If Protestants won't ask dead saints to intercede because there is no mediator but Jesus then why do they ask living Christians to pray for them?

Intercession is not the same as mediation!

As other answers have said perfectly adequately, there is plenty of biblical support for interceding for one another and the example of the Apostle Paul requesting this intercession from other (living!) saints; although there is no particular scriptural warrant to explicitly endorse asking for such intercession from saints who have 'fallen asleep'.

So how is mediation different? Mediation implies there is a separation between parties - one side is estranged or in conflict with the other and does not have the capacity in itself to resolve the situation: this is descriptive of the situation prior to regeneration - our sins separate us from God, we can do nothing to resolve this situation of ourselves; when we receive Christ however, we are reconciled to God - no longer separated. Only Christ (not Mary or any of the other saints) could and can do this.

Although Intercession can be mistaken for mediation because it is sometimes (and biblically) referred to as 'standing in the gap', it does not actually require there to be disagreement between parties; in fact effective intercession relies on agreement between the will of pray-er and God and to a lesser but still real extent, the willingness of the object to receive the answer to prayer. Paul was not far from the Lord when he requested the prayers of the saints on his behalf, he merely sought that they join together with him in prayer that all might be agreed for God's will to be done in Paul's life and to share in the joy of seeing those prayers answered. When we intercede for 'sinners' (most commonly, unsolicited), the aspects of it involving mediation (ie addressing 'the gap') necessarily rely on Christ's work as the mediator, we don't (can't!) do that particular part of the work of intercession.


Were all of Jesus' healings performed on the Sabbath?

I don't think there's any reason to suppose he restricted healings or other miracles to the sabbath. It seems he was much more free with his healings (cf. Mat. 9:35ff) and with his commands about healing (cf. Mat. 10:7f).

But one instance is enough to disprove the hypothesis: Jesus healed the ear of the servant in Luke 22:49f. Then according to 22:66, he was tried the next day (or later that day, depending on how days are reckoned) and then executed, and Luke identifies the following day after that as the Sabbath (23:54). Hence he healed on a day other than the Sabbath. QED


Were the debates between Gnostics and orthodox Christians recorded and preserved?

The surviving church fathers's writings contained the still-united Church's defense against one of the earliest heresies: Gnosticism.  But we only read the church's side of the argument.  Not until the Nag Hammadi discovery 75 years ago that we are now able to learn the Gnostic's own voice through their own writings.

St. Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202) wrote extensively about this heresy in his Against Heresies books (c. 174 - c. 189).  See also the wikipedia entry.  I found a good commentary and annotated text of the first 3 books at these series of blog articles: Book 1, Book 2, Book 3.  The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Gnosticism under the section "Refutation of Gnosticism" mentioned other early church fathers writing about it, both extant and non, partly informed by Eusebius's indispensable earliest church history written between AD 324 (last date mentioned) and AD 340 (his death).

For the full treatment of what we now know about Gnosticism after the Nag Hammadi discovery, you can watch the highly acclaimed Teaching Company's Great Course Gnosticism: From Nag Hammadi to the Gospel of Judas published in 2015, taught by David Brakke, Ph.D., M.Div., a professor of History of Christianity and History.  I found the course notes here and the lecture videos here.


Is Zion associated with Mary in Catholic doctrine?

In the Litany of Loreto, which apparently was composed to suppress other Marian litanies. I don't know if they were extravagant or borderline heretical or what.  But that's what the intention was so there must have been something behind it.

The place of honor it now holds in the life of the Church is due to its faithful use at the shrine of the Holy House at Loreto. It was definitively approved by Pope Sixtus V in 1587, and all other Marian litanies were suppressed, at least for public use. Since then, several Popes have added titles to the Litany, as only they may do.

But, what the Litany does leave in is the reference to Mary as the "Tower of David", which is a reference to Song of Songs.

"Thy neck is like the Tower of David built with turrets, whereon there hang a thousand shields, all the armor of the mighty men"

History seems too confusing to me to place the Tower of David on Mt. Zion, but it's clear that Medieval Christians thought it was on Mt. Zion and I'm not sure why it would be a long way away from Jerusalem.
The other Marian connections to Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ, etc... are pretty firmly entrenched in the minds and traditions of all Christians except those descended from Protestant sects today.  They certainly had a hold over the popular conception of the Virgin Mary in the Middle Ages, but it's always been up in the air whether those ideas came from just Vox Populii or Vox Dei or a combination of the two.
Suffice it to say, Constantine's mother St. Helena was enthralled enough to try to bring Our Lady's house to Italy, it hit a few bumps along the way, but miraculously reappearing houses are wont to do that and Catholics don't put limits on God's works or question His designs. That's there the Loreto part comes in, as the Litany mentioned above is the Litany of Loreto and the house itself, found its final resting place in the same town.
So 1000 years later, 1000 years of accruing traditions and codifying doctrine we wind up with a popular devotion that still contains a veiled reference to Mary and Zion as one that made the cut.

HOWEVER, and to the contrary, from the passage of Isaiah that you quoth. I was reading through the Little Office of Our Lady which seemingly contains every veiled and unveiled reference to Mary in the Old and New Testaments and did not come across that particular passage.  I expected it to be there and it wasn't so it might be the case that nobody has prescribed any particular typography of Mary to this scripture.


What is the difference between the Jewish celebration of Passover and the Christian celebration of Easter?

They are quite unlike each other. You can read of the fundamentals of the Jewish Passover in Exodus 12. In fundamentalist Christianity, Easter is the celebration of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. You can read of the resurrection benefits for the Christian in 1 Corinthians 15. Wikipedia should have articles on each if you want to be more thorough. I will give an summary of these.

In the Jewish Passover, the Jewish people celebrate the time when their forefathers were slaves in Egypt and God spared them from death and brought them out of Egypt. He had first told the Jews (in Exodus 12) what to do to make sure they were not included in the judgment, including killing a lamb and dabbing blood around the door. When the avenging angel went from house to house to kill the firstborn throughout Egypt, and God saw the blood, He "passed over" that house, keeping the angel from entering in.

The secular version of Easter is as a harmless holiday. Easter began as a pagan religion to Astart the goddess of fertility - that's why symbols such as rabbits and eggs are incorporated into the holiday, and it takes place in the spring when new life begins after a cold winter.

The Christians have taken the holiday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. (New life - get it?) The eggs and rabbits usually don't enter into it except sometimes as holiday fun.

Your confusion may be because at one point in the biblical narrative, Jesus celebrates the Passover with His disciples (see Matthew 26). There, He applied the blood to Himself. In later books in the New Testament this is expanded: He was God's lamb to be sacrificed in their place so they would be set free from slavery to sin. Christians continue to do this "Lord's Supper" or communion with bread and wine, sometimes weekly, sometimes more or less often, and often on a Sunday. This Passover supper and Easter fall on the same day, and is an interesting dovetailing of the Old and New Testaments, where the OT figure of Christ (the Passover lamb) has been fulfilled in the NT.


Is there a doctrinally supported name for a designated "home prayer space" in the RCC?

Prayer Corner

The term "prayer corner" is used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

See Part 4, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 3, 2691

Catechism Compendium:

  One can pray anywhere but the choice of an appropriate place is not a
  matter of indifference when it comes to prayer. The church is the
  proper place for liturgical prayer and Eucharistic adoration. Other
  places also help one to pray, such as a “prayer corner” at home, a
  monastery or a shrine.

Catechism:

  For personal prayer, this can be a "prayer corner" with the Sacred Scriptures and icons, in order to be there, in secret, before our
  Father [Matt 6:6]. In a Christian family, this kind of little oratory fosters
  prayer in common.

The verse cited (Matthew 6:6) is as follows in the New American Bible:

  But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to
  your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay
  you.

This suggests that "prayer corner" is a loose-fitting term for an "inner room" in one's home in order to foster private prayer.

According to the Catechism, a "prayer corner" may include Scripture and icons, is the private home counterpart to a shrine or monastery, and may be used to foster common family prayer.

I would also point out that the term is in quotes in the catechism, and is a rather "quaint" term. This suggests to me that the term is being specifically contrasted against more "official" modes of prayer. The humble prayer of a family in private is designated by a term with like humility.


What is the basis for the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

Off the top of my head the two verses that come to mind is
2 Tim 3:16(NIV)

  "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

So it's clear that scripture is what God said and God cannot lie.

Hebrews 6:18 says

  "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, ..."


I suppose the authors of the Greek New Testament scriptures could have simply transliterated the Hebrew word שְׁאוֹל into Greek, perhaps as Σεολ. But, even if they had done that, Greeks wouldn't have had the faintest idea what this so-called "Σεολ" was, unless they first spent countless hours studying its equivalent in Hebrew, i.e. שְׁאוֹל (remember, early cultures didn't have the luxuries that we do, including electricity and online lexicons; even the possession of scrolls was a luxury of the wealthy).

The Greeks already had a name for the underworld, which they called ᾅδης. Recognizing this, the authors of the Septuagint were the first to translate the Hebrew word שְׁאוֹל into Greek by the word ᾅδης circa 250 B.C. Since the authors of the New Testament were familiar with the Septuagint (often quoting from it or its Greek prototype), and the "seventy" (or seventy-two, depending on which tradition you accept) had incorporated ᾅδης into the LXX for their translation of שְׁאוֹל, the authors of the Greek New Testament probably decided it was easier to simply continue using ᾅδης rather than re-invent the wheel.

As for ᾅδης being the name of a Greek god, I'm sure the authors were aware of that, but I assume they still incorporated it because they believed the Greeks' notions of ᾅδης (as the underworld) weren't irreconcilable with the Jews' notions of שְׁאוֹל.

That brings up another point: we could also ask why the authors chose the word οὐρανός, which we translate into English as "heaven," when it too was the name of a Greek god.


How should we judge the trustworthiness of a given Bible translation?

Cliche Christian answer: pray about it. I'm guessing that isn't the answer you're looking for though, so I will say "research."

For example, looking at Wikipedia you can see the New International Version "translation took ten years and involved a team of up to 100 scholars from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included many different denominations such as Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian." Also, "Recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries helped in understanding traditionally difficult passages to translate."

Having a large team of international, inter-denominational scholars helps quite a bit to remove bias and helps to ensure an accurate translation. Then, using different discoveries gives further insight.

You can easily do this research (and more in depth research) for the other translations as well. I only used NIV as an example because it is what I see quoted most often. With so many scholars using so many different translations, it is usually pretty easy to find out when a translation is inaccurate.

If worried about bias, consider purchasing a parallel Bible so you can always compare two or three translations


How is one supposed to "know" whether or not the Book of Mormon is true?

To understand the answer, it's important to understand the actual invitation.  It can be found in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon:

  Moroni 10: 4-5

  4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye
  would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these
  things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with
  real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it
  unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

  5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all
  things.

With this in mind, the answer is that historical evidence can always be disputed.  There's an impressive corpus of "historical, archaeological, prophetical and other evidence and archaeological evidence" that testifies to the truth of the Book of Mormon, but like the evidence in favor of the Bible, it's all subject to interpretation.  It's all made up of things that happened to other people who are dead now. They can't tell their own story, and we never truly know if we have all the evidence or not.  New things are always turning up, and people come up with new theories and interpretations, sometimes based on reading the evidence, and sometimes based on reading something into the evidence that they want to be there.

But the witness of the Holy Ghost is testimony from God's spirit directly to yours.  It's a very personal affair, and it didn't happen to someone else.  It happened to you, and you know what you received from the Lord, and no alternate interpretation from some other person who hasn't experienced it can change the reality of that witness.  Simply put, it's the only truly trustworthy evidence there is, because it comes directly from the only perfectly trustworthy source there is.

As to how one is supposed to recognize the answer, this will probably sound like a cop-out, but the best answer is "you'll know it when it happens."  The problem is that any description requires a common frame of reference, and the witness of the Holy Ghost is a unique experience that isn't like anything that would be familiar to anyone who doesn't already have experience with it.  It's often described as a strong feeling of peace, and a sensation of warmth, a "burning in your bosom" to use the scriptural language, but it's not the same as physical heat.  But once one has experienced it, they truly know that they have received a testimony from the Lord.


Could a cardinal or pope have children if they are a widower?

Yes, a pope or cardinal could have children if his wife died before he was ordained a deacon and then priest. This would fulfill the requirements for ordination to the priesthood. It could also conceivably happen that a permanent deacon could go on to become a priest and then bishop, cardinal and finally pope after the death of his wife. I know personally a priest in the Diocese of Tulsa who was a permanent deacon that became a priest after the death of his spouse.

Not totally the best example, but an example nonetheless is the fact that Bishop Jean-François de Hercé (1838-1848) of the Diocese of Nantes was ordained a priest after the death of his wife on December 18,1830 and was consecrated a bishop on April 17, 1836.

After the death of his wife in 1820 and the marriage of his daughter Marie-Lucie with Guillaume-François d'Ozouville in 1825, Jean-François entered the seminary at the age of 54.

As a bishop of the Catholic Church, it would be conceivable (but did not happen) for Bishop Jean-François de Hercé to named a cardinal by the pope and then elected to become the pope in a conclave.

His French biography Père, Maire, Evêque (Father, Mayor, Bishop) is an excellent read.

As we know the Apostle St. Peter became the first pope and that he was married. There are some traditions and legends that he may have had children. The Roman Martyrology seems to acknowledge Saint Peter's paternity:

  "St. Petronilla, Virgin [and Martyr], daughter of the blessed apostle Peter, who refused to marry the nobleman Flaccus. Given three days for consideration, she spent them in fasting and prayer. On the third day, having received Christ sacramentally, she gave up her spirit." Roman Martyrology (May 31).


Are there any surviving (English translated) works by Athanasius about the Apollinarian heresy?

According to Schaff's history, Athanasius wrote Against Apollinaris

  about the year 372 against Apollinarianism in the wider sense, without naming, Apollinaris or his followers; so that the title above given is wanting in the oldest codices. Similar errors, though in like manner without direct reference to Apollinaris, and evading his most important tenet, were combated by Athanasius in the Epist. ad Epictetum episcopum Corinthi contra haereticos

I can't find an English translation of this work - although Schaff refers to it, it isn't in his complete works of Athanasius. If it's any use to you, the Greek text is here.

The letter to Epictetus is found in translation here.


What is Roman Catholic Church's official view on the nature of Christ?

Yes, there were subsequent ecumenical councils that dealt with the matter. As explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 468:

  After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople in 553 confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."


The task of interpreting the Word of God - The Pope

This means that the Magisterium of the Church is used to specify to the People of God and to the world how, exactly, the Word is to be applied to our daily lives:

  The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2034; the quote is from Lumen Gentium, section 25.)

This echoes and explicates paragraph 890 of the Catechism:

  The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates.

In other words, it is the task—the pastoral duty—of the Pope and the other bishops in communion with him to watch over their flocks, to ensure that what the People of God believe and practice is in accord with the Word of God as it appears in the depositum fidei, the "deposit of faith" given us by God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. To do so, they must pray and think over what the Word means, and what it implies for Catholic life, so that they can pass on appropriate beliefs, practices, and teachings to the Church. This is the "interpretation" mentioned in the Catechism.


What are "all things" in "Let all things be tested, keep to what is good"?

It continues verse 20; the entire statement is: "Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good."

I would interpret this to mean that we are specifically dealing with prophets and prophecy here. When someone prophesies, we are not to outright reject them but to test the prophecy. If is is from God we should never let it go. If it is merely the words of a person speaking in place of God, we must ignore them entirely (Jeremiah 23).

Also see 1 John 4:1:

  "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world."

1 Corinthians 14:22:

  "But prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers."


Does any Biblical basis exist for a year to be called a day?

2 Peter 3:8 likens a day to a thousand years in the sight of God.  A similar expression is found in Psalm 90:4:

For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

Neither passage is saying a year is a thousand years, only that when viewed in the light of eternity, it could be likened to a thousand years, or even “a watch in the night” which is but a few hours.  The Jews divided the night into three watches (Judges 7:19; 1 Samuel 11:11) but the Romans had four night watches, each lasting three hours (Matthew 14:25).
There are other biblical examples that illustrate how time can be viewed.  “The day of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 5) is not a literal 24-hour day.  It is an unspecified period of time.
We are still in the seventh day after God finished his work of creation, His day of rest (Genesis 2:1-3).
Jesus, quoting from Isaiah 61:1, spoke of “the year of the Lord’s favour” (Luke 4:19).  That “year” is still with us.
God, as the creator of time, does not view time as mortal humans view time.  Our allocated “three score years and ten” are but a fleeting moment.  God stands above time, and He waits patiently for humans to repent and turn to Him (2 Peter 3:9).
There is, however, a danger in taking the expression “a day is like a thousand years” and applying it literally to biblical chronology.  Some denominations have used this as a means of measuring time in order to predict the tribulation period or the second coming of Christ Jesus.  No man knows the day or the hour when He will return to bring judgment on God’s enemies.  The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night (2 Peter 3:10) when people least expect it.
“A day is like a thousand years” is a figure of speech which makes a description more emphatic or vivid.  The expression simply brings home the fact that God, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, sees time through the eyes of eternity, and not through the eyes of human experience.


What is the Catholic Church's position of a marriage between a menopausal woman and an impotent man?

This one is easy: impotence makes marriage impossible (invalid). To quote the Code of Canon Law,

  Can.  1084 §1. Antecedent [i.e, before the marriage consent is given] and perpetual [i.e., permanent] impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute [i.e., the person is incapable of intercourse with anyone at all] or relative [i.e., the person is incapable of intercourse specifically with his perspective spouse], nullifies marriage by its very nature.

In this case, the reason does not have to do so much with procreation, as with the fact that marriage by its very nature entails at least the possibility of engaging in sexual intercourse. That is, evidently, not possible in the case of impotence, and so neither is marriage.

Therefore, the mere fact that the woman is past childbearing age is not an impediment to marriage—the problem in the case described by the O.P. would be entirely with the man’s impotence.

It should be noted that impotence here is defined as the inability to engage in the sexual act. It is distinct from infertility or sterility, which is the inability to father or conceive children.

The Code of Canon Law specifies that infertility (as opposed to impotence) is not an impediment to marriage. From the same canon:

  §3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098. [Can. 1098 essentially says that if important problems such as infertility are concealed from a prospective spouse, that could be grounds for invalidity. However, it is not the infertility as such that renders the marriage invalid.]

It should also be specified that this impediment holds for new marriages (which is why Canon Law specifies that only antecedent impotence can impede marriage). Impotence acquired after the exchange of consent does not affect validity.


How much authority does Pseudo-Dionysus still have in today's Catholic Church?
The works of Dionysius were readily accepted by the medieval Scholastics. His works were not so highly valued during the the period of the Renaissance and thus broke with the time-honoured tradition of holding them in high esteem. There is too much uncertainty surrounding Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite and his writings for the Catholic Church to hold his works on the same level as say St. Augustine of Hippo.

By "Dionysius the Areopagite" is usually understood the judge of the Areopagus who, as related in Acts 17:34, was converted to Christianity by the preaching of St. Paul, and according to Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, Church History III.4) was Bishop of Athens.
In the course of time, however, two errors of far-reaching import arose in connection with this name. In the first place, a series of famous writings of a rather peculiar nature was ascribed to the Areopagite and, secondly, he was popularly identified with the holy martyr of Gaul, Dionysius, the first Bishop of Paris. It is not our purpose to take up directly the latter point; we shall concern ourselves here (1) with the person of the Pseudo-Areopagite; (2) with the classification, contents, and characteristics of his writing; (3) with their history and transmission; under this head the question as to the genuineness of, origin, first acceptance, and gradual spread of these writings will be answered.
Deep obscurity still hovers about the person of the Pseudo-Areopagite.
The doctrinal attitude of the Pseudo-Areopagite is not clearly defined. A certain vagueness, which was perhaps intended, is characteristic of his Christology, especially in the question concerning the two natures in Christ. We may well surmise that he was not a stranger to the latter, and rather modified, form of Monophysitism and that he belonged to that conciliatory group which sought, on the basis of the Henoticon issued in 482 by Emperor Zeno (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., III, iv), to reconcile the extremes of orthodoxy and heresy. This reserved, indefinite attitude of the author explains the remarkable fact that opposite factions claimed him as an adherent. As to his social rank, a careful comparison of certain details scattered through his works shows that he belonged to the class of scholars who were known at the time as scholastikoi.
The fact must, indeed, appear remarkable that these very writings, though rejected outright by such an authority as Hypatius, were within little more than a century looked upon as genuine by Catholics, so that they could be used against the heretics during the Lateran Council in 649 (Hardouin III, 699 sqq.).
As to the second period, universal recognition of the Areopagitic writings in the Middle Ages, we need not mention the Greek Church, which is especially proud of him; but neither in the West was a voice raised in challenge down to the first half of the fifteenth century; on the contrary, his works were regarded as exceedingly valuable and even as sacred. It was believed that St. Paul, who had communicated his revelations to his disciple in Athens, spoke through these writings (Histor.-polit. Blatter, CXXV, 1900, p. 541).
The works of Dionysius, thus introduced into Western literature, were readily accepted by the medieval Scholastics. The great masters of Saint-Victor at Paris, foremost among them the much admired Hugh, based their teaching on the doctrine of Dionysius. Peter Lombard and the great Dominican and Franciscan scholars, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, adopted his theses and arguments. Master poets, e.g. Dante, and historians, e.g. Otto of Freising, built on his foundations. Scholars as renowned as Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln and Vincent of Beauvais drew upon him freely. Popular religious books, such as the "Legenda aurea" of Giacomo da Voragine and the "Life of Mary" by Brother Philip, gave him a cordial welcome.
It was reserved for the period of the Renaissance to break with the time-honoured tradition. True, some of the older Humanists, as Pico della Mirandola, Marsilius Ficinus, and the Englishmen John Colet, were still convinced of the genuineness of the writings; but the keen and daring critic, Laurentius Valla (1407-1457) in his glosses to the New Testament, expressed his doubts quite openly and thereby gave the impulse, at first for the scholarly Erasmus (1504), and later on for the entire scientific world, to take sides either with or against Dionysius. The consequence was the formation of two camps; among the adversaries were not only Protestants (Luther, Scultetus, Dallaeus, etc.) but also prominent Catholic theologians (Beatus Rhenanus, Cajetan, Morinus, Sirmond, Petavius, Lequien, Le Nourry); among the defenders of Dionysius were Baronius, Bellarmine, Lansselius, Corderius, Halloix, Delario, de Rubeis, Lessius, Alexander Netalis, and others. The literary controversy assumed such dimensions and was carried on so vehemently that it can only be compared to the dispute concerning the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals and the pseudo-Constantinian donation. In the nineteenth century the general opinion inclined more and more towards the opposition; the Germans especially, Möhler, Fessler, Döllinger, Hergenröther, Alzog, Funk, and others made no reserve of their decision for the negative. At this juncture the scholarly professor Franz Hipler came forward and attempted to save the honor of Dionysius. He finds in Dionysius not a falsifier, but a prominent theologian of the fourth century who, through no fault of his own, but owing to the misinterpretation of some passages, was confounded with the Areopagite. Many Catholics, and many Protestants as well, voiced their approval. Finally, in 1895 there appeared almost simultaneously two independent researches, by Hugo Koch and by Joseph Stiglmayr, both of whom started from the same point and arrived at the same goal. The conclusion reached was that extracts from the treatise of the neo-Platonist Proclus, "De malorum subsistentia" (handed down in the Latin translation of Morbeka, Cousin ed., Paris, 1864), had been used by Dionysius in the treatise "De div. nom." (c. iv, sections 19-35) A careful analysis brought to light an astonishing agreement of both works in arrangement, sequence of thought, examples, figures, and expressions. It is easy to point out many parallelisms from other and later writings of Proclus, e.g. from his "Institutio theologica", "theologia Platonica", and his commentary on Plato's "Parmenides", "Alcibiades I", and "Timaeus" (these five having been written after 462).
Accordingly, the long-standing problem seems to be solved in its most important phase. As a matter of fact, this is the decision pronounced by the most competent judges, such as Bardenhewer, Erhard, Funk, Diekamp, Rauschen, De Smedt, S.J., Duchesne, Battifol; and the Protestant scholars of early Christian literature, Gelzer, Harnack, Kruger, Bonwetsch. The chronology being thus determined, an explanation was readily found for the various objections hitherto alleged, viz. the silence of the early Fathers, the later dogmatic terminology, a developed monastic, ceremonial, and penitential system, the echo of neo-Platonism, etc. On the other hand it sets at rest many hypotheses which had been advanced concerning the author and his times and various discussions---whether, e.g., a certain Apollinaris, or Synesius, or Dionysius Alexandrinus, or a bishop of Ptolemais, or a pagan hierophant was the writer.
A critical edition of the text of the Areopagite is urgently needed. - Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite

Until many historical and doctrinal issues can be formerly resolved, the works of Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite will not enjoy a high amount of genuine authority within the Catholic Church these days.


What, historically, was the age of accountability for Latter-Day-Saints before D&C 68:27?

It is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon that baptism is only required for those who are accountable and capable of committing sin. Moroni Chapter 8 contains a letter of Mormon to his son expounding on the theology of the subject. (Especially verses 5-26).
Mosiah 3:16-21 also contains teaching that "little children" are sinless and are redeemed by Christ. The passages mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants (18:42 and 20:71) also mention "the years of accountability" but are not more specific.

At this point in the history of the Church, (November 1831) there were no more than a few thousand members and whether someone was sufficiently accountable was most likely left to the judgement of the missionaries, parents, and the individuals involved. There were some young children among the newly baptized convert families, but only a few would have aged and matured enough for the question of when they should be be baptized to arise.

Joseph Smith taught (Genesis 17:11-12; Joseph Smith Translation) that the 8 year old age for accountability was connected to the 8 days of age for circumcision according to the law given to Abraham.


How does one explain God being outside the universe yet on the throne in heaven without violating divine simplicity?

There is no throne 'room' in scripture.
There is the concept of a throne given to us for our understanding.
Since God created all things, heavens (plural) and earth, he cannot be 'part' of that universal creation. God is Spirit.
Being Spirit, he is not 'located' anywhere (in three dimensions).

God is Spirit and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit - and in truth. [John 4:24 KJV]

God is manifested, in flesh, in Jesus Christ, I Timothy 3:16 [TR] [KJV] but it is not revealed where (physically) Jesus Christ is now (a cloud received him out of their sight).

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. [Acts 1:9 , KJV]

The further Revelation of Jesus Christ is spiritual - it is not a physical revelation.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him (see Revelation 1:1) is, quite clearly, conceptual - for the apprehension of faith - and is not to be understood in a physical way.


If God is all knowing then why didn't he prevent Adam and Eve from sinning?

Why Did God Create the Universe (or, at least, Humanity)?

The answer to that will speak to your question about God's foreknowledge.

I will propose an executive summary: the purpose of humanity1 is to
know and love God. (Jn 17:3) The testimony of the Scripture is at least compatible
with this idea, though I find more than just circumstantial evidence in
support of it, what's written in the Bible does not say precisely that.

If we accept this (unproven here) conclusion, then God gave humans
free will in order that they might be capable of genuinely loving him.
True love is voluntary, so in order for us to be capable of loving God,
we also had to be capable of something else, including rebellion/sin.

So, even though God knew what choices we would make, if he actually
wanted people to love him, then he had to give them the chance
to do so. Otherwise, our entire existence would have been merely a
thought experiment that didn't turn out well—but that's not why God
created humanity. He wanted us to know and love him.

Even though God knew that not everyone would choose to love him, he
still wanted those who would love him to get to do so.

1 Technically, God created us for his pleasure (Rev 4:11), but this is not entirely informative. If you consider Genesis 1-3 and Revelation 21-22, the idea that how things will be in the end is similar to how they were in the beginning, and that God's desire for us has been the same all along. In Eden, God walked among humans and talked to them. That closeness ceased after humans sinned, but that intimacy is restored again after the resurrection. Jesus summed up eternal life this way: "that they may know [God]." (Jn 17:3).


Latter Day Saints, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden

The Bible doesn't have a direct reference to this, but this is part of the reason the Church of Jesus Christ believes in the need for multiple scriptures. One can see that in Genesis Adam and Eve were only kicked out of the Garden of Eden and only started having children after partaking of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.
Chapter 3

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
22 ¶ And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Chapter 4

1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

The reason the first two commandments contradicted was that God was setting the stage to show all of us that mankind has Agency, which is integral to the Plan of Salvation.
Moses 3:17 clarifies the commandment to not eat of the tree of knowledge.

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


From a biblical perspective, Who performs a miracle - the person or God?

In healing the woman who had been bleeding for many years (Mark 5:24 - 30), Jesus has an interesting reaction:

25 And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. 26 She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. 27 When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, 28 because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” 29 Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.
30 At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?”
31 “You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”
32 But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. 33 Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. 34 He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”

It is interesting, a miracle was performed without Jesus doing it.  This seems to imply that miracles could occur without Jesus' explicit doing. If Jesus was unaware of the miracle being performed through him, who was doing the miracle?
The obvious answer is that God the Father poured out power in a way that bypassed Jesus' human consciousness. Jesus could thus empty himself of his divinity (the kenosis), and yet still perform miracles.
This would also explain the story in Acts 8, when Simon, a former magician turned new believer, asked the disciples the secret of how to perform miracles.  He was even willing to pay for the privilege, a dubious practice called simony (the selling of power) ever since.
But, in seeking to perform these miracles, he was rebuked.  Even if he wanted to perform these miracles for god's kingdom, it was clear he didn't realize that miracles were performed for God's glory, not his own.
Finally, Jesus is explicit that miracles are not magic tricks - they are signs that are to accompany a message.  They are not to relieve suffering but rather to authenticate God's will. In Mark 2, Jesus forgives the paralytic, which incenses the Pharisees. It isn't until after the Pharisees get angry at this blasphemy (Who can forgive sins but God alone?), that Jesus performs the miracle, explcitly saying "in order that you might believe."
Miracles, are thus a sign of God's power. As such, I don't think its a stretch to say if the purpose of a miracle is to prove God's hand in a thing, that he would also be the source of it.


Did biblical polygamy ever involve group sex?

As a general rule, if a particular practice was present in a culture but considered sinful, there were commandments against it. This is the basis of a principle in historical cultural studies that if there is a law against a particular practice in the written or oral codes of a culture, then that practice did exist in the culture.
Based on the absence of any clear reference to group sex in the Bible, including the absence of any prohibition against it, it is most likely that group sex was not practiced in the Hebrew culture of the Old Testament in which polygamy was prominent.
Alternatively, it could have been practiced but not considered a sin. However, the text of the Bible generally supports the idea that men with multiple wives slept with only one of them at a time, and that this was the practice of that culture.
Here are two examples:
Leah and Rachel
The biblical patriarch Jacob had two wives: Leah and Rachel. Rachel was his preferred wife, but for many years she bore Jacob no children, while Leah did bear children for him. The story of the births of eleven of Jacob's twelve sons is told in Genesis 29:31–30:24. Within that story there is a portion that suggests that Jacob was at the time sleeping exclusively with Rachel—and that whom he slept with was an either/or proposition:

During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes."
But she said to her, "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son's mandrakes too?"
"Very well," Rachel said, "he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes."
So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. "You must sleep with me," she said. "I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he slept with her that night.
God listened to Leah, and she became pregnant and bore Jacob a fifth son. (Genesis 30:14–17)

In this story, clearly Jacob is sleeping with only one of his two wives at a time.
Lot's daughters
The story of Lot and his daughters involves incest rather than polygamy. However, it does provide another illustration of two women sleeping with the same man, but not on the same night:

Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father."
That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I slept with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today. (Genesis 19:30–38)

In this story the possibility of both of Lot's daughters sleeping with him on the same night is not raised. Instead they arrange to sleep with him on separate nights.
Conclusion
Based on biblical stories such as these, which involve men sleeping with multiple women, but not at the same time, and based on the absence of any specific prohibition against group sex in the Bible, it is most likely that group sex was not practiced in the polygamous Hebrew culture of Old Testament times, and that this absence of group sex in that culture continued into New Testament times as well.


If Christians were left to celebrating sacred events on days where no other pagan celebration has ever occurred, there would be no days available for Christian celebrations.  So, on a day where some people at a certain time celebrated the birth of a god that never existed, Christians (Catholic and Protestant) choose to celebrate the birth of Jesus the Messiah.  The two celebrations have absolutely nothing to do with each other, other than that they occur on the same day.  (The common days for the Orthodox Christmas are January 6 and 7).

It is certainly possible that it was originally selected because it had been the celebration of a birth of a false deity before.  That would make sense.  The idea of redeeming a day of worshiping the birth of a false deity by celebrating the birth of the one true Lord and Messiah and worshiping Him is a great idea.

This would be especially so for people who come out of false religions worshiping false gods.  As they continue to live in a culture that has various sacred observances, why not provide an alternative to these that worship the true and living God?

So, Jesus was definitely born, and it's a great thing to remember this incredible event each year in worship.  We don't know exactly what day He was born, but December 25th is certainly fine.  The kids are out of school, there are a lot of sales going on, and we have a day off of work.  Why not?


What is the extra value of the body of Christ in the Eucharist when someone is already full of the Holy Spirit?

I am Catholic, and from personal experience I know that taking the Eucharist in the right conditions gives you an immediate spiritual rehabilitation.
You become more Christlike, more loving, more calm, etc.
The Church teaches that it also forgives venial sins.
What must be understood is that the Sacrifice of Christ on the cross is
the same as the eucharistic sacrifice, the Eucharist re-presents the sacrifice.
But it does not kill Jesus over and over again every time it is performed,
it's that same sacrifice on the cross which is continually re-presented in churches for the People of God.

CATHECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Article 3 The Sacrement of the Eucharist
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the
Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the
Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my
body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you
is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us
the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood
which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes
present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and
because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to
God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish
there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to
end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was
betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a
visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody
sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would
be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world,
and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we
daily commit.189

Now in the case of someone who's as holy as St. Paul the Eucharist is still necessitated ordinarily.
I say ordinarily because it is possible to get a pass if you are animated by extraordinary grace like many protestants I would think.
It should also be noted that ordinary grace is more reliable, more consistent.
Of course in this case we will stick to the ordinary grace scenario.
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were kept alive because of the fruits
of the Tree of Life(Gen 3:22). In Revelation, which is the final conclusion and a miror image of Genesis, we learn that the nations are kept alive by the fruits of the Tree of Life(Rev 2:7, Rev 22:2). We know that no mere tree can keep someone alive eternally, but we also know that God likes to use physical things to usher in spiritual realities. Like the Bread and Wine of the Holy Communion.

John 6:48-50 King James Version (KJV)
I am that bread of life.
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat
thereof, and not die.

Taking this data into consideration, we can conclude that any ordinary ministry must be assisted by the Eucharist even if it shows saintly spiritual maturity.  The Holy Spirit is not at odds with the Eucharist, but rather cooperates with the Eucharist to "decode", as it were, all the power which is hidden behind the physical apparence of the sacrifice.
Imagine the spiritual layout of your body, your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, when you take the Eucharist you allow the Holy Spirit to fill you more, to take control of areas which were kept prisoners by habitual sins or ever demonic entities like St. Paul mentions(2 Cor 12:7-9).
This is why one must not be in mortal sin when taking the Eucharist,
it angers God and he may very well stike us dead as he could have done with Adam and Eve but instead sealed the Garden.
That is how the Eucharist became the center of the Catholic faith.
The Eucharist re-presents Christ our Lord, and it sustains us spiritually
no matter how holy one may be, in the case of ordinary ministry, we must re-fill and that's how God desired it to be. It keeps us humble and closer to him.


Did Luke provide other writings under a different name?

Luke's Gospel and Acts of the Apostles were originally anonymous until attributed to Paul's companion Luke, later in the second century. The author never claims to be Luke, but Irenaeus appears to have been the first to make that attribution.

As we do not know who really wrote Luke-Acts, we need not be surprised that we do not know any other books written by the same author. However, the author's skills in Greek rhetoric were not learnt overnight, so he must have written other works before undertaking these masterpieces. Perhaps one day, stylistic analysis of other extant late first-century or early second-century books could help identify previous works that might have been written by 'Luke', but that is a distant possibility at best.


Why is the ten commandments sometimes called the decalogue?

The English phrase "Ten Commandments" is a bit of a misnomer. The Hebrew phrase עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים (eseret ha-dvarim) literally translates into English as "the ten words" or "the ten statements." The Hebrew phrase is translated into the LXX as δέκα λόγους (deka logous). Of course, from thence is derived the English expression "dekalogue" --- which is nothing more than a loose transliteration of that Greek phrase. δέκα λόγους is actually in the accusative case. The nominative would be δέκα λόγοι (deka logoi).


Why do Catholics believe in the immaculate conception?

What was the reasoning?

There are many reasons given by the Church Fathers. Some of them are:

Mary is the new Eve. Since Jesus is the new Adam (Romans 5:12-18), Mary is the new eve foretold in Genesis 3:15. God foretold that she would be eternally at enmity with the evil serpent. So if she was touched by sin then this enmity will not be possible.
She is the mother of God. It would be better for God to save her before falling then after. (After all He is the one who commanded to honor thy father and mother)

  The great Franciscan theologian, Duns Scotus, explained ca. 600 years ago that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a massive 20-feet deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he would need someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead resulting in the man not falling into the ditch at all, he would have been saved from falling in the first place. Analogously, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.

She is seen as a type of the Ark of the Covenant. Like the Ark which was protected from impure touch (2 Samuel 6:7), Mary is considered to be protected from Original Sin. (There are other similarities between Mary and the Ark too)
She is called Full of Grace by God the Father. Here the word grace (kecharitōmenē) is perfect passive participle. This word — kecharitōmenē, means not only full of grace, but the grace was bestowed in the past to the fullest extant possible and is ongoing. This is interpreted to mean she is sinless. Because Grace cannot be full if there is sin.

And do Protestants universally reject this?

It depends on what you mean by Protestants. But most protestants do not accept it. But some protestants like Anglo-Lutherans do.

Was she the only human to have been born this way besides Adam and Jesus?

Officially (at-least according to Catholics) we know for sure that Jesus and Mary were born sinless (Adam was created sinless). But some believe St. John the baptist, even though conceived in original sin, was purified in womb during visitation, making him technically sinless when born. Some also include St. Joseph in this list. But these are not official dogmas and one may choose not to believe in them.


How is it significant that Jesus rose on the 3rd day?

The significance lies in that Jesus prophesied that He will rise from the dead on the third day.

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." John 2 : 19
But the temple he had spoken of was his body. John 2 : 21

The false witnesses misquoted Jesus at His trial, not for the days but on who will destroy the 'temple'.

But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.'" Matthew 26: 60 - 61


Why do OEC discount the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?

The issue is not that OECs have a "weak faith," but we believe we are taking a more appropriate view of the scripture. Indeed, if the text is written metaphorically (as we believe), then reading it literally is the weaker position.

If you don't want to read my rather long (yet still way too short to pay true justice to this topic) answer, I suggest jumping down to my Conclusion section, for a summary of why I believe the OEC view pays proper respect to scripture, and is the logical view.

The basic arguments (that I'm aware of) to support the OEC interpretation of Genesis, are:

1. Character of God

As I touched on in this answer:

First, an important Biblical principle is found in Psalm 19:1:

  The heavens declare the glory of God;
     the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

God is revealed through His creation.

Second, from Hebrews 6:18:

  ...it is impossible for God to lie...

Together, I take this to mean that God's creation, and his scripture must be reconcilable.  Any (good) science will not contradict any (good) interpretation of scripture.

This is an important backdrop when reading the rest of this answer.

2. Contextual

There are several clues directly in Genesis that the creation account is not meant to be taken literally.  Some good examples:

"Morning" and "evening" pass before the sun is created.  Either the sun literally existed before it was described in Genesis, or there were no literal days until the sun was created. See this question. A third hypothesis is that the early days of creation meant "24 hour periods," and not specifically "days" as we know them now.  But then why refer to "evening" and "morning"?  Either the word "day" is metaphor, or "evening" and "morning" are metaphor. In any case, this aspect of the creation account cannot be taken completely literally.

At minimum one of the key words ("sun", "day", and/or "morning/evening") cannot have the same literal meaning it has today.
The seventh day never ended. This seems to be an indication that the days are metaphorical, and that we are presently living in the seventh "day." At the very least, it indicates that the 7th day was somehow distinct and special from the 6 others.
The Genesis 2 account of creation doesn't precisely agree with the Genesis 1 account of creation, in terms of order of creation. Man appears to be created before plants, then later placed in "the garden."
Genesis 2 describes a number of events that happened between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve:

God planted a garden in Eden
Adam worked in and cared for the garden
Adam named all of the animals

Working and caring for a garden is clearly not a one-day task.  Nor is naming all of the animals, nor discovering, in this process, that none of the animals are suitable helpers for Adam.

3. Textual

I discussed some of this in this answer, but will elaborate further here.

The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1 has many meanings: (a) Some portion of the daylight (hours), (b) Sunrise to sunset, (c) Sunset to sunset, (d) A segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch) [i.e. "In my grandfather's day" or "in the day of the dinosaurs]

YECs have several arguments for why Yom in this context means 24-hour day, but they all fall short.  I'll discuss two here:

Claim: The phrase "evening and morning" "is used 38 times in the Old testament, not counting Genesis 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24-hour-type day."3

Response:

  Interestingly, the word "day" (or yom) appears in none of these examples. The word's plural form occurs only in 1 Samuel 7:16. In only a few of the 38 examples do the words "evening" and "morning" appear in the same sentence or verse. The phrase "evening and morning" appears only one time, in Psalm 55:17. David said, "Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray" (KJV). However, even this occurrence is of little relevance. The expression being considered--"and there was evening, and there was morning"--appears only in Genesis 1.2

Claim: 358 out of 359 times Yom is used in the Bible, outside of Genesis 1 and with an ordinal modifier, it represents a 24-hour day.1

Response:

Only 249 of these uses use the singular form of 'Yom', and all 249 are in the context of human activity.2 Genesis 1 is clearly referring to divine activity.

"Morning to morning" or "evening to evening" are common ways of denoting days in Hebrew, however the phrasing "and was evening, and was morning" is unique to Genesis 1, which seems to indicate that these days were unique in some special way.3

4. History

Historically, the church has had a very non-dogmatic view on this issue.  Most recorded commentary on this issue has approached the matter mostly as a matter of idle musings, and of little or no real spiritual significance.

  The portion of Genesis 1 that describes the six creation days receives more commentary from early church scholars than does any other text in the Bible. However, of the approximately 2,000 pages they wrote (a commentary called the Hexameron), only about two pages address the duration of the creation days. Clearly, the early church fathers did not consider the length of these days a major doctrinal point.5

Historically, Jewish and Christian scholars have not considered the creation account to mean a 6 literal day creation. The earliest scholars to even address the issue (around 13 B.C) believed that God instantaneously created everything, and that the 6 days were purely figurative of order and completeness.5

St. Augustine spoke the most strongly on the matter, saying: "As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think--let alone explain in words--what they mean."6 and "But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar."7

5. Science

There is a plethora of scientific evidence that suggests the world appears to be much older than YECs claim. Although YECs naturally dispute much of this evidence as weak science, but many of these claims require distorting science.  I openly admit that science does not have all the answers about the creation of the world yet, and never will.  However, that does not change that many of the scientific principles used to date the earth and/or the universe are very hard to dispute.

You specifically asked not for scientific evidence in support of the OEC view, so I won't go into any detail here.  That would be well beyond the scope of this site anyway.  I'll only mention one example briefly, and further reiterate my point made above about the Character of God--that God does not lie, and that creation reveals Him.  Therefore, whatever good science says about the Universe must, IMO, be true, as a true reflection of God through his creation.

The one example I want to mention, is the simple deductive reasoning that gives astronomers an approximate age for the universe of somewhere around 14 billion years. Read the full details here, but the nutshell version is that by using red/blue-shifting, we are able to observe how quickly the universe is expanding. By doing some backwards math, we can calculate that the universe was all at a single point ~14 billion years ago.

I've heard some YECs argue against this by suggesting that light must have traveled faster in the past, giving the universe the appearance of greater age (due to greater distance between galaxies). However, if the speed of light was not constant, the formation of our life-sustaining sun would not be possible.  As the 'c' in E=mc2 stands for the speed of light, if that changes, then either the E (energy) or m (mass), or both, must also change accordingly. If this theory was right then "either Adam and Eve would have been incinerated by the Sun's trillionfold increase in heat or the elements essential for building their human bodies would not exist."8

Another theory is that light travels faster (or takes a short cut) over vast distances in space.  This theory came out before much work on Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has since proven this theory implausible.9

Conclusion

Believing in an old earth does not at all detract from the authority one believes the Bible holds.  It's not a matter of believing that the bible is "wrong"--it's a matter of believing that that prose ought to be interpreted as prose, and that scientific literature ought to be interpreted as scientific literature--and swapping those in either direction detracts from a proper understanding of the thoughts the author intended to communicate.

Interpreting anything too literally is NOT doing it a service, no matter how pure the intentions of the interpretor.

Now, from a scientific perspective, I think it's easy to forgive the early church scholars for interpreting the Genesis creation account without any (meaningful--from a modern perspective) scientific perspective.  However, if the YEC position held any weight in terms of literature or hermeneutics, surely these scholars would have picked up on that.

To believe either of the overarching views, a few "concessions" must be made:

To believe in an Old-Earth:

The Genesis creation account is metaphorical, and not written as a scientific text.
The flood account is told from the perspective of those writing it, for whom the entire known earth did flood, but not necessarily the entire literal earth.

To believe in a Young-Earth:

God arbitrarily chooses use words that have practically no meaning ("day," "morning," and "evening" prior to the sun existing)
God gave Adam super-human powers, or made the 6th day extremely long, or performed some other miracle to allow Adam to name all of the animals in a single day.
God created the earth with the appearance of age
God teleported animals to and from the Ark from/to multiple continents
Well established scientific principles are flatly wrong, despite independent verification by many people (both religions and non-religious) over many years, in some cases over centuries.
Reconcile personally that these apparent contradictions don't make God a liar

To me, the first set of "concessions" is much easier to make.  It only asks me to read literature in the context it was written.  It doesn't ask me to believe what would appear, to an external observer, to be a bunch of fairy tales.

Postscript

As a final note, an observation that doesn't necessarily add any weight to the OEC position--so I mention it here, and not in my main arguments:

OEC is much less of a stumbling block for most non-Christians, because it doesn't require them to make what can easily be considered an "absurd" leap of faith, to believe that science is flatly wrong, etc.  In the words of Dr. Joshua Zorn:

  The worst aspect of YECS teaching is that it creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church.4

1Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor, Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross p. 73
2Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days, p. 74
3Ross, p. 76
4Dr. Joshua Zorn, The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary
5Ross, p. 42
6Aurelius Augustinus, The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 6, 14:196
7Aurelius Augustinus, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book Five, Chapter 2, as translated and anotated by John Hammond Taylor, vol. 1, books 1-6 p. 148
8Ross, p. 165
9Ross, p. 166


Can a Catholic have communion if they married outside of the Catholic Church?

About receiving communion currently

Based on this guidance from the Catechism, unless you've been adhering to the annual "Easter Duty" you may need to go to confession first before you receive communion. (It may be that simple).

  CC 1389 The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation{aka confession} to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.  But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.

About your marriage

You may be seeking to convalidate your marriage.  Based on what you've presented in your question, there aren't enough details to assess whether or not the Church would find it to be sacramental. (Canon Law;  1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven).

How to convalidate the marriage

Meet with your local Catholic pastor, explain the situation you find yourselves in, and the details of your marriage, and he will be able to advise you on the path to take for your particular situation. Details matter.

  In Catholic canon law, a validation of marriage or convalidation of marriage is the validation of a Catholic putative marriage.  A putative marriage is one when at least one party to the marriage wrongly believes it to be valid.

Convalidation is not "getting married a second time" but it is a method by which the Church officially confirms that the marriage is indeed sacramental.  (In my experience, there was usually a rite or ceremony or celebration of varying complexity depending on the wishes of the couple).  The difference between a licit and a valid marriage may seem obscure, but from the point of view of adhering to Canon Law it matters to the Church. (The Church, to affirm any marriage, has to follow its own rules).

Based on the Catholic Canon Law a valid marriage requires certain elements:

  THE FORM OF THE CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE
  Can.  1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted
  before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by
  either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the
  rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the
  exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127,
  §§1-2.
  Can.  1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

The most likely finding by the pastor, since you are the Catholic party, would be technically termed "a defect of form" since you joined in matrimony under other circumstances than are called for by Canon Law.  That doesn't mean that your bond is not sacramental, particularly as you are both baptized, but the Church has to look into all particulars to confirm that.
You may not be able to receive communion until convalidation, but you may, since the details of your situation matter(see the above about guidance on communion).  Your situation needs to be laid out to the pastor and discussed in detail so that you can get the advice that suits your situation.

If you'd like to take it a step higher, go to your local diocese at the Chancery.  They can advise you on how your marriage can be convalidated in your diocese.  There may be other reasons for the Church to find the marriage invalid1

If your case is one where your consent upholds as it did on the day you took your vows, but the "defect of form" is found(as above), and you are still married, you may be eligible for a radical sanation

  Can.  1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects. {My deacon used to call this "short form" convalidation}

  §2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor.
  Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the
  celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.

  §3. A radical sanation is not to be granted unless it is probable that
  the parties wish to persevere in conjugal life.

  Can.  1163 §1. A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment or a defect of legitimate form can be sanated provided that the consent of each party perseveres.

We have a number of questions and answers on convalidation, to include these two here.
3  and 2.

If you search for the tags marriage, Catholicism and convalidate (or convalidation) you'll find a number of other questions (with answers) similar to yours.

One of the things I learned in the RCIA ministry is that in the case of marriage between two baptized persons, if one of them is Catholic then the Catholic Church expects the Catholic party to adhere to Canon Law, but it does not require that the other party become Catholic for marriage.  Since you have already married outside of the Catholic Church, it can get a bit more complicated, but it may be very simple (and accepted as sacramental) if neither of you was ever married previously.  So once again, sit down with a priest and discuss the details.

  Can.  1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

  Can.  1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

  Can.  1107 Even if a marriage was entered into invalidly by reason of an impediment or a defect of form, the consent given is presumed to persist until its revocation is established.

1 MIXED MARRIAGES

  Can.  1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a
  marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is
  baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and
  has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is
  enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with
  the Catholic Church.

  Can.  1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if
  there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the
  following conditions have been fulfilled:

  1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to
  remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere
  promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are
  baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

  2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the
  promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is
  certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of
  the Catholic party;

  3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential
  properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to
  exclude.


How do the Seventh Day Adventist approach Old Testament laws?

We Seventh Day Adventists distinguish between three different kinds of laws in the Bible:

Moral laws.
Ceremonial laws.
We also believe that there were laws in the OT specific to Israel as a nation. Something like their "civil code".

(Strictly speaking, there are also a few descriptions of other nations' laws in some books, like Persian laws in Daniel, or Roman laws in the NT; but these have nothing to do with theology or with laws given by God to His people.)

First, let me say that for us, the only laws that apply today are the Moral laws. But this poses at least two more questions:

How do we distinguish between the three types of laws?
Why, if the ceremonial laws do not apply anymore, are we still not eating some meals?

I will do my best to briefly answer these questions:

1. Distinction

The moral laws are the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). They are different from any other laws in the OT in at least the following aspects:

Although beautifully synthesized in the Ten Commandments, all of them are supported by the Bible as a whole. For example, Adventists believe that the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment started with the Creation (Genesis 2:1-3), and thus it was given to mankind and not just to Israel. I mention the Sabbath because most Christians will probably agree on the other nine as perfectly valid today (probably with some different points of views, mainly from the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Second Commandment). There is a lot to write about the Sabbath and why it's still important today, but that's better for a different, new question.
They were written by God Himself in stone and given to Moses (Exodus 31:18 and 32:16).
Those were the only laws in the Ark of the Covenant (2 Chronicles 5:10, Hebrews 9:4). That's in relation with Adventists' unique fundamental belief of the Sanctuary, which is probably the most distinctive doctrine in Adventism.
They will apply after the Second Coming of Jesus, as they are the base of God's government (Revelation 22:14, Isaiah 66:22-23).
The Law of God is of such importance that it required Jesus to die for us, as the Only Means of Salvation. In other words, His law is absolutely immutable, so not even God will change it, giving his only Son instead (John 3:16).

On the other hand, the ceremonial laws were only of importance in the context of giving the OT people the best possible understanding of God's plan of salvation. This is also better understood (in an Adventist context) through the belief of the Sanctuary. These, and only these laws, according to Adventism, were abolished in the cross.

Finally, regarding the laws that were only regulating OT Israel's life as a nation under the theocracy (although were applied too under certain kings—not all—during the Monarchy), probably most Christians will agree that those were given only for that context and that they are easy to distinguish even from ceremonial laws. Jesus even mentioned that some of them were given to Israel "because of the hardness of your hearts" (Mathew 19:8). For most Adventists interpreters, these laws have a relation with our fundamental belief of the Present Truth (a topic that would  exceed this question).

2. Health and OT laws:

The idea that we extract our health practices (barely the only practices in relation with the OT laws that aren't part of the moral law) from the OT ceremonial or "civil" laws is a misunderstanding of Adventism. In fact, a lot of Adventists are vegetarians simply because our idea is that God created us (and the animals—yes, our view of Creation is a bit different too) as vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30, 2:9). That's present in other portions of the Bible, in relation with health (see Daniel 1:8-20). For example, Ellen White wrote about the people living before the Flood:

  "They loved to destroy the lives of animals. They used them for food,
  and this increased their ferocity and violence, and caused them to
  look upon the blood of human beings with astonishing indifference."
  (Spirit of Prophecy, p. 69)

There are plenty of other White's statements about food and health (see Ellen G. White's Message on Health)

So for us, God authorized at some point to eat some meats, but that does not mean that that was His original plan at all. And the "authorized" meat was, in our view, the "less unhealthy". Also, it's worth noting that the distinction between clean and unclean animals appears much earlier in the Bible than when Israel's laws were given, as the clean animals are in the Flood story, supernaturally selected by God in bigger quantity to enter the Ark, as stated in Genesis 7:2:

  Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

So for Adventists who are not vegetarians, the OT food laws act as the guide, although a lot of us do understand that our duty is to become vegetarians. But please note that this is not the understanding of all Adventists, so our consensus is to at least, follow OT rules regarding food.

Finally, this page may be of help describing our 6 Doctrines and our 28 Fundamental Beliefs, including taking care of our bodies as a Temple for the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20): www.adventist.org -> Beliefs.


Mormons believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet in the sense that Abraham, Moses, Noah, and others all were. Jesus Himself appointed teachers He called apostles like Peter, James, and John. Joseph Smith is viewed pretty much the same way.
Ephesians 4:11-14

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine

So, to answer your question:

Yeshua says that he is our only teacher. Why do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is necessary to teach us?

For the same reason that other prophets and apostles were necessary to teach us. They act as the Lord's spokesmen here on the earth, and they teach the doctrine of Christ.
You bolded this part of the cited scripture:

And call no man your father upon the earth:

So it's worth clarifying that Mormons do not call or consider Joseph Smith as their father. Just a prophet.
Expansion of original answer as to Joseph's importance: Joseph Smith did have the unique calling to restore Christ's doctrine to the Earth in its fulness. Mormons teach about Joseph Smith simply because, if the account of Joseph Smith--and by extension, the Book of Mormon--is true, then so is the rest of what the Church teaches. All members and prospective members of the Church are asked to pray about the truthfulness of these things so that they can know for themselves. Except for this crucial bit of history and the role it plays in conversion to the fulness of Christ's gospel, Joseph Smith is no more than a prophet and teacher.


Let's take a long look at the Scriptures around your referenced Scripture:
Matthew 12:25 through 28 KJV

25  And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26  And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27  And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28  But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

and see if Jesus was actually saying that Satan had a Kingdom to begin with. What Jesus was retorting to was the verse preceding this retort (Matthew 12:24):
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Jesus was incensed by their claim that he was getting his power to do these miracles from Satan, and his angry retort was meant to marginalize them.
In verses 26 and 27 He is belittling them by:

saying that If Satan is ruining his own plans, If He had a Kingdom by fighting against himself he would be destroying his own Kingdom.

Jesus is saying and if as you say I am getting my power from Satan, where are your people getting their power from?

The last stone he casts is in verse 28 where he tells them knowing what I have just told you my power must come from another source. and if my source is God then you have just seen the Kingdom of God.
Here are some other Scriptures concerning Satan's supposed power which you may find will help you in understanding Satan. Please remember that Jesus himself said that Satan was a liar and the father of lies.
Matthew 4:1-11  KJV

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Mark 3:22-26  KJV

And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. And he called them [unto him], and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

In This Scripture what Jesus is pointing to is that if what they were claiming were true then Satan does not have the power of God since he could not do what they claimed and be eternal.
Revelation 2:13  KJV

I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, [even] where Satan's seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Revelation 12:9-12  KJV

Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Revelation 3:9  KJV

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Revelation 12:9-12  KJV

Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.


What is the opposite of Total Depravity?

D'Oh!
@SanJacinto answered the question perfectly by reminding me of Pelagianism.  Pelagiansim is the heresy that posits:

There is no original sin
ergo

Man is, in theory, if not in practice, capable of perfection, if he were to so choose.
but

In practice never does.


Is prayer obligated in Christianity, and if so how many times a day?

There is no common rule to Christians.
Most monastic traditions know frequent fixed prayer times. They are not fixed by any OT or NT scripture but on the rules of the order or the monastery or convent. Commonly, there are the Laudes in the morning, several hour prayers during the daytime, the Vesper in the evening and the Complet in the night.
Protestants usually pray before the meals (morning, lunch, dinner) and in the sunday service. They may pray at any time they want. There is no fixed obligation for prayer for laic Christians.


According to Calvinism, why does God give mercy to some and not to others?

Because he wants to, and certainly not because of anything they've done or will do.

One of the central tenants of this concept for Calvinists is that it's not what you do (or have done, or even will do) that merits you salvation. It is wholly and completely the grace of God, not just that you were chosen, but that you were then called, and then compelled to respond, and then saved and once saved you are secured for eternity.

This article has a much better summary of this concept than I can hope to provide, but I'll provide some selected quotes and summary from it. First from Calvin:

  We shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be that our salvation flows from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast: that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others (Institutes, III.21.1).

In other words, this very concept is something that even Calvinists struggle quite dearly with. How do we deal with a God who gives to some and denies others?

But the question the Calvinist asks (as the article does). What does God owe us? Eternal Damnation is the proper answer. That he chooses to save any at all is an insane act of love and judgement. The author of this article discusses how the use of the word "denies" can be used to portray God as unjust or unloving. But then he gets to the money quote:

  His point is that none deserve or are owed anything by God except eternal death. No one can claim God as his or her debtor. Therefore, when God “gives to one what he denies” to another, we are to understand that neither deserves eternal life, but in sovereign mercy God grants eternal life to some but not all. Some receive mercy, the others receive justice, but no one is treated unfairly.

Ultimately though, election is not something we can determine other than to know that God calls to himself those that he elects. It's a tool of explanation rather than of determination for those of us here on earth. One more quote from teh same article I've quoted, again from the author:

  In the final analysis, Calvin believes we should study divine election primarily for its ability to tell us why one person who hears the gospel comes to saving faith in Jesus Christ and why another does not. To whom or what, ultimately, do we attribute the distinction? When all is said and done, how do you explain why one person believes unto eternal life and another does not? Who makes one person to differ from another: the person or God? That question can only be answered by looking more closely at the “how” and “why” of God’s sovereign choice. I’ll take that up in the next lesson.

The answer to your question, is, ultimately, we don't know. We do know that God has chosen to call some people and not others and that there is no criteria but the will of God for that selection.


According to Reformed theology, does God show special favor to some believers?

Friend:   Lets start in scripture:

First, Anything good that we have from God is by His grace, not because we can earn it.  Matthew 5:45 says “He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

God gives good gifts to all people, regardless of their righteous deeds.  Think about the “goods” you possess: life, sight, friendships, your relationship with God, water, food, etc.  Which of these things could you have possessed if God had not supplied them?  All good things are from God (James 1:17).  Nothing God gives us is earned.

Paul was inflicted with a Thorn in his side,    Some of the Disciples suffered and were killed ...

Romans 8:18 says “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.”  But sadly, people pass up eternal blessings because of their focus on the temporal.

The blessings some believers have vs others is not what God wants us to focus on.

In fact - All Things Come to the Good of those who Love the LORD and are called according to HIS purpose.

If His purpose is for you to suffer like Paul did with a thorn in his side - so be it.

If His purpose is for you to have more wealth than anyone can imagine - so be it.

The Key is - what is His Purpose?

Rev. 4:11 says, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

You might find comfort in knowing you are not the first to wonder about this...

Centuries ago the prophet Habakkuk complained to God, “Why do you tolerate wrongdoing? … Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?” (Habakkuk 1:3, 13).

Perhaps we really need to examine what a blessing is:

Is it riches?
Is it tons of people in the pews if you're a pastor?
? ? ?

Jesus said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6).

Perhaps the Greatest Blessing my friend is simply Knowing Christ and resting in the Eternal Promise that his Grace is Sufficient to be the propitiation for our sins.

There is Nothing in scripture - when Read in full context that states that we as Christians are going to live a full Life abundant and free from persecution, from hardship and trials. . .  Nothing.

Sadly - there are those who teach this "prosperity gospel" stating God wants you to be Rich and its a sign of Gods blessing on your life.

I call fiddlesticks:

Galations 3:14 is often used by folks to show God wants you to be rich and reference the "blessings of Abraham" . . .  of course they only use the first 1/2 of the verse.   If we examine the second half we read  “that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Paul is clearly reminding the Galatians of the spiritual blessing of salvation, not the material blessing of wealth.

Using Paul again - we can jump over to 2 Corinthians 8:9, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty might become rich.”

Sounds awesome right -    FOR YOUR SAKE he became poor so you might become rich...

How awesome -   until you read the text in its entirety.  Paul was teachign that since Christ did so much by being the propitiation for our sins - the Sacrificial lamb that each should empty themselves of their riches in Service to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords -    just 5 verses later we see where Paul was urging the Corinthians to give their wealth away to their needy brothers, writing “that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack” (2 Cor. 8:14).

God's blessings have nothing to do with money, fame etc. . .

The blessing of Eternal Life in Service to the Father is the true reward.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses have membership fees or how are they funded?

I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses have always been financed by voluntary, anonymous donations. All speakers and those in the ministry work are unpaid. They find that soliciting money is a major cause of corruption in churches, and have made it a theological point to let people make their donations a matter of personal choice.

  Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. —2 Corinthians 9:7

At Kingdom Hall meetings, there are two donation boxes in the rear of the hall which people may choose to put money in. One box is for paying for local congregation expenses (such as electricity and water bills), and the other box is for contributing to worldwide expenses (such as for printing literature, Kingdom Hall construction work, or branch office expenses). The congregation is kept informed about local expenses and account balances, but donations are never solicited or mandatory. People can also donate online at jw.org.

At conventions, there are usually contribution boxes here and there in the concourse areas. At least in the United States, there is usually also at least one contribution box that also has a credit/debit card reader beside it. The convention expenses are paid for by worldwide donations.

For more information on  and the history of how Jehovah's Witnesses have handled monetary matters, there's Chapter 18 - How Kingdom Activities Are Financed from one of the more recently released books, God's Kingdom Rules.

There's also the FAQ: How Is the Work of Jehovah’s Witnesses Financed?


Ex Cathedra -- are there other Christian groups besides Catholicism that use a similar tactic?

Mormons do, in fact, have a somewhat similar doctrine, but more limited in scope: that the President of the Church cannot lead the church into apostasy with false doctrine.

  The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

  -- President Wilford Woodruff, October 1890 (emphasis added)


What is the emotional appeal of the trinity?

The simplest answer is that denying the Trinity diminishes the person of Jesus.  There is an enormous gap between saying that Jesus is the Almighty God and saying that he is one of God's creations.  Even if Jesus was God's first and greatest creation, he would still be much less awesome than if he were God himself.  So, it is understandable that trinitarians would be offended by someone who degrades Jesus from God to a mere creation.  The person of Jesus Christ is, obviously, central to the Christian faith, so to differ in such a large way on such a central belief is, in the mind of many, the height of heresy.

Secondarily, trinitarians often believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for our sins was only effective because he was God.  People holding to this view would argue that salvation for the world could not be achieved by the death of a mere man, even if he was a sinless man.  People holding to this view would therefore be further offended by a unitarian* because, in their mind, the unitarian would be endangering the souls of anyone that he might convince with his heresy.

* In the lower-case, historical sense of the word (i.e. non-trinitarian)