Can you be a Christian and not go to church?

No.

Actually yes it is of course quite possible, but if someone is asking this question at all, it is likely that there is some other issue. Fellowship and the community of saints is such a basic part of the Christian faith that someone who wants to avoid that part on purpose has probably not understood the purpose of church at all and may not have the kind of regenerated heart that would want such a thing.

An interesting note on this issue is that it is usually those who for whatever reason cannot easily fellowship that understand it's value the most. Christians living in areas where they are persecuted for their faith believe so strongly in their need to meet together that they are often willing to risk their lives for it. It is primarily in affluent secular cultures were the desire to NOT attend creeps into circles of professing Christians. Anybody asking this question should be challenged to re-consider whether they know what being a Christian is all about in the first place.

One starting point is to review what scriptures say about the matter. A vast number of the instructions given to Christians for implementing their faith have to do with our treatment of one another, and the Lord's day is given lots of treatment in the Scriptures as well.


In Catholic exorcisms why the Holy Angels (such as the possessed's guardian angel) are not actively participating as soldiers in battle?

In Catholic exorcisms, why are the Holy Angels (such as the possessed's guardian angel) are not enlisted to assist?
I do not know where you got that idea from, but I assure you the opposite is the truth.
First of all (Fr.) Malachi Martin has a very dubious past. He may have written the book entitled Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans. However he likes the sensational and was often at odds with the Church. Personally, I do not trust his fact findings and I am not about to dive into this can of beans here.
Does the following sound like a first class Churchman:

Disillusioned by Vatican II, he asked to be released from certain aspects of his Jesuit vows in 1964 and moved to New York City, where he later became an American citizen.
His 17 novels and non-fiction books were frequently critical of the Vatican hierarchy, whom he believed had failed to act on the Third Prophecy revealed by the Virgin Mary at Fátima. Among his most significant works were The Scribal Character of The Dead Sea Scrolls (1958) and Hostage To The Devil (1976) which dealt with Satanism, demonic possession, and exorcism. The Final Conclave (1978) was a warning against Soviet espionage in the Holy See via Soviet spies in the Vatican.
Martin claimed that Popes John XXIII and Paul VI were Freemasons during a certain period and that photographs and other detailed documents proving this were in the possession of the Vatican State Secretariat. He allegorically mentioned these supposed facts in his 1986 novel Vatican: A Novel, where he related the Masonic adherence of Popes Giovanni Angelica and Giovanni De Brescia. He claimed Archbishop Annibale Bugnini C.M. was a Freemason and that Agostino Casaroli, long-time Cardinal Secretary of State, was an atheist.
He spoke and wrote often about the Three Secrets of Fátima and was an ardent supporter of Fr. Nicholas Gruner: "Father Gruner is fulfilling a desperately needed function in the ongoing perception of Mary's role in the salvation of our imperiled world. Father Gruner is absolutely correct that the consecration of Russia as - Our Lady desired, has not been executed". - Malachi Martin (Wikipedia)

Personally I put no stock in Malachi Martin’s work. Many think he even had affairs with married women. He staunchly supported Fr. Nicholas Gruner who was suspended by his own bishop! Fr. Nicholas Nightingale Gruner personally appealed to Rome about the suspension of his priestly duties, but was unsuccessful.
Now let us take up the crux of your question. In Catholic exorcisms, why are Holy angels (such as the possessed's guardian angel) are not enlisted to assist?
Fr. Gabriele Amorth makes note in his books that the praying to the Holy Angels and Guardian Angels in particular for help during exorcisms is beneficial. Both Malachi Martin and Fr. Amorth recommend reciting the rosary during exorcisms.
Please remember that more often than not, official exorcisms take hours to get through. Priests, in these times often employ other prayers not mentioned in the Rituale Romanum.
The Litany of the Saints is prayed as part of the Ritus Exorcizandi Obsessos a Dæmonio. It is a very common practice to add Patron Saints or Saints of special devotion to a location or person at times of priestly ordination or solemn profession of a religious. There no reason prohibiting the inclusion of patron saints or the Guardian Angels to be included in the Litany of the Saints during an exorcism.
More to the point is that Pope Leo XIII’s prayer Exorcismus in Satanam et Angelos Apostaticos is in fact a Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.

In nómine Patris, et Fílii, et Spíritus Sancti. Amen
Ad S. Michaelem Archangelum Precatio
Princeps gloriosíssime cæléstis milítiæ, sancte Michaël Archángele, defénde nos in
prǽlio advérsus príncipes et potestátes, advérsus mundi rectóres tenebrárum harum, contra spirituália nequítiæ, in cæléstibus. Veni in auxílium hóminum; quos ad imáginem similitúdinis suæ fecit, et a tyránnide diáboli emit prétio magno. Te custódem et patrónem sancta venerátur Ecclésia; tibi trádidit Dóminus ánimas redemptórum in supérna felicitáte locándas. Deprecáre Deum pacis, ut cónterat sátanam sub pédibus nostris, ne ultra valeat cáptivos tenere hómines, et Ecclésiae nocére. Offer nostras preces in conspéctu Altíssimi, ut cito antícipent nos misericórdiæ Dómini, et apprehéndas dracónem, serpéntem antíquum, qui est diábolus et sátanas, et ligátum mittas in abýssum, ut non sedúcat ámplius gentes.
Exorcismus
In Nomine Jesu Christi Dei et Dómini nostri, intercédente immaculáta Vírgine Dei
Genetríce María, beáto Michaéle Archángelo, beátis Apóstolis Petro et Paulo et ómnibus Sanctis, et sacra ministérii auctoritáte confísi, ad infestatiónes diabólicæ fraudis repelléndas secúri aggrédimur.
Psalmus 67
EXSURGAT Deus, et dissipéntur inimíci ejus, et fúgiant qui odérunt eum, a fácie

The act of exorcism within ritual is only part of the equation and takes about 20 minutes to recite, but the act of exorcism itself goes on for much longer. There is lots of time for additional prayers for the exorcist to invoke the Guardian Angels of all involved. This is the practice of Fr. Gabriele Amorth himself!
More than not, many exorcisms are needed to liberate a soul from the Demon. All involved would most naturally pray to Our Lord, His Mother, their Guardian Angels and their patron saints for assistance. The exorcists that I know actually encourage this.
Only the exorcist is permitted to recite the ritual and interrogate the Demon(s) involved the exorcisms. The exorcist must instruct all involved in what to do and not to do. This would also encompass what additional prayers one could silently recite during an exorcism.


How many witnesses are there who physically saw and/or touched the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was reportedly translated?

The testimonies of these "lists of witnesses" is included in the introduction to the Book of Mormon, in which they explain what they saw and experienced.

From the testimony of the Three Witnesses:

  And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon
  the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and
  not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of
  God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes,
  that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we
  know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus
  Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And
  it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord
  commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be
  obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these
  things.

And from the testimony of the Eight Witnesses:

  Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the
  plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold;
  and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did
  handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of
  which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.
  And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith
  has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety
  that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken.

Both groups include a solemn testimony that they did actually see the golden plates that the record was inscribed upon.  The first group (three men) was shown them by an angel, but they do not claim to have touched them, while the second (eight men) was shown them by Joseph Smith, and was allowed to handle them.  So those eight and three, plus Joseph Smith himself, makes a total of twelve who physically witnessed the original record.

Because of the strength of these testimonies, it was common, back when the men in question were still alive, to make claims that they had denied or recanted their testimonies in some way, as a way to attempt to undermine the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.  The linked Wikipedia article contains a few such claims attributed to Martin Harris, one of the Three Witnesses, but it also gives his claim that "No man heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon [or] the administration of the angel that showed me the plates."

A discussion of this apparent discrepancy can be found at the FAIR wiki, which assumes that Harris did actually say what was attributed to him.  A simpler explanation, of course, would be deliberate incorrect attribution. Fact checking is hard enough even today with the Internet at our fingertips; in the mid 19th century, such a task was exponentially more difficult, which made it much easier for dishonest people to employ flat-out falsehoods in many different causes.

In any case, the last word on the subject should be Martin Harris's literal last words.  On his deathbed, he once again reaffirmed that:

  The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I
  have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold
  plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to
  me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had
  I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the
  testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not
  have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these
  things are true.

The other two of the Three Witnesses both gave similar reaffirmations on their own deathbeds.


Biblical

The only Biblical information we have that Peter might have been in Rome is the cryptic reference in 1 Peter 5:13, "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark."  If "Babylon" is the cryptic name for Rome, as is commonly claimed, then this might be the sole source of information from the Bible.

Historical

The extra-biblical data about Peter being in Rome is highly debated and scant at best.  This author,  Otto Zwierlein, claims that there is no reliable evidence that Peter was ever in Rome - see the following document: Has St. Peter ever been in Rome?

Wikipedia has a short discussion about this but produces no solid evidence of Peter in Rome. It concludes:

  Clement of Rome' First Letter, a document that has been dated from the
  90s to the 120s, is one of the earliest sources adduced in support of
  Peter's stay in Rome, but Zwierlein questions the text's authenticity
  and whether it has any knowledge about Peter's life beyond what is
  contained in the New Testament Acts of the Apostles. The letter also
  does not mention any particular place, only saying: "Peter, through
  unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and
  when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of
  glory due to him." (ch. 5) A letter attributed to Ignatius of Antioch
  to the Romans might imply that Peter and Paul had special authority
  over the Roman church,[21] telling the Roman Christians: "I do not
  command you, as Peter and Paul did" (ch. 4), although Zwierlein says
  he could be simply referring to the Epistles of the Apostles, or their
  mission work in the city, not a special authority given or bestowed.
  Zwierlein has questioned the authenticity of this document and its
  traditional dating to c. 105–10, who says it may date from the final
  decades of the 2nd century instead of from the beginning.

In short, there are only hints that St. Peter might have been in Rome but almost no historical, unequivocal evidence.  At the same time, none of the historical data precludes St. Peter being in Rome near his end.


Did Judas Iscariot know that Jesus would be killed when he turned Jesus over to the Pharisees?

It is difficult to believe that Judas Iscariot would not have known the priests intended to have Jesus killed. After all, their willingness to pay thirty silver coins, a small fortune at a time when peasants generally only used the lesser bronze coins, was clear evidence of foul intent.

However, Matthew's Gospel portrays Judas as suffering considerable remorse after the death of Jesus, suggesting that he might not have known that this would be the outcome of his betrayal:

  Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.  And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
  Matthew 27:3-5

On the other hand, Acts of the Apostles shows Judas as well pleased with himself, using the blood money to buy a farm, although by misadventure he was unable to enjoy the fruits of his betrayal. Since he displays complete unconcern that Jesus had been crucified, we could say that in this account, Judas was also unconcerned at the time of the betrayal whether this would be the outcome, whether or not he knew:

  Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
  Acts 1:18


When, how and why did Mary start to be called "Queen of heaven"?

Finding the very first instance of this is difficult; there are (as a severe underestimate) thousands of works by hundreds of writers who may have mentioned Mary. I'm relying strongly in this answer on the article I linked for you above, "The Queenship of Mary during the Patristic Period", which in turn relies heavily on an article by an "H. Barré" in the French journal Recherches de science religieuse. Unfortunately this article, "La Royaute de Marie pendant les neuf premiers siecles", is unavailable to me.
This article cites a poem attributed to Venantius Fortunatus, which though it does not use the specific title "Queen of Heaven" for Mary, does refer to her "heavenly throne":

Conderis in solio felix regina, superno,
i.e.
You are seated, happy queen, on your heavenly throne

The author notes that the attribution of the poem to Fortunatus is contested. He adds a reference to a homily of Archbishop John of Thessalonica (I don't see a quick reference to him on the web, but he appears to have been Archbishop of Thessalonica between 610 and 649). This homily, on the Dormition of Mary, begins (in Latin translation; I can't get at the Greek):

Admirandae et gloriosissimae et vere magnae totius mundi dominae, Matri semper virgini Salvatoris nostri et Dei Jesu Christi ...

that is,

To the admirable and most glorious, and truly the great lady of the whole world, the ever-virgin Mother of our Savior and God Jesus Christ ...

which again doesn't appear to use the exact phrase "Queen of Heaven", but "Great Lady of the Whole World" is certainly approaching the concept.
The idea of "Queen of the Universe" is fully present in a sermon on the Dormition by Saint John of Damascus, who depicts Christ saying to Mary:

Come, my Mother, to thy Son; reign with him who was poor with thee.

This being the history, the first evidence I can see of the specific title Queen of Heaven is in the Latin anthem Regina Coeli, which appears to have been composed about the 12th century (several hundred years after the above citations):

Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia!
For he whom you deserved to bear, alleluia,
Has arisen, as he said; alleluia!
Pray for us to God; alleluia!

Considering the wide range of writers who used the title "Queen" or "Great lady", and the length of time the idea seems to have been around before the use of the title, I'd be surprised if there were any opposition to its use. The idea that Mary was Queen, Lady of the Universe (kosmou despoina), and similar titles had been around for at least six centuries before this hymn, and no one had objected.
As far as the possibility of syncretism: this might be thought to be the case if there were a specific goddess (for example) whose cultus was local to the places where the title "lady" or "queen" began to be used. I don't see any evidence of such a being, though: if the poem I refer to above is correctly attributed to Fortunatus, then we need a Germanic goddess with such a name; if not, we're looking for a Greek one. I can't think of one that fits the bill in either case.


Did the disagreement between the Catholic Church and Protestant Church on the issue of salvation by grace alone end in 1999?

The Joint Declaration on Justification

The document that bishop Palmer is likely referring to is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, created in 1999 by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church and joined by the World Methodist Council in 2006 and the World Communion of Reformed Churches in 2017.  The Anglican Communion also "Welcomed and affirmed the substance of the Joint Declaration..."  The document attempts to address the disagreements between Catholics and Lutherans on the topic of justification, which is generally seen as the root issue of the Reformation.

It is a step towards agreement on justification, though it isn't the completion of that agreement.  The first reason for this is that not all Protestants agree with the document.  Not even all Lutherans agree:

  Support for the joint declaration was not universal among Lutherans. Of the 124 members of the Lutheran World Federation, 35 cast votes against JDDJ; these included many churches who are also members of the International Lutheran Council. Member churches of the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference even stated that "JDDJ...should be repudiated by all Lutherans." (Wikipedia article on the document)

Cardinal Ratzinger--later Pope Benedict XVI--was one of the major players in the creation of the document.  In an interview given during the period of theological dialogues and preparation, Cardinal Ratzinger answered a Lutheran journalist as follows:

  After prayer, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave a brief overview of the work of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Questions followed. My question was this: Did he believe that it would be possible for Lutherans and Roman Catholics to develop a joint statement on the doctrine of justification? His response was immediate and emphatic: Yes, certainly. He said that the biblical work had been done on the topic. The theological work had been accomplished. As long as we clearly understood that such a statement would address only the specific doctrine of justification and would not resolve other issues, then the effort could proceed and be a fruitful one.The answer Cardinal Ratzinger gave during that meeting in February 1994 was a timely and encouraging one. We knew that any eventual success in approval of such a joint statement would depend on his willingness to support the project. (Joint Declaration on Justification: History Making or Precious Memory?)

The document is therefore very precisely about justification, not other theological topics.  It achieved imperfect success, as Aidan Nichols, O.P. explains:

  Preceded as it was by a lengthy theological dialogue between the Federation's members and representatives of the Catholic Church, notably in America and Germany, the Joint Declaration purported to express, in a carefully worded formula, 'a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification'. This was a phrase which fell some way short of claiming full agreement on the doctrine itself, and that, as things transpired, was probably fortunate. The date for the solemn signing was chosen quite as deliberately as the place. Many Lutherans keep the last Sunday in October as 'Reformation Sunday', a day of thanksgiving for the blessings of the Reformation, while that year, 1999, the last Sunday of the month was also the last day of October and so kept in Catholic churches of the Latin rite as the Vigil of All the Saints. (The Lutheran-Catholic Agreement on Justification: Botch or Breakthrough?)

Primary Documents

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was followed by two more joint documents: a Common Statement and an annex to the Common Statement.  A fourth document "responding" to the Joint Declaration was then produced by the Catholic Church.  These documents are as follows:

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
Official Common Statement
Annex to the Official Common Statement
Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration on Justification

Secondary Sources

Some secondary sources that may be of interest to those investigating this document are as follows:

Wikipedia article on the Joint Declaration on Justification
The Lutheran-Catholic Agreement on Justification: Botch or Breakthrough?
Joint Declaration on Justification: History Making or Precious Memory?
Lutheran Hailed Cardinal Ratzinger as Expert on Luther
A Betrayal of the Gospel: The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification


1 John Chapter 1 & 3 - Is there an apparent contradiction?

In a case like this, it's best to go back to the original Greek.  As jrista pointed out, the key verb in 3:9 is the one your version translates as "continue to", in the greek "ποιέω".  This Greek Lexicon gives a lot of translations for this verb, including:

  to make; with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.; to be the authors of, the cause

This same verb is used in the immediately preceding verses, 3:7-8, which the NIV translates:

  Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is
  right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is
  sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the
  beginning.

The emphasis here seems to be on what you produce, cause or make.  As such, I would interpret it similarly to Jesus' statement in Matthew 7:18,20:

  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good
  fruit...Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

The point of both passages does not seem to be saying that any who are "born of God" will never sin, but that the product of their lives will be to "produce fruit in keeping with repentance." (Matthew 3:8)  They may sin, but they are saved by genuine repentance such that their lives are characterized by righteousness and good fruit, not sin.


Was Jesus in unity with the Holy Spirit?

Jesus said to a Samaritan women:

  Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
  -- John 4:20-23 (KJV)

"salvation is of the Jews. But, ...", is a clear indication that what began with the Jews would not stop there. Jesus' statement of the great commission at his last meeting with the Apostles confirms that the scope of his vision was not confined to the Jews only, but would extend to the ends of the earth. (Acts 1:4-8).

Paul says:

  For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
  -- Romans 1:16 (KJV)

Paul repeats the expression "the Jew first, and also to the Greek" again, twice in Romans 2:9,10. He also gives an elaborate illustration of it in his olive tree analogy in Romans 11.

Conclusion

It seems pretty clear what Jesus' game plan was: first, give the natural olive branches an opportunity to bear fruit (dig & dung Luke 13:6-9; vine & branches John 15:1-8); second, prune out the branches that continue not to produce fruit, and graft in the wild olive branches.

Jesus is the husbandman, and the Apostles, including Paul, are his workers. Jesus assigned the Apostles the task of trying to get the natural olive branches to bear their fruit. Having limited success with the natural branches, however, Jesus then assigned Paul the task of grafting in the wild olive branches.


The first official stage of the religious life is the noviciate.
Novices are not admitted to vows until they have successfully completed the prescribed period of training and proving, called the novitiate. This usually lasts one year.

This is the period that the member of a religious community undergoes prior to taking vows (poverty, chastity and obedience) in order to discern whether she or he is called to vowed religious life.

The novice's habit is often slightly different from those of professed members of the order. For instance, in communities of women that wear a dark veil over the head, novices often wear a white one (like the case of the Carmelite Order).


What does Christian Science teach about mental illnesses?

Thanks for your question. While the Wikipedia page is an adequate description, I recommend you also look at the webpage of the Christian Science church itself to see how they describe their own beliefs to the public, Www.ChristianScience.com. And you can refer to Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy for the complete explanation and method of Christian Science healing and prayer.
Regarding mental illness, CS does teach that it, like physical illness can be treated and healed through prayer. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, writes in her book on Christian healing:

The treatment of insanity is especially interesting. However obstinate the case, it yields more readily than do most diseases to the salutary action of truth, which counteracts error. The arguments to be used in curing insanity are the same as in other diseases: namely, the impossibility that matter, brain, can control or derange mind, can suffer or cause suffering; also the fact that truth and love will establish a healthy state, guide and govern mortal mind or the thought of the patient, and destroy all error, whether it is called dementia, hatred, or any other discord.
—Science & Health, 414:4

Keep in mind that this text was published in 1875, and do her word choice reflects the understanding of mental illness at that time. That doesn't change the point, however, that mental illness, like physical illness can be treated through prayer.
The question about what treatment is permitted sort of misses the point. CS is not about obeying rules so that God will heal you, or so that you'll be saved. It's about growing in an understanding of your identity as a spiritual idea of God. Therefore, each person is left to choose the treatment that they feel is best for them in any given situation. The general idea is that matter-based treatments are antagonistic to that goal of growing in spiritual understanding because they are grounded in the material rather than the spiritual, which is why CS advises against combining CS treatment with medical treatment. However, each person must choose for himself what to do. That said, many CStists do choose to rely exclusively on prayer because they've seen it work healing all kinds of physical, psychological, relationship or even financial problems.


Was the covenant with Adam suspended or replaced by the covenant with Noah?

The Adamic Covenant is found in Genesis 3:16-19. As a result of Adam’s disobedience sin entered into the world, and death through sin.  Death is the inescapable fate of ALL of Adam and Eve’s descendants.  In other words, it applies to all humanity.  That covenant has not been revoked.

The Noahic Covenant, found in Genesis 9:8-17, is the promise that God made to Noah and his descendants after the flood which destroyed the world.  It is an unconditional covenant and it was made to Noah and ALL his descendants as well as “every living creature” and the earth in general (Genesis 9:8-10).  That covenant still applies, and the rainbow in the sky reminds us that God will never again destroy the world by water.

The Abrahamic Covenant is God’s promise to bless Abraham (Genesis 12:2), that Abraham would have numerous descendants (Genesis 13:16), and that he would be the father of a multitude of nations (Genesis 17:4-5). God also made promises regarding a nation called Israel.  God promised that the families of the world will be blessed through the physical line of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 22:18). This is a reference to the Messiah, who would come from the line of Abraham.  The Palestinian, or Land Covenant (Deuteronomy 30:1-10) expands on God’s promises to Abraham.

God has made four covenants with the nation of Israel: Abrahamic, Palestinian, Mosaic, Davidic.  Three of those covenants are unconditional, i.e., regardless of Israel’s obedience or disobedience, God will uphold his end of the covenant.  Only the Mosaic covenant is conditional, i.e., this covenant will bring either blessing or cursing depending on Israel’s obedience or disobedience.

Because it is impossible for imperfect people to keep God’s perfect laws, the Law (as handed down to Moses and the nation of Israel) condemns.  That is why God introduced a New Covenant.  It’s in Jeremiah 31:31-34. All who enter into the New Covenant will be set free from the penalty of the Law, which condemns.

The Christian perspective is that Christ Jesus has fulfilled the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17) and the New Covenant provides the opportunity to receive salvation as a free and undeserved gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christians believe the New Covenant is not restricted to Israel but is open to Gentiles (non-Jews) who come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.

Edit: The basis for salvation from Adam till Jesus is faith in God and in God’s promises.  Hebrews chapter 11 lists many Old Testament characters who, because of their faith in God, were assured of being the recipients of God’s promises:

  ”All these people were still living by faith when they died.  They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance.  And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth... Instead, they were longing for a better country – a heavenly one.  Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them” (Hebrews 11:13-16).

The Adamic Covenant is still in force as evidenced by the fact we still die.  It also points forward to the time when the last enemy, death, will be destroyed.  Jesus’ resurrection showed how death could be defeated and after the millennial reign of Christ, sin (and its consequences) will be no more.

The Noahic Covenant (that God will not destroy the world by flood) is still in force as evidenced by the rainbow in the sky.  It has nothing to do with our eternal salvation or with the Abrahamic Covenant and applies universally to peoples.

The Abrahamic Covenant embraces the promises made by God to Israel.  The promised blessings to Abraham’s descendants have been partially fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah (who came through the line of Abraham).  The full restoration of Israel awaits the second coming of Christ.

Three of the seven covenants (Adamic, Noahic, New) are made between God and mankind in general, and are not limited to the nation of Israel.  All of the Covenants God has established are integral to the ultimate fulfilment of God’s purposes which culminate after the millennial reign of Christ and the final conflict when He destroys Satan and all who follow him.  So, the answer to your question is no, in the sense that all those covenants are still in force, although they all point to the New Covenant.  And the basis for salvation always has been and always will be faith in God and in his promises to bless all who turn to Him.


What are the practical applications of "two will become one flesh"?

It seems that "the two shall become one flesh" is regarding sex, although it could have other connotations as well.

In 1 Corinthians 6:15-17, it says

  15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall
  I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a
  prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one
  who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says,
  “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” 17 But the one who joins himself
  to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

Here, it obviously refers to a sexual context, as it refers to joining with a prostitute.  However, the fact that it refers to sex should not down-weight the significance of "becoming one flesh", but "becoming one flesh" should up-weight the significance of the sex act, considering that the term "the two shall become one flesh" is used in the context of marriage.  The fact that it is also used in reference to engaging with a prostitute means that the act of sex is a very significant thing.


What criteria are used to denote one commentary as "better" than another? What are the hallmarks of a good commentary?

christianbook.com has a commentary page that lets you refine by "theological tradition", among other criteria. That is probably a good start, and will at least let you find commentaries written by Catholics.

Additionally, you could look a commentary up on bestcommentaries.com and read what reviewers have to say about it. That might not tell you whether the commentary is "safe" or not, but it should at least tell you what perspective the author has.


How does one discern between thoughts inspired by the Holy Spirit and those produced from themselves

The Catholic Church has a fairly well-established attitude (and rules) towards private revelation. They're summarized in Contemplation - Revelations and visions. The first two, most important, "rules" regarding private revelation are explicitly mentioned:

Firstly, the spiritual director must judge whether the revelation directs the person to deeper love of God or the saints. If so, the revelation is at least "provisionally" inspired. If not, and especially if a call to some [costly] endeavor is present, the director must demand signs from God. (Note: The first rule implies that the person has a spiritual director, and that the spiritual director knows their prayer life!)

Secondly, the receiver of a revelation should resist the revelation, accepting it only after a spiritual director decides that the "seer" should place some confidence in them. (Again, an experienced spiritual director is implied!)

These particular rules seem pretty strict, intended to safeguard the "seer" and The Church against "big", public deceptions. But, slightly less stringent rules along a similar vein apply to revelations of a seemingly limited, personal matter. In particular, I'd suggest looking into St. Ignatius's Discernment of the Spirits. On the more strict end, there are 22 rules. But, the gist of it is knowing and loving God, first and foremost, and then recognizing spiritual "consolation" and "desolation."

In very rough terms, consolation is a feeling of "being set on fire with love for God." Desolation is a feeling of uncertainty, turmoil, or confusion. The basics of discernment involve, usually under the guidance of a spiritual director, imagining a decision and feeling whether it gives you consolation -- whether it sets you on fire with love for God. If not -- and especially if desolating -- it's probably not God's call.

It might be worth picking up a copy of Ignatius's spiritual exercises.

I think you'll find that the rules for discernment also call for a spiritual director. And that they also call for some reluctance in leaping to assume you've heard God's voice.

Remember: If God wants you to know something, He's not going stop bugging you after the first call. The prophets had a tendency to ignore their visions at first. Be a good prophet and do the same!


Where does the Old Testament mention "the devil"?

While שטן (satan) does indeed mean "adversary," I doubt that every occurrence in the Tanakh of the word שטן should be understood as a (human) adversary as opposed to the angelic adversary whom most Christians refer to as "the devil" (from Gr. ὁ διάβολος). In fact, this isn't the standard in Jewish literature either.

For example, in the Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Massekhet Sanhedrin 95a, Gemara, it is written,

  יומא חד נפק לשכור בזאי אתא שטן ואדמי ליה כטביא פתק ביה גירא ולא מטייה...

that is,

  One day, he (King David) went out to Shekhor Bezai. Satan came and appeared before him as a deer. He shot an arrow at him, but it did not reach him...

Now, based on the reasoning that שטן always means a human adversary, we're forced to believe that the rabbis of the Gemara wrote that a man appeared as a deer in front of David. Obviously that idea is nonsensical. Elsewhere in Jewish literature, Satan is said to assume the form of a bird (כציפרתא; San. 107a), a woman (כאיתתא; Kid. 81a), a poor man (כעניא; Kid. 81a), etc. Therefore, this particular שטן is no mere man.

Coincidentally, the New Testament refers to Satan as "the old serpent" (ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος) (Rev. 12:9, 20:2), an allusion to the serpent in Gan Eden (Gen. 3). This Greek phrase has its equivalent in the Hebrew phrase הנחש הקדמוני (ha-nachash ha-kadmoni), which is mentioned in various Jewish literature, such as Tzeror ha-Mor, Sotah 9b, Sanhedrin 29a, etc.

Jewish literature often equates Satan with the evil inclination (yezter ha-ra) and the Angel of Death (Bava Batra 16a: הוא שטן הוא יצר הרע הוא מלאך המות). But, it also equates him/ it with Sama'el, the name of an angel. For example, in Tzeror ha-Mor,1 it is written,

  נחש הקדמוני הוא שטן הוא יצר הרע הצד ציד הוא סמאל

  The old serpent is Satan; he is the evil inclination; he is "he who has taken venison" (cp. Gen. 27:33); he is Sama'el.

Should Satan always be understood as a human adversary? No.
Where is Satan in the OT? Many places.

As the evil inclination (יצר הרע), he influences man to sin (Bava Batra 16a; Gen. 6:5, 8:21).
As the Angel of Death, he has power to take a man's soul (תנא יורד ומתעה ועולה ומרגיז נוטל רשות ונוטל נשמה; Bava Batra 16a; Job 2:6: אך את נפשו שמור).

I see no evidence that שטן in Job 1-2 is a human adversary, especially when many Jewish sources insist it is a supernatural being.

References

1 Avraham ben Ya'akov Saba. Tzeror ha-Mor, Parashat וישלח יעקב, folio מו , second column. | Hebrew |


Do any Christians sects have a Standing/Prostration Prayer like the Jewish 'Amidah' and Muslim 'Salat'?

The short answer is yes.

The closest form of the standing /prostration combination together would be the Jesus Prayer tradition (See below).

  In Christianity, the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and some Lutheran churches use full prostrations, lying flat on the floor face down, during the imposition of Holy Orders, Religious Profession and the Consecration of Virgins. Additionally, in the Roman Catholic Church at the beginning of the Good Friday Liturgy, the celebrating priest and the deacon prostrate themselves in front of the altar. Dominican practice on Good Friday services in priory churches includes prostration by all friars in the aisle of the church. In the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, partial prostrations ("profound bows") can be used in place of genuflections for those who are unable to genuflect. The prostration is always performed before God, and in the case of holy orders, profession or consecration the candidates prostrate themselves in front of the altar which is a symbol of Christ. - Prostration (Wikipedia)

Pope Francis lies in prayer during the Good Friday Passion of Christ Mass inside St Peter's Basilica (AP/Gregorio Borgia)

Pope St. John Paul II often prayed prostrate on the ground, according to Polish tradition.

  Throughout his life, from the first moment of each day to the last, John Paul kept a regimen of deep, fervent devotions that left those around him, even other religious leaders, in awe.

  As he said in the early days of his papacy: "Prayer, which in so many ways expresses our relationship to the living God, is the pope's first duty and his first message, the first condition of his service to the church and the world."

  During his Vatican years, health permitting, John Paul would spend as many as seven hours a day in prayer, adoration and contemplation. In "Great Souls: Six Who Saved the Century," journalist David Aikman described the routine during the pontiff's prime:

  "John Paul II is at prayer in his private chapel by 6:15 a.m., at times prostrate on the floor, at times actually groaning in the travail of intercession. During moments of down time' amid the panoply of solemn public appearances, he again and again closes his eyes, tightens his facial muscles in concentration, sometimes shades his eyes with his hand, and withdraws to that inner, sealed room of his soul where he communicates with God." - John Paul's fervent prayer inspired awe in others

Remember too that Jesus himself prayed in this position, just before his Passion.

  "And he (Jesus) went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." - (Matthew 26:39)

Many of our Orthodox brethren pray the Jesus Prayer while in a prostrate position. It is traditional for some.

  Establish a Daily Rule for Prostrations and Bows

  The novice who is studying the Jesus Prayer will advance greatly by observing a daily rule comprising a certain number of full prostrations and bows from the waist, depending upon the strength of each individual. These are all to be performed without any hurry, with a repentant feeling in the soul and with the Jesus Prayer on the lips during each prostration…. Twelve prostrations suffice in the beginning. Depending upon one's strength, ability and circumstances, that number can be constantly increased. But when the number of prostrations increases, one should be careful to preserve the quality of one's prayer, so that one not be carried away by a preoccupation with the physical into fruitless, and even harmful, quantity. The bows warm up the body and somewhat exhaust it, and this condition facilitates attention and compunction. But let us be watchful, very watchful, lest the state pass into a bodily preoccupation which is foreign to spiritual sentiments and recalls our fallen nature! Quantity, useful as it is when accompanied by the proper frame of mind and the proper objective, can be just as harmful when it leads to a preoccupation with the physical. The latter is recognized by its fruits which also distinguish it from spiritual ardor. The fruits of physical preoccupation are conceit, self-assurance, intellectual arrogance: in a word, pride in its various forms, all of which are easy prey to spiritual deception. The fruits of spiritual ardor are repentance, humility, weeping and tears. The rule of prostrations is best observed before going to sleep: then, after the cares of the day have passed, it can be practiced longer and with greater concentration…. Prostrations stimulate a prayerful state of the mind and mortify the body as well as support and strengthen fervor in prayer. - On Practicing the Jesus Prayer

The faithful of the Early Church often prayed in the Orant Gesture in prayer.

  The word orant, or latin orans, is a noun form of the verb orare, to pray, and describes an early mode of prayer practiced by the first Christians ((http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/orant)). From Wikipedia we read:

  Orant is a type of gesture during prayer in which the hands are raised, set apart, and the palms face outward. It was once common in early Christianity, and can frequently be seen in early Christian art, but has since become quite rare. The gesture is more common in Catholic worship, esoteric sects, and in certain forms of exorcism ritual. It is commonly used in small group renewal weekend settings such as Cursillo. This renewal weekend is offered by Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopal churches. It is common in some charismatic churches during praiseful singing as well. Orant Gesture - Early Christian Orant Gesture in Prayer

Saint Apollinare in the orant position of prayer


I seek the LDS perspective concerning Cornelius and his house receiving the Holy Ghost without laying on of hands in Acts 10:44-45

There is no contradiction to the claims Joseph Smith made. The Holy Ghost is

  the convincing power of God unto [them] of the truth of the Gospel (from Joseph Smith quote)

Cornelius and other's in the house felt the Holy Ghost witness to them of the truth. Verse 47 tells us that they felt the convincing power of God and Peter feels like there should now be nothing stopping them from being baptized:

  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The gift of the Holy Ghost coming after baptism is a doctrine found in the New Testament in Acts 2:38:

  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The gift of the Holy Ghost was given by laying on of hands Acts 19:6

  And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

See also Acts 8:14-22


What are the arguments that the book of Acts was written after 70 AD?

The best place to start is with the history of the New Testament books. Nearly all New Testament commentators agree that Acts was written after Luke's Gospel and by the same anonymous author. So the next step is to establish whether Luke was written no earlier than 70 CE. I believe that this can be established by looking at two of Luke's sources and some archaeological evidence.

Mark
Adam Winn (The Purpose of Mark's Gospel, page 1) says there is a high level of consensus among New Testament interpreters in favour of the theory of Markan priority. Some excellent answers to another question, What are the arguments in favor of Markan priority? cover just some of the reasons for this conclusion. Here, I will touch on some of the evidence to show that Luke (in particular) has a literary dependence on Mark, but this can not be exhaustive in this format.

The 'Missing Block' is a substantial section of Mark, comprising a total of 74.5 verses from Mark 6:47 to Mark 8:27a, missing from Luke. This results in the curious conjunction found in Luke 9:18 "And it came to pass as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them ..." These clauses are more meaningful when found in Mark at the start and end of the material missing from Luke.

A technical proof is in the transmision of Markan intercalations, as explained by John Dominic Crossan in The Birth of Christianity, page 106. Simplifying a little, intercalations were a literary device in the form A1-B-A2, which adds emphasis to both event A and event B. Of the nine undisputed Markan intercalations, Matthew retains them five times and Luke does four times, otherwise copying the content but not the structure. It is clear from this that the device moves from Mark to Matthew and to Luke, but not the reverse.

If the priority of Mark is established, the next step is to determine when Mark's Gospel was written. Burton L. Mack says, in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 152, the account in Mark 13:1-12 would not have made sense before the First Roman-Jewish War had run its course and the tragic fate of the city was known - which places the authorship of Mark around 70 CE. This is the  consensus of most critical scholars. Then, it would almost certainly have taken at least 10 or 20 years for the first New Testament gospel to circulate and come to the notice of Luke's author.

Josephus
Steve Mason,in Josephus and the New Testament, chapter 6, examines some striking parallels of structure, aim and vocabulary between Josephus and Luke-Acts. If that is evidence of copying from Josephus to Luke-Acts, then Acts could scarcely have been written before the very end of the first century.

Matthew Ryan Hauge (The Biblical Tour of Hell, page 55) says that two recent studies suggest 'Luke' advanced to the early stages of a rhetorical education, which means that he was trained in the art of copying and the complexities of rhetorical composition through mimesis. One way of identifying the existence of copying or imitation is to locate any mimetic flags that may exist. Greek students were taught to insert mimetic flags that could identify their sources, to avoid charges of plagiarism. If present, a mimetic flag will be unusual for that particular genre and context. Some scholars see Luke's introductions (Luke 1:1-3, Acts 1:1), with their dedications to Theophilus, as mimetic flags identifying Josephus as one of his sources. As the only New Testament books to have such a dedication, they are unusual for this genre as well as being unusual for such short works. By comparison, longer works, such of those of Josephus, often mentioned a patron. Josephus dedicated Jewish Antiquities, Life and Against Apion to Epaphroditus. The parallel is particularly evident in Acts which looks back to the first book, much as Josephus looked back to Jewish Antiquities, in Life and Against Apion. Theophilus was a common name that means 'Friend of God', which has a strong resemblance to Epaphroditus, a common name that means 'Touched by Aphrodite'. This may not prove that Luke copied from Josephus, but is strong evidence that this may be the case.

Richard Carrier has written a good summary of some evidence in Steve Mason's book mentioned earlier.  I think their most compelling evidence that Acts must have copied from Josephus is found in its mention of some revolutionaries.  Josephus mentioned that there were many "deceivers and imposters" who led the Jewish people into revolt, giving three examples: Judas the Galilean; Theudas, who led a group of revolutionaries (Antiquities 20:5:1); and an unnamed Egyptian prophet. If there were "many deceivers and impostors", Luke need not have chosen the same names unless he only knew the names from Josephus, yet these are the very three names found in Acts (Acts 5:36-37 and Acts 21:38). Even by itself, this strongly suggests that Josephus' works were Luke's only sources for that period. Josephus says that Judas the Galilean was first (around 6 CE), Theudas was next (circa 44-46 CE) and the Egyptian was third (52-59 CE) but for literary reasons, in Antiquities XX.5.1-2, Josephus mentions Theudas before Judas the Galilean, while making it clear that Judas lived a generation before Theudas. Acts tells of Theudas and Judas in the wrong chronological order, because Luke was following the order in which Josephus wrote of them, certain evidence of literary dependence:

  Acts 5:36-37: For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing ...

Gallius
Acts refers to the judgement seat of Gallius:

  Acts 18:12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat

The Westar Seminar on the Acts of the Apostles (Spring report 2007) says the Gallio inscription has long been thought to provide confirmation of the historicity of the story of Paul’s hearing before Gallio.  The inscription provides independent evidence that Gallio was proconsul in Corinth and indicates that he was there in the early 50s. So, when archeologists discovered a bema (a platform or dais that was used for public speeches or proclamations) in Corinth, it was interpreted to be the very bema before which Paul was judged by Gallio as detailed in Acts.

The Seminar says that L. Michael White presented new evidence that disputes this longstanding conclusion, with a reassessment of the archaeological data, suggesting that the bema was constructed after the time when Paul was there. If there was no bema, then, the Acts story can not be historical. Instead it would seem that Luke observed the existence of a bema in Corinth in his own day, in the early second century, added data he had gathered about the governorship of Gallio, and out of this created the story we have in Acts.


Why do some Christians object to images of Jesus?

Those who argue against images of Jesus do so primarily in two ways: (1) that any image of Christ is necessarily inadequate and false and (2) that images of Christ inspire worship and devalue the Word of God.
Images of Christ inadequate and false
Advocates of this position regularly appeal to the incomprehensibility of God. John Calvin1 and J. I. Packer2 both refer to Isaiah 40, particularly verse 18:

To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him? (ESV)

Purported images of Jesus, therefore, are necessarily inadequate portrayals.  Specifically regarding images of Jesus on the cross, Packer writes:

[The crucifix] displays His human weakness, but it conceals His divine strength; it depicts the reality of His pain, but keeps out of our sight the reality of His joy and His power.  In both these cases, the symbol is unworthy most of all because of what it fails to display.2

John Murray similarly argues that we have been given no information about the appearance of Jesus, and therefore have no right to make an image of him:

We have no data whatsoever on the basis of which to make a pictorial representation; we have no descriptions of his physical features which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait. [...] No impression we have of Jesus should be created without the proper revelatory data, and every impression, every thought, should evoke worship. Hence, since we possess no revelatory data for a picture or portrait in the proper sense of the term, we are precluded from making one or using any that have been made.3

But, some argue, Jesus had a human body, so couldn't an image of that be made?  James Fisher and Ebenezer Erskine respond that pictures of Christ are "downright lies, representing no more than the picture of a mere man":

Though he has a true body and a reasonable soul, yet his human nature subsists in his divine person, which no picture can represent. [...] The true Christ is God-man.4

Images of Christ inspire worship and devalue the Word of God
Another concern expressed by opponents of images of Christ is that any image of Christ, if meaningful at all, necessarily inspires worship. John Murray writes:

A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. [...] It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves.3

Thomas Vincent's language is often quoted:

If it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment.5

Rather than using images, proponents argue, God reveals himself to us through his Word, and to that we ought to limit ourselves.  Explaining Deuteronomy 4, part of which is also cited by the Westminster Assembly in support of this position, Packer writes:

God did not show [the people of Israel] a visible symbol of Himself, but spoke to them; therefore they are not now to seek visible symbols of God, but simply to obey His word. [...] To make an image of God is to take one's thoughts of Him from a human source, rather than from God Himself; and this is precisely what is wrong with image-making.2

Fisher and Erskine, following the Westminster Assembly, cite Romans 1:21–23 as referring to those who create images of either God or Christ, even in their own minds:4

they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [...] [they] exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (ESV)

Summary
Murray restates his concerns with images of Jesus as follows:

In summary, what is at stake in this question is the unique place which Jesus Christ as the God-man occupies in our faith and worship and the unique place which the Scripture occupies as the only revelation, the only medium of communication, respecting him whom we worship as Lord and Saviour. The incarnate Word and the written Word are correlative. We dare not use other media of impression or of sentiment but those of his institution and prescription. Every thought and impression of him should evoke worship. We worship him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God. To use a likeness of Christ as an aid to worship is forbidden by the second commandment as much in his case as in that of the Father and Spirit.3

Images of Jesus, thus, fail to account for his divine nature, downplay the revelation of Scripture, and encourage worship not in accordance with God's law.

References:

Institutes, 1.11.2
Knowing God (1973), Chapter 4
"Pictures of Christ," from Reformed Herald, February 1961.
The Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism Explained, Question 51
An Explicatory Catechism, Question 51


What is the Biblical basis for Irresistible Grace?

There are several scriptures that illustrate that God draws his elect to him.

These were cribbed from this site

John 6:35-37 States that those the Father gives will come to him. Not that they might come. That they will come.

  35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

Romans 8:28-30 Lay out the path to salvation quite clearly. He predestines us, calls us, justifies us and then glorifies us. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that those he predestines will be called, or that those he calls will be justified or those he justifies will be glorified.

  28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

John 6:43-51 (emphasis mine). This quite clearly says no one comes to Christ except that the Father draws them. (Ref was cribbed from wikipedia)

  43“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

It seems to me that the scriptural proof for needing to be drawn to Christ is pretty clear. However, the Irresistible nature of that drawing power could be questioned. The Romans 8 passage and John  6:37 are clear on this however. Those who are called will be drawn.


How do Mormons view this prophecy Joseph Smith seemingly added about himself in Genesis 50:33?

When viewed from the belief that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is false, or that the Bible is perfect and unchanged from the day it was written1, the only conclusion is that Joseph was writting himself into history.

When viewed from the belief that Joseph Smith is a prophet and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, the only conclusion is that Joseph restored a portion of the Old Testament that had been lost.  A portion that supports his claim of being a prophet of the Lord.

Remember that we believe the Bible is not perfect.  That over the course of time information has been lost (whether deliberately or by virtue of translation, it doesn't matter).  We learn from the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:25-26 (my emphasis):

  Wherefore, these things [the Bible] go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.  And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

1 Nephi chapter 13 is actually a lengthy prophecy.  It makes for an interesting read.  But, to specifically answer your questions:

(1) No, it specifically refers to Joseph Smith.

(2) The passage is something that God wanted Joseph to include.

(3) Nope, that's it.

1  If you want to discuss how perfect the Bible is, talk to a Jew.  The Jews have a strong opinion about the quality of Christianity's Old Testament, but that's an answer for another question.

EDIT: After reading Luke's comment I wished I hadn't included my footnote as it doesn't actually add anything to the conversation.  But, I'm kinda stuck with it... so I popped over to Judiasm.SO and asked them what they thought.

The most voted answer begins with the statement, "KJV may give the general sense of a translation in most cases. It definitely has a Christian bend and does not always follow the Jewish traditions in translation."  It then provides a number of illustrative examples, including Isaiah 7:14, which illustrates the reason I included the footnote.

The Hebrew word for "virgin" isn't used in the original text.  The word that is used is most commonly translated "young girl."  Does this upset my faith?  Of course not.  But if King James' monks, who I do not believe had authority from God to translate His word, can't be trusted not to bias their translation in favor of their preferred belief, neither can anyone else who does not have, as I believe, authority from God to do so.  From Joseph's journal (today referred to as the "Documentary History of the Church or DHC) we read:

  From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. (DHC, vol. 1, p. 245.)

  I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors. (DHC, vol. 6, p. 57.)

I stand by my footnote, despite wishing I hadn't included it, with one exception.  I should not have boldly used the word "strong."


How do Pre-Millennial Dispensationalists reconcile Hebrews 8:13?

In brief: only some dispensationalists believe that Jews and Gentiles are currently under two completely separate covenants – most instead believe that there is one New Covenant that is applied differently to Jews and Gentiles.
However, either way, the "old covenant" of Hebrews 8:13 is seen to be the Mosaic Covenant, as distinguished from the Abrahamic Covenant (which the New Covenant is based on).

Now for the details and some sources.  Dispensationalists like the authors of the Moody Bible Commentary and Thomas Constable understand the "obsolete" covenant of Hebrews 8:13 to be the Mosaic Covenant.  This is indicated by the references to the priestly and sacrificial system in Hebrews 8:1–5 which does literally "disappear" in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The Mosaic Covenant (obsolete, disappearing) is thus distinguished from the Abrahamic Covenant, as Thomas Constable writes:

The New Covenant is a branch of the Abrahamic Covenant. In the Abrahamic Covenant, God promised Abraham a piece of real estate for his descendants, an incalculable number of descendants, and blessing for his descendants and for all people through his descendants (Gen. 12:1-7; et al.). [...] The Davidic Covenant gave more information about God's promises regarding descendants (2 Sam. 7). The New Covenant revealed the particulars of the promised blessing (Jer. 31).
Each of these later covenants relates to the Abrahamic Covenant organically; they were outgrowths of it. In contrast, the Mosaic (Old) Covenant does not relate organically but "was added" (Gal. 3:19), as an appendage. It explained how the Israelites could maximize the benefits God had promised in the Abrahamic Covenant. Consequently, when God terminated the Old Covenant, it did not eliminate anything He had promised Abraham. (source; bold added)

Thus the Abrahamic Covenant reaches its fulfillment in the New Covenant.  Most dispensationalists, as Constable writes, believe that there is only one New Covenant, though it is applied differently to Jews and to Gentiles.  But he does note that a few dispensationalists believe that there are two new covenants, one for Jews and one for Gentiles:

Dispensational commentators have taken various positions on the relationship of the New Covenant, promised in Jeremiah 31, to the New Testament references to the New Covenant. Was it the same covenant, or is a second New Covenant in view? Some believe there are two new covenants: one with Israel and one with the church. This position rests on the fact that the New Covenant, promised in Jeremiah 31, was specifically "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31). Those who hold this view take the New Covenant, under which Christians live, as a different "New Covenant" (2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8; 9:15). They regard Jesus' references to the "New Covenant" as to a New Covenant with the church (Luke 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25). (source)

This is not the view that Constable prefers, however, and he indicates that "few writers today" take this position.


Does a priest have to consume the Eucharist no matter the state of his soul?
Can a priest decide not to consume the Eucharist during mass if in doubt whether he is in mortal sin?
The short answer is no.
The celebrant must always consume the sacred host at mass, in which he acted as a consecrator of the sacred species.

Moreover, the celebrant's Communion is required for the completion of the sacrifice of the Mass; Christ is present under the species of the eucharistic sacrifice after the manner of food and drink, and so is meant to be consumed.
Finally, the priest must receive Communion under both species: "So far as the sacrament itself is concerned it is most fitting that both the body and the blood be received since the perfection of the sacrament rests in both, and therefore, because it is the priest's duty both to consecrate and to complete the sacrament, lie should never receive the body of Christ without the blood" (Summa, Ilia, q. 80, a. 12; cf. also ad 1). The priest has a divine obligation in this respect. - The Priest's Communion

The priest in question must make a perfect act of contrition if he committed a mortal sin, as best he can and must go to confession as soon as possible. He may under some circumstances still say Mass. The Church has very clear guidelines on this subject:

When receiving or celebrating the sacraments, the priest is subject to the same requirements of sanctity and state of grace as every other Catholic; that is, the state of grace is required for fruitful reception of all sacraments except those that actually forgive sins.
Therefore a priest who is in a state of mortal sin should seek to confess as soon as possible and refrain from celebrating the sacraments until he has done so.
Normally, to celebrate Mass or receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin would be to commit a sacrilege. Yet, the sacrament would be valid; that is, there would be a true consecration and a true sacrifice.
The reason is: Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister. As St. Thomas Aquinas says: Christ may act even through a minister who is spiritually dead.
However, a priest who has fallen into mortal sin, but who is unable to make his confession despite his desire to do so, may celebrate Mass for the benefit of the faithful without adding a further sin of sacrilege.
Thus, as Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law states: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible (see also Canon 1335)."
Note that the code requires a grave reason in order to avail of this exception.
One such grave reason is based on the principle of the good of souls. If a priest is required to celebrate Mass or a soul requests the sacrament of reconciliation, the anointing of the sick, or indeed any other sacrament from this priest that would have to be performed before he can avail of confession, then he may, and usually must, administer the sacrament.
A second grave reason stems from the danger of infamy by publicly revealing the state of one's soul.
This can occur in the case of a priest in isolated circumstances when there is no one else to perform the usual celebrations. There is no need for him to do anything that might lead people to suspect his lack of a state of grace.
Even in the case that the priest, or any other person, has secretly committed a grave crime, which would normally lead to his or her being automatically forbidden to receive the sacraments, Church law (Canon 1352) foresees the possibility of the penalty being suspended to avoid infamy or scandal, to wit:
"§1. If a penalty prohibits the reception of the sacraments or sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended as long as the offender is in danger of death.
"§2. The obligation to observe an undeclared 'latae sententiae' penalty which is not notorious in the place where the offender is present, is suspended totally or partially whenever the offender cannot observe it without danger of grave scandal or infamy."
While the possibilities of a layperson or a religious in a state of mortal sin being placed in a similar dilemma as the priest are far rarer, the same basic principles would apply should they occur.
Furthermore, while it is nobody else's business why somebody does not approach Communion, pastors should do all that they can to avoid creating public pressures that might induce a person in a state of mortal sin — or otherwise unable to receive Communion — to receive out of an objective fear of infamy or even out of human respect.
For example, when parish ushers move down the aisles during Communion to assure an orderly procession, it becomes very difficult for someone, especially if well known to the other parishioners and who for some hidden reason cannot receive Communion, not to go forward with the others because staying in the pew is often the equivalent of making a public self-denunciation.
In such cases, a less organized procession at Communion allows such people to pass unnoticed. - When a Priest Is in Mortal Sin

As a side note: I have known of cases in the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass (as we now call it) where a priest had forgotten to fast in the morning before Mass and did not say Mass that day because the fast was not observed.


How do Roman Catholics interpret 1 Timothy 4:3

I don't see this particular passage referred to in, for example, the Summa Theologica (where I might expect to see it in an Objection to a discussion of whether priests should be celibate). In fact, I don't see in the Summa (though surely it must be somewhere) any discussion of the question of priestly celibacy.

In the (standard Catholic) New American Bible, Revised Edition, the words are slightly different than in the translation you quote (highlighting the differences):

  Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer.

Note the perhaps significant omission of the comma after the word "foods".

This appears to point the meaning of the passage to things that will happen in "the end times", not now; and perhaps things that are wrong when enjoined generally, not in particular.

There is no note in the text about the third verse in particular, though a note on the passage as a whole reads:

  Doctrinal deviations from the true Christian message within the church have been prophesied, though the origin of the prophecy is not specified (1 Tm 4:1–2); cf. Acts 20:29–30. The letter warns against a false asceticism that prohibits marriage and regards certain foods as forbidden, though they are part of God’s good creation (1 Tm 4:3).

In addition, consider Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:8:

  Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do

which appears to endorse celibacy for those not currently married (though the rest of the chapter accepts marriage as a godly state, under the principle of "everyone should accept the life to which he was called").

It seems, then, that to the extent that the Catholic Church has a particular interpretation of this verse, it interprets it to mean that celibacy and fasting are wrong when enjoined on everyone at all times, but not if enjoined on particular groups or at particular times.

With respect to the words of the ordination to the subdiaconate: Keep in mind that the Order of the Subdiaconate was dissolved over 40 years ago; it's not surprising that you're looking at words (probably dating back to the time of the Council of Trent) that take a very strict view of celibacy. There are two Orders in the Church now: deacons and priests. The Order of Deacons is no longer simply a "first step" to the priesthood; deacons are ordained as permanent deacons. They are under no immediate obligation of celibacy, and indeed I've known very few unmarried permanent deacons. They are, however, obliged not to marry after their ordination.

Priests are, of course, obliged to be celibate at as well as after their ordination; but even there the requirement can be dispensed from. I've known a couple of married Latin-rite priests. They were ordained Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism and petitioned Pope Paul VI to allow them to become priests. He dispensed them from the requirement of celibacy. I don't believe such a dispensation is in the cards again; but it is possible (the Code of Canon Law, canon 1042 note 1, lists marriage as an impediment to ordination, but canon 1047, section 2, note 3 allows the Pope to dispense from this requirement).

As far as abstinence from meat: This is a traditional Catholic observation; however, it's not strictly necessary. Canon 1253 states:

  The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

So it's not an absolute requirement; in addition, if an individual has (for example) a medical condition which would be worsened by abstinence from meat, he or she is excused from that requirement. The USCCB's website states:

  A.  Those that are excused from fast and abstinence outside the age limits include the physically or mentally ill including individuals suffering from chronic illnesses such as diabetes.  Also excluded are pregnant or nursing women.  In all cases, common sense should prevail, and ill persons should not further jeopardize their health by fasting.

(emphasis added)


Why did people live so long before the Flood?

The accuracy of the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11 has been greatly debated. People have proposed various means of adjusting the figures to more realistic values, on the assumption that there has been some textual error. (This is partly motivated by differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, suggesting some confusion on the part of translators and editors.) Others are happy to assume that the text we have received is essentially correct.

Augustine discusses some such schemes in City of God 15.9-15; he believes that the patriarchs did indeed live to the stated ages (basically, because stranger things have happened). The basic problem he finds with trying to rescale the figures (he discusses several alternatives, such as that one "year" in the text should really be one month, or that all the numbers are inflated by a factor of ten) is that the Genesis account also gives the ages at which each man fathered his son. Enosh was 90 when he had his son (Genesis 5:9) and 905 when he died (5:11). Rescaling either gives him a long lifespan in any case, or has him fathering Kenan at an unusually young age.

Julius Wellhausen in Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1882) suggested a complicated scheme based on a "Great Year" of 4000 years in total from Adam to the rededication of the Temple in 164BC. He puts the Exodus at 2666 years after the creation, with the 26 generations from Adam to Aaron each representing a century (the remaining 66 years are assigned to Eleazar). Many other scholars have since refined this idea, suggesting tweaks and trying to understand the textual influences. Under this family of interpretations, the ages of the patriarchs are purely notional - there may be some symbolic reason for the particular numbers being as they are, but the purpose is simply to express generational decline. This is analogous to documents from surrounding cultures, such as the Sumerian King List, which also feature enormous but decreasing lifespans.

Martin Luther assumes in his Commentaries on Genesis (vol. 2, ch. 5, paragraphs 34-43) that the ages are as stated. He attributes their long lifespans to better diet, and to their righteousness:

  35) Though the body was sounder than at present, yet the general vigor and strength of limb which men had in paradise before the advent of sin, had passed away. It is true, however, that their bodily well-being was enhanced when, after the fall, they were renewed and regenerated through faith in the promised seed. For the same reason, also, sin was weakened through faith in the seed. As for us, we have lost their strength and vigor just in proportion as we have departed from their righteousness.

  36) With reference to food, who cannot easily believe that one apple, in that primeval age, was more excellent and afforded a greater degree of nourishment than a thousand in our time? The roots, also, on which they fed, contained infinitely more fragrance, virtue and savor, than they possess now. All these conditions, but notably holiness and righteousness, the exercise of moderation, then the excellence of the fruit and the salubrity of the atmosphere - all these tended to produce longevity till the time came for the establishment of a new order by God which resulted in a decided reduction of the length of man's life.

Luther also points out that the chronology has many of the patriarchs alive at the same time, with Adam dying not long before Noah was born:

  43) Truly that primeval time was a "golden age," in comparison with which our present age is scarcely worthy of being called the age of mud. During those primeval centuries, there lived at the same time nine patriarchs, together with their posterities, and all of them in harmony concerning the faith in the blessed seed! All these glorious things Moses just mentions, but does not explain; otherwise this would be the history of histories.


Yes. As St. Alphonsus of Liguori writes in "Article 2: The Arian Heresy" §8 of his The History of Heresies p. 56:

  Noel Alexander says that these
  errors [of Arius] are taken from an impious work he wrote, called Thalia, and from an Epistle of his to St.
  Alexander, referred to by St. Athanasius, and from the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Nice, quoted by
  Socrates, St. Epiphanius, and Theodoret.


Should a woman cover her head in Christian worship?

Here's what Matthew Henry says in his short commentary:

  We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have "power," that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another. They were to be mutual comforts and blessings, not one a slave, and the other a tyrant. God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit. It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.

As Matthew Henry says, the Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness.

70 years or so ago, the wearing of hats was common.  Upon entering a church, or any building for that matter, a man would remove his hat out of respect.

Customs have changed in the United States.  Men wear baseball caps, if they wear a hat, and for the most part, women do not wear hats.  Now, having said that, there are still some southern conservative churches where the women do wear hats to church.

In my church, a congregation of the United Methodist Church, our dress code is: wear clothes.  We're not concerned with what people wear to church, and we even have meetings to discuss whether the church leadership is dressing up too much, and discouraging people from attending.


While there are probably an infinite number of aspects in regards to eternal security, I would like to discuss it from a stance of imputed righteousness.

  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

  1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV)

If we look at this verse as a condemning statement we would all fall under one or more of these classifications that will not inherit the kingdom of God.  (our sinful nature implies that we all have idolatrous hearts)  I think that is the reason why this passage is often preached as a sermon on making changes in your life and doing works.  But, the pivotal point of these verses is that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.

This leads me to the main point that I am trying to make.  When we accept Jesus Christ as our savior we inherit his righteousness and are consider justified in eyes of God.  It is a common misconception that God "forgets" our sins when we accept Jesus as our savior.  If that were true then God would not be omniscient.  Instead God chooses to not remember our sins.  In the same sense that God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Instead, our sins are paid for with Jesus's righteousness, and the only way to obtain righteousness is through Jesus.

  I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

  Galatians 2:21

So, logically we can say that we are eternally secure because:
1. The righteous will inherit the kingdom of God.
2. We have imputed righteousness at the time of salvation.


What is the Mormon view of Matthew 7:13-14?

Let's begin with the basic LDS doctrine.  From Moses 1:39:

  For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the
  immortality and eternal life of man.

To us, immortality and eternal life are two things.  The first is simply the continuation of the body through time.  The second refers to the quality of our life in the hereafter.  Building on this we find from LDS.org:

  Eternal life is the phrase used in scripture to define the quality of
  life that our Eternal Father lives. ... Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected
  being. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, everyone will receive
  this gift. Eternal life, or exaltation, is to live in God's presence
  and to continue as families (see D&C 131:1–4). Like immortality, this
  gift is made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. However,
  to inherit eternal life requires our "obedience to the laws and
  ordinances of the Gospel" (Articles of Faith 1:3).

We therefore interpret Matthew 7:13-14 to refer to eternal life, not immortality, and indeed we believe few there will be who find it.

Now, to complicate the story a bit, the verb "to save" has a more complex meaning in LDS theology than it does in most other Christian religions.  That's because we believe the "second death" referred to in Revelations 2:11 and 20:6,14 describes a permanent, spiritual death or separation from our Father and His Son.  The Bible no longer describes the First Death (AofF 1:8), but the Book of Mormon does in 2 Nephi 9:15 (and other scriptures):

  ...when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life,
  insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the
  judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel....

For us, you can be saved from both the First Death and the Second.  Everybody will be saved from the First Death (through resurrection), but only those who have availed themselves of the atonment of Jesus Christ to any degree will be saved from the Second Death.  Doctrine & Covenants 76:43-44, which you quoted, clearly states that there are people who will receive no glory after judgement.  These are they who died the Second Death.  Everyone else receives some glory, depending on their faithfulness and willingness to obey the commandments of Christ and live according to His example throughout their lives.

However, the verse from D&C alone does not fully interpret Matthew.  It draws the line between Perdition (which we more commonly name "Outer Darkness" and the other three kingdoms of glory (the Telestial, the Terrestrial, and the Celestial).  Mathew is drawing the line below the Celestial, which we believe few will receive.  The distinction doesn't bother us for a number of reasons begining with the fact that Jesus was giving instructions to two completely different sets of people for two completely different reasons.  Anyone who has tried to give talks to different groups of people with known differences in their needs knows you can't write and deliver an entire book so that both deliveries provide all of the information both parties would need.  So, why are we happy with the interpretation I've given you for Matthew?

It's because of Doctrine & Covenants 76:53-70(62), which teaches that our Heavenly Father dwells in the Celestial Kingdom, and Doctrine & Covenants 76:71-89(77, 86), which teaches people not in the Celestial Kingdom will be eternally separated from Him.  Though not the Second Death because these people will enjoy some glory, they have not obtained eternal life, or life with our Heavenly Father.

We believe those exalted to the Celestial Kingdom will be few, and that this is what Jesus spoke of in Matthew.


Why is Jesus looking on an oddly standing stone?

From the title of the picture, I feel it is safe to assume the author had this in mind:

Matthew 4:1-4

  1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be
  tempted of the devil.

  2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was
  afterward an hungred.

  3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of
  God, command that these stones be made bread.

  4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
  bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
  God.

The stone is so oddly standing in order to stick out. Otherwise it wouldn't be Jesus staring at a stone, it would be Jesus staring.


What is the meaning of "excellent things" in Proverbs 22:20

After comparing this verse with the New International Version and the New Living Translation Bible, it seems that the meaning of the Hebrew word used is uncertain.  Both the NIV and the NLT translate that particular word as “thirty sayings.”  The NLT Study Bible notes acknowledge that some Bibles prefer to translate the word as “excellent sayings.” The notes then give this explanation as to why they say “thirty sayings”:

  “Early scribes noticed that the Hebrew word for thirty has been written in an unusual form (shlshwm) rather than the usual form (shlyshwm).  All the early translations of the Old Testament (e.g., Greek Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) read it as thirty.”

From Proverbs 22:22 up to and including Proverbs 24:22 are those thirty wise sayings.  From Proverbs 24:23-34 there are more sayings of the wise.

It seems that this is a literary device employed within Proverbs where a number of wise sayings are recorded (10:1-31:31).


What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the activities of the antichrist in these "last days"?

From the official web-site of the Watchtower Society, I read the article, “Who is the Antichrist?” as posted by them at http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20150601/who-is-the-antichrist/    From their own statements in that 1 June 2015 article they say that

  “the antichrist is, not an individual, but a collective term. People
  or organizations making up the antichrist spread lies, deny that Jesus
  is the Christ, or the Messiah, and try to distort the relationship
  between God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Those who make up the
  antichrist claim to be Christ or his representatives, but since “they
  went out from us,” they deviated from true Bible teachings.
  Furthermore, this group was present at the time when John wrote his
  letter, in “the last hour,” presumably the end of the time of the
  apostles.”

They use 2nd John verse 7 to explain that “John understood the antichrist to be all who deliberately spread religious deception about Jesus Christ and Jesus’ teachings.” That is quite general, but do they state anything specific about today? Yes, indeed.

  “What about today? People and organizations making up the antichrist
  still oppose Christ and his teachings. They deliberately spread lies
  and deceptions with the intent of confusing the identity of the
  Father, Jehovah God, and of His Son, Jesus Christ. We have good reason
  to beware of such religious deceptions. Let us look at two examples.
  For centuries, the churches propagated the doctrine of the Trinity,
  claiming that the Father and the Son are part of the same entity. The
  antichrist thus shrouds in mystery the identity of Jehovah God and
  Jesus Christ… The churches add to the confusion by promoting the use
  of Bible translations that omit God’s personal name, Jehovah, from the
  text…"

Those are two examples in that article, which show that Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that all who propagate the doctrine of the Trinity, and churches that promote use of Bible translations not using ‘Jehovah’ in the text, are the antichrist. They should have a read of Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, for it has ‘Jehovah’ in the Hebrew scriptures thousands of times. The 2004 edition published by Greater Truth Publishers should surely warrant the Watchtower Society clearing them of the charge of ‘antichrist’? Oh, but if those religious publishers uphold the Trinity doctrine, they would fall at that first hurdle. The second hurdle is not promoting the name ‘Jehovah’. Given those two hurdles that have to be cleared to avoid the label of ‘antichrist’ (in the estimation of Jehovah’s Witnesses), it would appear that there can hardly be a Christian religious group today not considered to be antichrist by them.


As a lifelong Protestant of more than six and a half decades - first by birth and upbringing in Presbyterianism and then by conversion and baptism in my mid-teens - I would say that now, as a mature Christian and an elder, I fear more greatly than ever before in my life and yet I believe more fervently and more intelligently than ever before in my life.

I fear sin. I fear slackness. I fear worldliness. I fear error. I fear heresy.

And I call upon Him who is the God and the Father of Lord Jesus Christ for my every need, spiritually, and for my every provision, materially.

Yes, to the OP, I shall be judged of my works and my words. But I know from bitter experience that the moment I turn to the Law - or any law - to try to perfect myself, in that moment I fail and in that moment I am darkened.

For the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is ever deadly. And will never, ever bring fruit. By the Law is the knowledge of sin, said Paul. And so it is. And that is all that it does. It can never justify - only condemn.

  This is the work of God, that ye believe in Him whom he hath sent.

. . . said Jesus himself. [John 6:29.]

And John tells us :

  This is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

I John 3:23.

The works I do are works of faith and of love. Not works of the flesh to earn reward. Nor deeds done in fear of punishment.

The works I do are those which follow on from knowing that God's righteousness was utterly satisfied upon his own Son, Jesus Christ, who bare our sins in his own body on the tree . . . and who, made sin, containing sin, yielded unto death that sin might be - within the containment of his own humanity - utterly destroyed, in his death.

It is in faith of his sufferings and death that I live.

And I live to love. And I live to believe.

And I live in fear that I should wander out of this way, back into a way of works and Law and oppression and darkness. Or that I should be overcome of worldliness and ease and pleasures of this life.

I have bought my burial plot. I have paid off my funeral plan. My grave awaits me just over the garden wall.

And each day I fear.

And each day I follow after Jesus Christ who loved me and who gave himself for me.