seen as an extremist, with his radical views as well as his associations with groups such as Zealots, would therefore provoced them, as he did with the turning over of the tables at the temple. In Mark 14: 1-2, the Sanhedrin plot against him.

  He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

This is at the time of Passover, which celebrates the freedom of the Jews from the oppressive Egyptian state. Likewise, Jesus poses the same threat against the Romans. His death is therefore required to suppress revolt before Passover by turning against him and removing him, by killing him.


What does James mean when he says that Judging a Brother Equals Judging the Law?

Speak evil/against/slander means to talk down to others-as in being condescending. This refers to slander out of envy and reflects the work of Satan whose name means slanderer (Rev. 12:10). It breaks God's royal law (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:36-40; Rom. 13:8-10; James 2:8), destroys fellowship, and keeps non-believers away from the church. It also devalues those who are also precious in His sight, as slander has no concern for truth or the view from the other side (Ex. 20:16; Psalm 15:3; 50:19-20; Prov. 6:16, 19).

Brothers here means fellow-Jews. At this point, most, if not all the early Christians were Jews. However, the rest of us have been grafted in, so it now also refers to all those in Christ (Rom. 11:17-24).

Judges here refers mostly to slander. Jewish wisdom opposed slander too, and they knew this well! It also refers to condemning the faults in others to cover up our own faults, especially the ones we refuse to see in ourselves. He also is condemning the practice of verbally attacking other, which will only bring condemnation on us (Deut. 19: 16-21; 22:13-19; 1 Sam. 24:9; Psalm 34:13; 50:20; 52:4; 101:5; 109:3; Prov. 10:18; 11:9; Matt. 26:60; Luke 6:45; 1 Cor. 6:10; Eph. 4:31; 1 Tim. 3:11; 5:13; 1 Pet. 2:1, 12; 3:10, 16; 4:4).

Law refers to God's love and care-not to rules and regulations. As God declared His love for Israel, He also does so with us; because He loves us, we can respond in gratitude and keep His precepts. Thus, to slander a fellow-Jew was to place oneself above the law and actually slander God. The same goes to slandering a fellow-Christian-and this certainly does not give license to slander non-Christians!

Do not hide your sin by exposing the sin in others-whether true or false! Gossip and slander do more to damage the church than any fire or false doctrine could ever do! Refuse to compare yourself with others! Remember the need for prayer! Remember the need for love!

James points out how highly presumptuous this attitude is in his next sentence. "He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law." When we set ourselves up as "the expert" in speaking against another, James says we are actually claiming to be an expert on the very law of God and judging it. Rather than putting ourselves under God’s law along with everyone else, we put ourselves above the law and use it as we see fit to judge others. And once we do this, we are no longer in right relationship with the law or God. Our relationship to God's law is to be people who obey it out of love, trust, and hope in the One who created us and teaches us how we are to live. But we are not trusting in God our Father when we set ourselves up to "know" exactly what is going on with another and so dismiss them with our word of judgment. The only One who truly sees all and knows all and can see into the heart of others is the Lawgiver, "he who is able to save and destroy." Since we do not have ultimate power over life and death, we should be very careful when our words convey "the final word" about another. "But who are you that you judge your neighbor?" James asks his readers.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that the soul/spirit continues after death?

I think there is a biblical basis for believing that the soul/spirit is not extinguished when the physical body dies and is buried.  The words spirit and breath are translations of the Hebrew word ‘neshamah’ and the Greek word ‘pneuma’. The words mean “strong wind, blast, or inspiration.” Neshamah is the source of life that vitalizes humanity. “The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (Job 33:4). It is the intangible, unseen human spirit that governs man’s mental and emotional existence. The apostle Paul said, “Who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him?” (1 Corinthians 2:11). Upon death the “spirit returns back to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7; see also Job 34:14-15; Psalm 104:29-30).

All human beings possess both material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual) characteristics. Each person has a physical body. The New Living Translation Bible says that after God formed Adam from the dust of the ground “He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person” (Genesis 2:7).  The King James Versions says man was created as a “living soul.”

The word soul can refer to both the immaterial and material aspects of humanity. Unlike human beings having a spirit, human beings are souls.  The Bible nowhere says that God’s breath is imparted to other animals.  Only humans are “formed in God’s image” (Genesis 1:27) and have spiritual awareness and moral conscience (Job 32:8).

The soul and the spirit are the immaterial parts that the Bible ascribes to humanity.  Whenever the word spirit is used in the Bible, it refers to the immaterial part of humanity that “connects” with God, who is spirit (John 4:24). The soul and the spirit are connected, but separable: “For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow.  It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires” (Hebrews 4:12).

The soul is the essence of humanity’s being; it is who we are. The spirit is the immaterial part of humanity that connects with God.  The soul, as the life essence of the body, is removed at the time of physical death: “And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin” (Genesis 35:18 KJV). The NLT says Rachel, who was about to die, named the baby with her last breath. The NIV says she breathed her last.

This begs the question, where was Rachel’s soul/breath/spirit departing to? Her body went into the ground to remain there until the resurrection, but what of her soul? Ecclesiastes 3:20-21 explains how the dead go to the same place (into the ground): “all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” Ecclesiastes 12:7 says that the “dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”

Elsewhere in the Bible, it speaks of the souls of those whose bodies have died, yet they live!  Revelation 6:9 speaks of “the souls of those who had been slain” who were under the altar in heaven.  Revelation 20:4 describes how “the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus” were seated on thrones in heaven.

Please note that the human soul it is not eternal in the same way that God is. God is the only truly eternal being in that he alone is without a beginning or end. God has always existed and will always continue to exist. All other sentient creatures, whether they are human or angelic, are finite in that they had a beginning. While I believe that human souls will live forever after they come into being, the Bible does not support the concept that our souls have always existed. Our souls are immortal, as that is how God created them, but they did have a beginning; there was a time they did not exist.

Not all Christians believe in the soul/spirit of man continuing to exist after the death of the body.  Some believe in “soul annihilation.”  However, whilst related to the question of the soul, it is outside the scope of this question and is for others to defend if that is what they believe.


How do proponents of the Prosperity Gospel interpret Matthew 19:24?

Some won't say

Unsurprisingly, the prominent leaders of prosperity gospel theology rarely if ever address this verse, unlike their opponents. I searched for quite a while and could not find anything on this verse or similar ones from Robert Tilton, Kenneth E. Hagin, or Joel Olsteen*.

* Technically, I did find an interpretation from Joel Olsteen. According to The Babylon Bee, the Joel Olsteen Study Bible explains the meaning of this verse as "Believe in yourself". Then again, the satirical article says that it's the study bible's explanation for every verse.

Creflo Dollar

Prosperity gospel televangelist Creflo Dollar, leader of World Changers Church International, was asked point-blank about this passage in a 2007 interview with CNN. The reporter read Matthew 19:16 and Matthew 19:21-24, then Creflo Dollar gave a response. (I've removed the filler words, since he was speaking off the top of his head).

  Well first of all, when the rich, young ruler showed up, and [Jesus] said, "What you need to do is take the things that you have to sell, sell it, and then, come follow me…" It's about loving God with your stuff. If you keep reading down a couple more scriptures, it says "And he received a hundred-fold, everything that he gave, everything that he sold."

  So we talk about "is it impossible for rich people to get into heaven?" You know that's not the truth. You know rich people are gonna go to heaven just like average people. The issue there is: will you be willing to take your things and share it with other people. Again, we can't assume just because you have some things, that you automatically are not sharing with the people who need it. We invest in people's lives, not only in our community, but all around the world.

He then goes on to talk about how the prosperity his church preaches about may not necessarily be monetary, but could also be in terms of relationships or other intangibles.

The verse that Dollar refers to with his paraphrase of "he received hundred-fold" appears to be Matthew 19:29, which is indeed a continuation of the passage that was quoted, although it was not directed at the rich man like Dollar implies.

  And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

  —New International Version

So according to Dollar, Jesus' words were less about possessing wealth and more about sharing it with others, or in other words, "loving God with your stuff." He also views Jesus' promise of receiving "a hundred times as much" for following him as supporting his argument that Jesus is not speaking against wealth. Furthermore, prosperity does not have to be monetary.

Gloria Copeland

Prosperity gospel author and speaker Kenneth Copeland hasn't said anything on this that I could find, but his wife is quoted in a tweet from their ministry's official Twitter account.

  Set your affections on God's Word. Matthew 6:19-20

    Refuse to allow your affection to be on
    your possessions, business,
    treasures and holdings.
    Demand that your affections
    be set on God's Word.

    Gloria Copeland
    Matthew 6:19-20

While this doesn't directly address Matthew 19:24, the verse does begin "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth", so I think it has a similar sentiment. The point Gloria makes is that the problem isn't wealth, but rather the affection people have towards that wealth.

I would speculate that Gloria would say the issue of the rich man was not having wealth, but rather his affection towards it. Jesus telling the man to sell his possessions made it clear that he was too attached to his material wealth to focus on God. Thus Jesus' comment about a camel through the eye of a needle was more about the general attachment the rich tend to have towards their possessions, rather than about having wealth.


Are brief blasphemous deliberate thoughts a mortal sin according to Catholicism?

Mortal sin (from mors = death) forfeits sanctifying grace and is the supernatural death of the soul. St. Augustine defines it as "something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law."

To be a mortal sin, these conditions must be satisfied:

Knowledge (either natural or supernatural) of the act's sinfulness (offense to God).
Freely performing the sin.
Grave matter

In your scenario, #2 is satisfied because you say "deliberate". #3 is satisfied because blasphemy is a grave offense against God.

It's unclear if #1 is satisfied, you should confess it to a priest, who can help judge if such a sin is mortal.


GOD/JESUS - Greek - Yahuwah/Yashuah - Hebrew

The Greek word, Tetragrammaton, simply means four letters. It refers to God’s holy name in the Hebrew Old Testament, namely, YHWH. As with all Hebrew words, it contains consonants only and no vowels. Thus, its pronunciation is unknown having been lost at the Babylonian captivity.

Since this word was regarded by the Jews as supremely sacred, they would not pronounce it. Therefore, a well-trained scribe would say, “Adonai” (= Lord) whenever he saw the word in the text. During the 8th and 9th centuries AD, when the Hebrew scribes started adding vowels to the Hebrew text, they used the vowels of “Adonai” for the Tetragrammaton. Thus, the Septuagint translators in about 250 BC translated the word as kyrios, Lord.

Unaware of this, the King James translators transliterated the “combination” word, “Jehovah” (only four times out of its hundreds of occurrences in the OT). However, they also adopted another tradition of translating YHWH by “LORD” – to continue the Hebrew scribal tradition.

Modern linguistic analysis has produced “Yahweh” as the best estimate of its original pronunciation.

The New Testament regularly quotes Old Testament passages containing the Tetragrammaton, and often attributes them to Jesus, especially in Hebrews, such as Heb 1:8-12, 2:12, 13, etc.

Thus, God has numerous titles including, Saviour (Isa 44:24), First and Last (Isa 41:4), "I AM" (Ex 3:13-16), Creator (Isa 44:24), the Rock (Isa 44:8), Shepherd (Ps 23), Bridegroom (Isa 49), etc.  Many of these are applied to Jesus in the NT along with more: "Son of God" and "Son of Man", "Immanuel", 'Resurrection and Life" and many more.


How many Catholics are excommunicated in an average year?

I do not think that any hard numbers are kept about excommunications, because excommunication is intended to help persons repent of their sins, not to pillory them in public.

However, the short answer is that there are very few excommunications imposed or declared each year.

Note that none of the sins mentioned by the O.P. merit excommunication. Excommunication is reserved only for extremely grave offenses that, in the judgment of the Church, cause grave and lasting harm to the faithful or to society, and hence require special treatment in Church law.

Some background regarding excommunication

Excommunication is a penalty imposed for extremely grave offenses that Canon Law specifically treats as delicts or crimes. When applying the penalty, the Church does not consider only the severity of the offense, but also whether, given the circumstances and times, certain goods need special protection under the law. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1463.)

For example, because unborn children are extremely vulnerable nowadays to abortion, the Church punishes those who procure abortion with an automatic excommunication. (There is debate among canonists as to what “procuring” abortion consists in, but all agree that the doctor performing it and the medical staff strictly necessary for the procedure to occur fall under this penalty; see Code of Canon Law [CIC] 1398.)

There are also penalties of excommunication for various sacrilegious acts, such as desecrating the Eucharist, revealing the secret of Confession, assaulting the Pope, and so on. (There is actually a fairly complete list on Wikipedia, for the curious. It seems to omit the relatively new penalty for attempting to ordain women.)

The effects of excommunication

It is important to remember that excommunication does not remove a person’s membership in the Church. It merely imposes a penalty which, among other things, forbids that person from receiving the Sacraments. (It also, for example, prevents a person from holding an office in the Church.) Communion can be restored by repenting of the action accomplished, and seeking reconciliation from a priest (or bishop) with the necessary faculties to lift the excommunication. Also, any person may receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation when he is in danger of death. (In such a case, if he recovers, although his excommunication has been lifted, he is obliged to make recourse to the competent Church authority as soon as he can reasonably do so.)

See CIC 1331, for more information on the effects of this penalty.

Latae sententiae vs. ferendae sententiae

An exact answer to the O.P.’s question is complicated by the fact that the Canon Law contemplates two kinds of excommunication: one that is incurred simply by committing an act (latae sententiae); and the other, imposed by a competent Church authority (ferendae sententiae).

Latae sententiae excommunications are generally not known to the general public, and public records are not kept about them. Reconciliation with the Church is done entirely in the so-called “internal forum”—that is, secretly, in the confessional. Hence, it is extremely difficult to estimate the number.

(My personal estimate, as a priest, is that the number is relatively low, because a number of stringent conditions are necessary for the excommunication to occur: the person must be an adult, must be free from grave fear, and must be fully aware that excommunication results from his actions.)

Latae sententiae excommunications, in particularly grave and public circumstances, can be declared—as happened in the case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, and the four bishops consecrated by them, in 1988.

An excommunication can, on the other hand, be ferendae sententiae; that is, imposed as a penalty by competent Church authority.

Counting declared latae sententiae and all ferendae sententiae excommunications together, there is only a small number each year, especially considering the sheer size of the Church—some 1.3 billion according to CARA.

(There is, oddly enough, a list kept on Wikipedia of Catholics excommunicated by year.)


Is there a co-relation between the name or Bethlehem and Jesus' teachings?

Has there been a formal study done by the Church? Not necessarily. But there are plenty of books and articles and homilies and podcasts on the topic:

Blogs:

desiringgod.com - Bethlehem: House of Bread
archspm.org - I know Jesus was born in a manger, but why is that important and what does it mean?

Books:

The Eucharist: A Bible Study Guide for Catholics
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper
The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist
The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth
Consuming the Word: The New Testament and The Eucharist in the Early Church

Podcast:

https://catholicstuffpodcast.com/podcast/2011/06/30/how-transubstantiation-works.html

The short answer is yes, the name 'house of bread' has significance when relating to His other teachings. Christ was born in a manger in the town 'house of bread.' Let's break that down.

What exactly is a manger? A manger was used as a feeding trough for the swine. So the obvious significance here is that Christ was born and immediately laid in a place where food is eaten from. Think of the symbolism here: Jesus would institute the Eucharist, His own flesh and blood for us to consume, the same flesh and blood that was born into a feeding trough. And where was that feeding trough? The house of bread! His flesh would be presented in a trough for us to eat under the disguise of bread. Manger in the house of bread, Bread of the Eucharist on the altar.

Another point, 'manger' comes from a French word that means 'to eat.' When translated from Greek, John chapter 6 uses the same word when Jesus says to eat (or chew) his flesh. (https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2012/12/30/the-meaning-of-jesus-being-born-in-a-manger/)

There is also some symbolism about Him being born into a feeding place of swine because the Jews could not eat pork, but that is for another topic...


Which Christian denominations believe there is a biblical basis for hunting animals for sport?

As another answer stated - there aren't many [if any] denominations in mainstream Western groups that demarcate themselves or make a statement on hunting, etc...

So, assuming we say that the basic answer to the question is "there aren't denominations that specifically call out hunting" - we can then move to other forms of analyzing why the statement may have been made.

Therefore, OP may also be running into the distinctions between the Regulative and Normative theological interpretation and not necessarily denomination specific distinctives. In fact, there may not by any reason to believe the statement is anything other than a personal belief without more information from OP.

To put it very very simply

Regulative Theology:
One is not to do anything not explicitly commanded in Scripture

Normative Theology:
One is allowed to do anything not explicitly forbidden in Scripture

So - your friend's statement that there is a 'Biblical basis' for sport hunting could stem from a normative interpretation of the Bible, in that, since it is not expressly mentioned/forbidden, it is allowable.

Additionally, there could be a nearly infinite number of self-identified 'denominations' that it would be impossible to definitely answer the question as stated. With that in mind, we can look at the more well-recognized denominations (as opposed to splinter groups, Westboro-esque, etc...)

Southern Baptist Convention:
no mention of hunting, animals, or environmental management of any kind in the official 2000 Baptist Faith and Message

United Methodist Church:
no mention of hunting, animals, or environmental management of any kind in the Articles of Relgion

Note: UMC does include a note about earthly stewardship in the Social Principles: The Natural World section of their website. However, there is not a specific word on sport hunting one way or the other

(other references coming as I get the time :)


Does the LDS Church prohibit the use of caffeine?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that our bodies are temples where the Holy Ghost can dwell (1 Corinthians 6:19–20) and that they were given to us as a gift from God, therefore we are expected to take care of them.

The Word of Wisdom was originally given in 1833 as a word of counsel and is found in Doctrine and Covenants 89. Later prophets have reemphasized the Word of Wisdom as a law of health and today it is set forth as a commandment that all church members are expected to follow.

Because the Word of Wisdom is the most well-known health-related commandment, often members group related commandments and the general idea of taking care of one's body into the Word of Wisdom (for example, things like using moderation; establishing healthy sleep habits; warnings against recreational drugs, relying too heavily on medicine have to do with our health but are not mentioned in the Word of Wisdom).

Joseph Smith, who received the Word of Wisdom, and prophets since his time have stated that "hot drinks" means tea and coffee. This includes decaffeinated coffee, and cold coffee and tea. It does not include chocolate, hot chocolate, or warm milk.

Often tea is further interpreted by Latter-day Saints to be any drink derived from the plant Camellia sinensis – like green tea, black tea, and iced tea – but there's still debate around mate, herbal teas, etc. The Church has not officially clarified beyond "coffee and tea."

Some members of the Church abstain from caffeine – you will find that it varies from family to family. This is an effort to take care of the body and likely stems from the fact that one of the obvious ingredients in coffee and tea is caffeine. Caffeine is, in fact, a drug. However, the Word of Wisdom, as set forth in D&C 89, does not specifically prohibit caffeine, nor has the Church officially taught that members should not drink caffeine.


Is there a rule, on how many Patron Saints a Catholic can have?

I believe you're referring to the fact that a person baptized needs a "Christian Name" and that name would be their protection throughout their life.

The sacrament of Baptism is conferred "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In Baptism, the Lord's name sanctifies man, and the Christian receives his name in the Church. This can be the name of a saint, that is, of a disciple who has lived a life of exemplary fidelity to the Lord. The patron saint provides a model of charity; we are assured of his intercession. The "baptismal name" can also express a Christian mystery or Christian virtue. "Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to see that a name is not given which is foreign to Christian sentiment
CCC 2158

When your saint's "name day" comes around, it's a bit like your own spiritual birthday, etc..  It's a good an pious practice hat should probably be done more. This is usually your own name, unless your parents named you something that's not particularly Christian and then you get a new name at Baptism.

The code of Catholic Church law issued in 1918 instructed pastors to see to that each person baptized was given a “Christian” name. If the parents of a child to be christened insisted on an “un-Christian” name, the baptizing priest was instructed to add a Christian name on his own initiative and to enter both names in the baptismal register.
The revised code of Church law (1983) is less restrictive. It simply forbids the giving of a baptismal name that is “alien to Christian sentiment.” Most likely, however, this broader rule will not have much influence on the established custom of preferring the names of saints. This is good, for it is better for us to have a heavenly patron saint whom we can admire and turn to. - Baptismal Saints

However, I don't think it's universally recognized that you can only have one patron, especially since that patron was probably chosen for you by your parents and most likely doesn't have a whole heck of a lot to do with your vocation or particular needs. St. Theresa of Avila, who was a bit of a rule breaker - so maybe this isn't a good example, took St. Joseph as her patron to help her in her work.

and I took for my patron and lord the glorious St. Joseph, and recommended myself earnestly to him.
Life of Teresa of Jesus

She believed that he could help her with everything.
I took the name Alphonsus, because I liked Frank Zappa and that was the closest I could get to St. Alfonso (of pancake breakfast fame).  But he did guide me quickly back into the Church when I bought a big book from Ligouri press on a whim that turned out to be a Catechism (which I don't recall having seen in Catechism class).
Digressions aside,  I believe you must have several saints that you are devoted to in order to survive as a Catholic and I don't believe that one will be saddened by your veneration of another.

St. Teresa heard from the next highest authority too, telling us in her autobiography, “She (our Blessed Mother) said that I pleased her very much by being devout to the glorious St. Joseph.”
National Catholic Register

Lastly, and this is just a practice that may be applicable to my diocese, given the way we structure baptisms and confirmations, but when confirmation candidates in High School prepare for the sacrament, they're tasked with finding a saint to go and make their confirmation patron.  It's never incumbent upon them to choose their Baptismal name, although that might be a lapsed practice that uninformed catechists, like myself, would be better off correcting.


Are subheaders of Bible chapters part of the original text?

In the prefaces of many Bible translations, there are notes that describe the origin of these headers:

  As an aid to the reader, sectional headings have been inserted. They are not to be regarded as part of the biblical text and are not intended for oral reading. It is the committee’s hope that these headings may prove more helpful to the reader than the traditional chapter divisions, which were introduced long after the Bible was written. (NIV 2011 preface, emphasis added)

These section headings are added by the translation committees (or, on occasion, the publishers) to break up the text and help readers find what they are looking for.  It becomes clear that these aren't "part of the text" when we realize just how much they vary.  Here's a quick sampling for Romans 1:16:

ESV: "The Righteous Shall Live by Faith"
KJV: None
NASB: None
NIV: None
NLT: None
RSV: "The Power of the Gospel"

But it's not just the section headings that aren't part of the original text.  As the NIV preface indicates, even the chapter divisions (and verse divisions) are relatively recent innovations – the chapters we use today are based on a system developed by Stephen Langton in the 13th century.  And even these divisions are not fully standardized – see Are chapter and verse divisions international? for some exceptions.

So consider section headings as simply aids to the reader, not as components of the original text.  They should also be regarded as separate from the chapter and verse divisions.

N. B.: There are some "headings" in the Bible that are commonly considered "part of the text" – the titles of Psalms, such as in Psalm 14, "To the choirmaster. Of David" (ESV). These are usually considered "canonical" but not necessarily original – some of them may have been added by editors in the centuries leading up to the apostolic era.  For more on this, see Mark David Futato, Interpreting the Psalms, pages 119–122.


What does it mean that "the two natures of Christ cannot be separated"?

I generally write from a reformed perspective, but I don't think there's anything in this post that other Christians (Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East aside) would disagree with.
The doctrine was first formulated clearly by the Council of Chalcedon:

One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

The church fathers at the council were influenced by Cyril of Alexandria's formulation, which stressed that Christ was "one" "out of two natures."
Firstly, according to Chalcedon, he is of two natures "unconfusedly, unchangeably." That is, his human nature and his God nature did not fold into one another to become a third thing neither human nor God. Instead, he is uniquely both God and man, fully and eternally. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and so on because he is God. He has a body, emotions, and so on because he is human.
But secondly, and more to the point of your question, he is of two natures "indivisibly, inseparably." That is, he is not two people. Jesus, God the Son, is the second person of the trinity, is our redeemer who was born to the virgin Mary and walked among us and sacrificed himself for us.
As far as how his natures are united in his person, that's a difficult question which we will never fully grasp this side of eternity. But Daniel Wallace has some thoughts:

We need to think of the divine attributes in two categories: moral attributes and amoral attributes. The moral attributes are those attributes that speak of God’s morality—justice, mercy, love, goodness, kindness, etc. The amoral attributes are those that speak of God’s sovereignty—omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, infinity, eternity, immutability, etc. What is interesting to observe in the Gospels is that a clear line of demarcation can be seen with reference to Jesus: he never fails to function on the level of the moral attributes, but frequently does not display the amoral attributes. In other words, the moral attributes seem to be “hard-wired” to his human consciousness, while the amoral attributes seem to be subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and come to the human conscious level at the Spirit’s choosing. At the same time, since he does occasionally demonstrate the amoral attributes, there is no denying his deity. Although Jesus Christ has both a human and divine nature, he is not two persons. He has one consciousness. It is not enough to say that his divine nature does not always operate at the level of his human consciousness. Why? Because it is only the amoral attributes that fit this description.

What would it mean for his natures to be separable? You'd have Nestorianism. Nestorian thought went thus:

Nestorius tried to answer a question considered unsolved: "How can Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall". To solve that he taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to the incarnate Christ, not the divine Logos who existed before Mary and indeed before time itself. The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn't the absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? Nestorius rejected this proposition, answering that, because the human soul was based on the archetype of the Logos, only to become polluted by the Fall, Jesus was "more" human for having the Logos and not "less". Consequently, Nestorius argued that the Virgin Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for "Birth Giver of Christ", and not Theotokos, Greek for "Birth Giver of God".
Nestorius believed that no union between the human and divine was possible. If such a union of human and divine occurred, Nestorius believed that Christ could not truly be con-substantial with God and con-substantial with us because he would grow, mature, suffer and die (which Nestorius argued God cannot do) and also would possess the power of God that would separate him from being equal to humans.

That is not orthodox, and was condemned at the Council of Ephesus (prior to Chalcedon).
The inseparability of Christ's two natures also makes one other thing clear. Contrary to what one may hear in some corners of Protestantism, Christ's natures did not separate on Calvary. Whatever happened as he cried out from the cross, he did not cease to be God. If God could cease to be God, our whole theology as Christians is in utter ruin. If Christ was not God to begin with, our whole salvation was a sham. We must affirm that Christ was both God and man and that those natures are united and inseparable.
Martin Luther and Charles Spurgeon are both quoted as saying things to the effect of, "God forsaken by God -- who can understand that?" I certainly don't. But read the full Psalm 22 which Jesus was quoting and you'll see that, while he (the Psalmist, in anticipation of Jesus) begins with a lament at God's forsaking him, right around verse 19 he pivots to a message of hope of deliverance. Other commentators have pointed out that, though Jesus doesn't say "Father" as he does in other places, he still is addressing him as "My God." Significant because it acknowledges a personal relationship. I don't wish to belittle the enormity of suffering, helplessness, and desolation that Jesus experienced on the cross (God forbid I do such a thing!) but I do want to make sure two things about it are clear, even if other things unfortunately remain unclear: Jesus did not cease to be God, but Jesus was crying out to God the Father for having forsaken him.


Why does Catholic Church (and possibly some other denominations) approve natural family planning and condemn different kinds of contraception?

I will try to answer the question entirely from a Catholic perspective, as that seems to be what the question demands.

The classic determination of a moral act has three parts (CCC 1749-1761):

Is the act intrinsically immoral --- which is to say, wrong in every circumstance --- by its very nature?
Is the intention good, or bad?
Would the circumstances surrounding the moral act make it have an evil result?

A moral act (which is to say, an act in which a human has the freedom to act one way or another) must pass those 3 tests above to make it a moral action.

Now, let's compare non-abortifacient artificial contraception and Natural Family Planning in regards to the tests above.  I add the proviso that the artificial contraception be non-abortifacient because otherwise we are talking about abortion (even if early abortion), and such act is fairly equated to murder of the innocent (CCC 2270-2275): an intrinsic evil of its own.  It goes without saying that we are assuming any sexual intercourse takes place within marriage in both cases, or else we are talking about fornication, which immediately fails the third requirement (CCC 2353).

In what follows, see (CCC 2366-2370)

Non-abortifacient artificial contraception fails the first test.  By its very nature artificial contraception (even when it doesn't kill the unborn) is a contradictory act.  On the one hand, the sexual act is supposed to be (among other things) a total self-giving of spouses to each other, and on the other hand, the contraceptive symbolism (and intended effect) is to withhold from each other an integral part of themselves: their fecundity --- whether abundant or slim.  In a sense it is very much like deception.  One would have strong objections to a man pretending to be someone else in order to marry a woman (and vice-verse)  --- it would go against the very nature of marriage that requires honesty and trust.

On the other hand, Natural Family Planning (refraining from having sexual intimacy at times) does not fail this test.  There is no moral requirement that a couple have sex every waking moment of their lives.  And in fact, there are circumstances when they must not have sexual intimacy (for instance, after surgery in their nether regions).  And engaging in Natural Family Planning does not engage in the double-speak that contraceptive sex does: it is the difference between lying and remaining silent (See esp. CCC 2370).  While we are called to always tell the truth, we are not always called to speak.

Of course, we are sometimes called to speak, and tell the truth.  Analogously, God calls us to "be fruitful and multiply".  Here is where we talk about intentions (the second requirement), which gets at the heart of the question.  After all, aren't both methods (non-abortifacient artificial contraception and Natural Family Planning) intending to avoid children?  And isn't that against God's will for humans stamped in their reproductive nature --- whichever method you use?

To be sure, there is much truth in these questions.  If there was not the positive call from God to reproduce, one might be able to respond that both methods have the same ends, but one uses intrinsically flawed means of accomplishment, while the other uses entirely natural means.  That difference is not trivial, of course, and would suffice as an answer if there was not the positive command from God to "be fruitful and multiply".  However, we are called to reproduce.  For now, let me say this: if someone's use of Natural Family Planning has as its goal the avoidance of children for the sake of not having any children, then that person is clearly doing violence to one of the purposes of matrimony (which is to obey the command to "multiply"), and as such has failed the second requirement of a moral act by having the wrong intention.  Which is to say, Natural Family Planning is not "intrinsically moral" or "intrinsically good" (always right).

But how can it be right at all?  Isn't the command to be "fruitful and multiply" definitive and absolute?  Shouldn't the mandate be to find the best time for procreation every month and make sure to have sex during those times (whether or not on other times as well)?

Well, but we have been given other mandates from God on the subject of marriage.  One of them is, for example, to care well for the children we do have.  In other words, the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply" would not be fulfilled very well at all if we left our children to fend for themselves once we gave them birth.  Part of the command is that we must do our best to make sure our children have a good chance of surviving in this world.  And that may mean that we must have less children than we are physically able to have in order to be able to feed and care for the ones we do have.

Among other things, we are also called to respect our spouses bodies, for instance, and we must not engage in sexual intimacy when our wife is likely to be fecund if she is physically unable to handle the pregnancy.

In other words, we must be responsible with the gift of fecundity we are given (CCC 2367-2368), and take into account all other commandments from God.  But we must have the right intentions.  An avoidance of children must be motivated not by the wish not to have to sacrifice --- we are all called to sacrifice, just as Jesus sacrificed Himself --- our affluent lives, or by the wish to make all procreation impossible, or by selfish reasons, but must instead be "in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood" (CCC 2370).  Our parenthood must be both responsible and generous, and never selfish.  To take one instance, one must not forgo having a child because one really wants a boat.

Okay, but isn't it possible to have this lofty (and very worthy) aims in mind when one uses non-abortifacient artificial contraception to avoid children?  Yes!  In regards to intentions, the intention to avoid children is the same whether one uses non-abortifacient artificial contraception or Natural Family Planing, and in both cases the intentions can be worthy and moral, or immoral.  However, assuming morally acceptable intentions, the question of means now shows up again.  Whereas it is quite natural to use Natural Family Planning to space one's children, non-abortifacient artificial contraception is intrinsically evil because, by its very nature, it lies in a very fundamental way which is entirely contradictory to the essence of matrimony.

Finally, circumstances.  Some actions which may be otherwise moral, may end up becoming immoral depending on the circumstances.  A classic example of this might be the following: while it is morally good to attend Church on Sundays, it might not be moral to do so while in a foreign country that actively persecutes Christians if by doing so the attention of the authorities would be called to an underground group of Christians in hiding.  In other words, consequences of an action are evaluated here.  I have already included some language of circumstances above in my discussion of intentions.  As far as Natural Family Planning goes, its morality might change or might be different if talking about a well-to-do family compared to a poor family, or if talking about a young and healthy couple compared to an elderly or not so healthy couple, or if talking about a large family compared to a small family.  The devil here is in the details (and the moralist).  In any case, the circumstances do not ever change the nature of an intrinsically evil act to a morally acceptable one (CCC 1754).  They might lessen the moral culpability of an evil act, but the action remains as evil as ever.  They might also increase the moral culpability of an evil act (lying about one's finances is less problematic when doing it to your friend than to the court, for instance).  Similarly, circumstances can also increase or diminish the moral worthiness of a moral act (volunteering for the army would be more courageous in times of war than in times of peace, for instance).  In any case, there are no circumstances in which non-abortifacient artificial contraception becomes a good act (that is the meaning of intrinsic evil, after all).

Well, that was too long.  I wonder how many will read it all the way through?


Are there any examples where the non-believers demanding a miracle for the proof of Catholic faith and a saint succeeding in performing it?

On more than one occasion, at Fanjeaux and Montréal, in order to resolve theological disputes between Albigensian heretics and Catholics, the Albigensians challenged St. Dominic to throw his book in the fire and they'd throw theirs in, too, and whoever's books remained unscathed would contain the truth. St. Dominic's book immediately jumped out of the fire unscathed, and the heretics' burned. St. Dominic's book is said to have defended the Immaculate Conception.
Here is how Bl. Jordan of Saxony, O.P., recounts it in his biography of St. Dominic, the Libellus:

One day a famous disputation was being held at Fanjeaux and a large number of the faithful and unbelievers had gathered. Many of the former had written their own books containing arguments and authorities in support of the faith. After these books had been inspected, the one written by Blessed Dominic was commended above the others and unanimously accepted. Accordingly, his book and that produced by the heretics were presented to three judges chosen with the assent of both sides, with the understanding that the side whose book was chosen as the more reasonable defense should be regarded as having the superior faith.

After much wrangling, the judges came to no decision. Then they decided to cast both books into a fire and, if either of them was not burned, it would be held as containing the true faith. So they built a huge fire and cast the books therein. The heretical book was immediately consumed by the fire, but the one written by the man of God, Dominic, not only escaped burning, but, in the sight of all, leaped far from the fire. For a second and a third time, it was cast into the fire, but each time it leaped back and thereby openly testified to the truth of its doctrine and the holiness of the person who had written it.

The trial by fire: the writings of the Albigenses are consumed in the flames, while St. Dominic’s book on the Flesh of Christ is miraculously borne safely away in the presence of the whole assembly. (See pages 18 and 236 [of Sr. Drane's biography of St. Dominic]). In this book St. Dominic affirmed the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.


What is the significance of Mary treasuring and pondering in her heart?

I suppose Luke got his information from Mary, and for her to have given them as though quoting them after many years proved she pondered and cherished those words, and was watching out for their fulfilment.


Why have a photo of the bishop in the sacristy?

Because from the earliest times, bishops have been seen as the fulcrum of the local Christian community: the priests being their fellow workers; and the deacons their servants. Apostolic succession also comes through the bishops who alone can ordain new bishops and priests.
For example, St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in A.D. 107, writes in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans (Chapter 8):

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

So while there is no explicit or authoritative documentation on the custom, this is almost certainly the reason sacristies have a photo of the local bishop: showing the centrality of the local bishop, and the authority and jurisdiction which comes from him, to and via the priesthood, to the faithful.
In the Roman Rite we also have the acknowledgement of the local bishop in the Canon (a for all intents and purposes unchanged part of the perennial Roman Rite of Mass):

...
To you, therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, which we offer you firstly for your holy catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace,  to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with your servant N. our pope and N. our bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth,
hand on the catholic and apostolic faith. Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N. and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you. For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise—or they themselves offer it—and all who are dear to them: for the redemption of their souls, in hope of health and well-being, and paying their homage to you, the eternal God, living and true. In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-virgin Mary, mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ,† and blessed Joseph, her spouse, your blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, (James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian) and all your saints; we ask that through their merits and prayers, in all things we may be defended by your protecting help. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. ...

The bishop (as well as the pope) serve to symbolize—as well as realize and maintain—unity and catholicity in the communities that make up the one body of the Catholic Church.


Do people who adhere to the Immaculate Conception of Mary believe that Mary and Jesus were both conceived in the same fashion?

No, they do not. Jesus was born without sin by virtue of being God. Mary, who was conceived in the usual way, would have had to have some other approach to be sinless. After some thought about how that might have occurred, theologians concluded that

the soul of the Blessed Virgin, in its creation and infusion into the body, was endowed with the grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved from original sin.

(Apostolic Constitution "Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum", Alexander VIII,  1661; quoted in "Ineffabilis Deus", Pius IX, 1854)
In particular,  the Catechism states:

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 491)
That is, essentially, Mary was redeemed, sanctified, and justified (as we all are at baptism) in the moment of her conception, by the merits of her Son's sacrifice extended back in time. There was no need for her to be born of a sinless mother. It was the supreme glory of the Divinity that made it appropriate for Mary herself to be sinless, but she herself didn't have to be born of a sinless one to become that way.


Did Jesus and his disciples have an occasional “hiding place”?

You may have answered your question with your own statement:

Of course, the Gospels do not explicitly name any place where Jesus and his disciples spent time away from public view.

Had the Holy Spirit wanted the gospel writers to include the name of such a hiding place, he would have inspired them to name it. Since the Spirit did not, however, no such place is mentioned, at least explicitly.
What the Gospels do mention explicitly is that--as you have pointed out--Jesus frequently needed to escape public notice by making himself scarce! His reason for doing this is linked intimately to his life's timetable.
At Cana in Galilee, the place of Jesus's first public miracle, Jesus said to his mother,

"Woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4 NIV).

The phrase "my hour has not yet come" is significant. Commentator Constable has this to say regarding Jesus's words "my hour":

The Greek word translated time (ὥρα, hōra) occurs in John 2:4; 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28, 29; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:25; and 17:1. It is a reference to the special period in Jesus’ life when he was to leave this world and return to the Father (13:1); the hour when the Son of man is glorified (17:1). This is accomplished through his suffering, death, resurrection (and ascension—though this last is not emphasized by John). John 7:30 and 8:20 imply that Jesus’ arrest and death are included. John 12:23 and 17:1, referring to the glorification of the Son, imply that the resurrection and ascension are included as part of the “hour.” In John 2:4 Jesus’ remark to his mother indicates that the time for this self-manifestation has not yet arrived; his identity as Messiah is not yet to be publicly revealed.

In saying "my hour has not yet come," Jesus was indicating the importance he placed on doing his Father's will, and that included the when, the where, the how, and the why. Jesus said,

. . . I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him” (John 8:28b-29 NIV).

Saying and doing what pleased the Father was Jesus's priority. Equally important to Jesus was being sensitive to when and what the Father wanted him to do and say. Again, the Father's timetable was Jesus's timetable. If saying or doing something would in any way jeopardize its timely fulfillment, Jesus would immediately adjust his course accordingly. Sometimes that adjustment involved making himself (and his disciples) hard to find.
In short, Jesus may have had numerous hiding places during his public ministry. Since the Gospels do not mention explicitly where those places were, save in general terms such as "across the Jordan," we must assume the Spirit who inspired the Gospel writers chose not to bring those locations to their minds as they wrote.
By the way, the disciples had a hiding place where they could lay low after Jesus's crucifixion. "For fear of the Jews" they were behind locked doors. Perhaps this location was where Jesus and his disciples celebrated the Last Supper together. Just a thought!


I'm going to try to answer this from a purely Scriptural point of view, rather than a particular doctrinal stance.

The short answer is, according to Scripture, no.  But there are a few points to address in the question.

  and not sinned by our definition

Everyone on earth has sinned, save Jesus.

  Romans 3:23 (KJV)

  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

When you examine it, every one of us has broken each and every one of the Ten Commandments, if not in deed, then in heart and in intent.  For example, perhaps we've never committed adultery physically, but as Jesus said, if we've looked at someone with lust, we've committed adultery in our hearts.

  Matthew 5:28 (KJV)

  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in
  his heart.

We've all broken the other Commandments in spirit as well, but even if one of us has squeaked away with not committing all of them, it doesn't matter.  The Bible tells us that if we've broken even one, we're guilty.

  James 2:10 (KJV)

  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
  he is guilty of all.

So, the theoretical monk is not sinless by the standards laid forth in Scripture.

Romans 1 touches on the subject of whether or not we are held guilty if we've never heard the Gospel message.  It lays out a few truths:

God reveals Himself to us, and we are without excuse.
Our ancestors had access to the truth of God, and chose to turn from them.

  Romans 1:18. (KJV) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
  unrighteousness;
  19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
  20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
  his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
  21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
  their foolish heart was darkened.
  22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
  23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
  creeping things.

Their unbelief and rebellion against God meant that their children, their children's children, and so on were not taught about God.  It's not His fault, it's theirs.  Because they chose to rebel when they knew the truth, and didn't teach their children, they doomed their children to not knowing the truth of God.  This is one reason that Proverbs 22:6 is important.  (Again, KJV)

  Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will
  not depart from it.

In Romans 2 (KJV), we read:

  11. For there is no respect of persons with God.
  12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by
  the law;
  13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
  14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law
  unto themselves:
  15. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
  accusing or else excusing one another;)

This theoretical monk would qualify, not knowing about the Hebrew God, or Jesus as one who "sinned without the Law", and Scripture here tells us that "he shall perish without law". He will perish because he has sinned, and ignored the conscience that God has placed in each and every one of us.

Finally, it should be noted that even in civil, earthly law, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.

If I were to carry a concealed weapon in a state that doesn't allow concealed carry, for example, and I was arrested, would I be able to avoid the consequences by telling the Judge "I didn't know"?  No.  I'd be punished according to the law, whether I intentionally broke the law or not.

As we saw in Romans 2 (quoted above), the Bible tells us that God will not accept ignorance as an excuse.  He will perish without the Law, as God's word states, because he has sinned and broken the law, not because he has rejected Jesus.  Accepting Jesus is the only way to be saved.  He pays the penalty for our guilt.  However, the reason we are guilty is not because we didn't accept Him, it's because we chose to sin.

We can try to blame God all we want, and we can even try to blame the ancestors, but the simple fact remains that the monk will be condemned because of his own sin.


If Jesus was Sinless and had Free Will, how is the rest of creation not a mistake?

First of all you start with a false premise. Jesus was not created! He is the creator. What is possible for him to be and become is not necessarily possible to create.

Secondly, something created in such a fashion that it would remain sinless would make it a very different kind of being than a sinful being that has been redeemed and made perfect out of imperfection. The latter is a MUCH HARDER feat and shows off the glory and the power of Christ.

There is no mistake. From the beginning God set out to do something hard to demonstrate the power of his Son. The history of salvation begins not at the fall of man (as if something went unexpectedly wrong) but before creation itself. Jesus is knows as the Lamb who was slain before the foundations of the world. How salvation would work was decided and implemented and the results written down before man came along to test the plan.

  Revelation 13:8 (ESV)
  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.