How can a non-physical God create a physical universe?

Your question is a creative one and as humans we tend to think in human terms.

In our day however we have a greater capacity of understanding how such things could even be possible.

I'm going to use the example of computer games as what might be a humanly relatable comparison. I'm usually not one to use elaborate world-oriented illustrations, but this time I will.

Think of a programmer, and a computer. Perhaps even a game, with a character in it.

The environment is completely virtual, and yet its perfectly possible for it to reflect any system or idea the programmer may wish to present. On a very simple level we can emulate reality through  a game, or even invent our different realities. We can interact with it through a window (monitor or television), and yet even that requires a high level of abstraction and visualization.

If humans can do this with a machine, we could even present the idea that we are ourselves in an environment created by a master programmer, complete with laws of cause and effect, intelligent characters locked into the game, and even characters separate from it, controlled from the outside. Our human characters have the capacity to experience the world in pre-programmed ways through our senses (and really, our senses are just translators for environmental events, which are little more than information).

This idea is not too far fetched:

Psalm 139:16

  Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were
  written in your book before one of them came to be.

Some believe this could even loosely refer to matters of DNA, but it implies a design by a higher authority on both events and physical matters.

Luke 10:20

  However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice
  that your names are written in heaven."

Luke 12:7

  Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid;
  you are worth more than many sparrows.

You can look through a technological window (the television or monitor) and see the character's gaming world just how it should be perceived. We could speculate that the spiritual realm (where God himself resides) can see us the same way, and even interact with it, the same as many might interact in an online game. Thus we have stories of angels materializing, and things such as miracles (and even sorceries)...created by higher beings who understand the programming, and even have the capacity to exploit it for better or worse.

Creation is in a way a giant program of cause and effect, the programming of which we ourselves know we can alter. Thus even in the bible, you have the stories of the nephilim: Genesis 6:4 where wicked angels corrupted God's creation to an extreme.

So from even our human understanding shows that its perfectly possible to create one realm from another realm as in my gaming example.

Origin of physical matter...

In my personal opinion its easier to picture the creation of a physical realm from a spiritual realm, than a spiritual realm from a physical one.

We know that God resides in a source of light so powerful it can't be approached:
1 Timothy 6:16

  who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no
  one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

By way of comparison today, we know that when matter decays it takes the form of electromagnetic radiation, and we know light is a visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. So we know that the source of matter is energy (we could loosely refer to as "light"), and we know that God is the source of energy itself, and is often associated with light.

Even modern day "big bang" theory has energy as the dominant player, creating the rest of the physical world and reality we know. So its not hard to put an intelligent director (and source) behind that energy that defines our universe.

And yet our universe we can see is only a small part of the bigger picture:

  26:14 -  Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways, and how
  small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who
  can understand?”


According to Catholicism, what is wrong with Luther's doctrine of ubiquity?

From what you've quoted of Ott, it sounds like this "Ubiquity* Doctrine" holds that Christ's human nature is His divine nature. This is the heresy of monophysitism,** which says that Christ only has one nature, not both human and divine natures.

*(ubi- = Latin for "where" or "in what place")**(mono- = one; phys- = nature)

It is not necessary, for explaining how Christ can be substantially present under the Eucharistic species in multiple locations around the world, to think that Christ's human and divine natures are the same. In fact, even some saints have bilocated, and they certainly are not God.

To understand this, we need to first understand the distinction between

substance
accidents ("properties").

The substance of something is its essence, the answer to the question "What/who is it?" Accidents ("properties") inhere in a substance; they are not essential to it, but they cannot exist without it.* For example, my substance is myself, what makes me to be what I am (my particular body and soul). My hair, for example, is an accident, a quality of myself; I am still myself regardless whether I have hair or not, if it is long or short, etc. Another accident of myself is my location. I am still the same substance regardless where I am; viz., it's not essential to myself to be located in a particular place. My size is another accident of myself; I have always been myself even when I was as small as a fetus in my mother's womb or as large as a grown adult.

*(except in transubstantiation, where God miraculously maintains the existence of the accidents of bread and wine without their inhering in the substance of bread and wine, which is replaced by the substance of Christ Himself; cf. the Catechism of the Council of Trent, ch. The Holy Eucharist, § "Three Mysteries Of The Eucharist")

With this understanding, you can follow St. Thomas Aquinas's reasoning when he answers the question "Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament?," Summa Theologica III q. 76 a. 1 ad 3:Some terminology he uses:"dimensive quantity" = e.g., length, breadth, width;"by way of substance" (per modum substantiae) = "substantially";the adverb "locally" (localiter) = "place-ly" or "in the manner of a place (locus)"

  As has been already stated (Question [75], Article 5*), after the consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both [the bread & wine] remain. From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. And so the substance of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, but not the dimensions of Christ's body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of Christ is in this sacrament, and not by way of quantity. But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large quantity; as the whole nature of air in a great or small amount of air, and the whole nature of a man in a big or small individual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole substance of Christ's body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as the whole substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the consecration.

*"Whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the change [effected by consecration]?"

Finally, we can understand his answer to what appears to be your question: "Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place?," in Summa Theologica III q. 76 a. 5 c.:

  As stated above [what I quoted above], Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

  Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.

The reason this may seem obscure is because the question of place or location* is an immensely deep physics concept, like time or infinity. See Catholic physicist and historian of physics Pierre Duhem's magisterial, 10 volume work in the history of medieval physics:

Duhem, Pierre Maurice Marie. Le système du monde: Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic. 10 vols. Paris: A. Hermann, 1913-1959.

Partially translated in:

Duhem, Pierre Maurice Marie. Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of Worlds. Edited and translated by Roger Ariew. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

see: Part II "Place" pp. 137-291

The medieval physicists' penetrating disputations on place, in part to understand transubstantiation more deeply, laid the foundations for modern physics, as I discuss on History of Science SE.

*(In Latin there are several words for these related concepts: ubi, locus, positio, situs, etc.)


Are there any individuals who are claiming to be the pope that are not Pope Francis?

Yes, there have been several. Salza & Siscoe's True or False Pope (1st ed.) pp. 7-8:

  Mirko Fabris (d. 2012), a stand-up comedian from Croatia, was elected by a "Conclave" in 1978 and became "Pope" Krav (his stage name). David Bawden, a seminary drop-out who lives with his mother in a farmhouse in Kansas, was elected "Pope" Michael by six lay people including his parents in 1990. During his "reign," Bawden has had to compete with various other Sedevacantist groups who have elected their own "Popes" – namely, Linus II (in 1994), Pius XIII (in 1998), Leo XIV (in 2006), Innocent XIV (in 2007), and Alexander IX (in 2007). Still other Sedevacantists have simply declared themselves Pope without an election, even claiming their election came from Heaven itself, such as Gregory XVII (in 1968), Emmanuel (in 1973), another Gregory XVII (in 1978), Peter II (1980), Gregory XIV (in 1983), another Peter II (in 1995), yet another Peter II (in 2005), Gregory XVIII (in 2011), and John Paul III (in 2015), among others.

David Bawden ("Pope Michael I") from Kansas is one such anti-pope. He has no apostolic succession, being invalidly elected by a conclave comprised of laymen, including his parents and four others. Pope Michael: A Documentary Film is free to watch online.

Conclavists are sedevacantists who elect their own popes.


(Although I can't speak for all Presbyterians, as we are diverse bunch, I think that what I say here is representative of the mainstream. I welcome correction if I am wrong about this.)

When Communion is served, we do use a table of some kind. The table recalls the Last Supper, at which the practice of Communion was instituted; Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:18, Luke 22:14 and John 13:23 all say that Jesus and the disciples were gathered at table. In any case, it is practical to have a flat surface for everything else to rest on.

It is typical for the table to be an actual table (wooden, four legs at the corners, etc.) rather than an altar (big block of stone). This is because the Reformed tradition does not view Communion as a sacrificial event, and does not have the Catholic concept of a sacrificing priesthood. An altar is a place for offering sacrifices but a table is a place for having dinner. Also, there is a general aesthetic sense that churches ought not to be too ornamented, so some may prefer a simpler piece of wooden furniture to an elaborately carved stone altar. I have personally seen quite a bit of variation in the level of decoration for the table.

Moreover, the Presbyterian tradition has tended to offer Communion less frequently than some other denominations. So the table may not even be a permanent fixture, but is brought out whenever it is needed. In contrast, the preaching of the Word is ubiquitous, so in some church buildings you will see a central pulpit where you might expect a table or altar. In my present church, we do have a permanent table, where the Communion vessels are always shown - this is meant to be a reminder that we should be ready for Jesus to arrive at any moment. In other churches you might see candlesticks, a cross, a Bible, and so on.

You also ask who administers the sacrament, and whether children may be involved as helpers. We do have a person who does this, a "minister", who has been ordained and who (as a result of training followed by church approval) is considered capable of the job. Church law may allow other people to act in place of the regular minister, under certain circumstances. The minister may be helped by other people during the course of the service - holding plates of bread and so forth. Compared to high-liturgical denominations, the Presbyterians have rather less apparatus to deal with (incense, bells, different kinds of cloth, etc.) and so there is correspondingly less of a role for the helpers. They also don't have special clothes to wear.

Regarding children, I would think that anyone assisting ought at least to be baptized - even if they do not receive the sacrament themselves, helpers are still participating in the event. They should also be physically able to do what is asked. So I think anyone who could receive communion could also assist, including children in principle, whereas unbaptized people of any age would not do so. Actually choosing the helpers would be the responsibility of the session (the governing committee of the local church) together with the minister, ultimately subject to the judgement of the presbytery and higher bodies. Again, given the nature of the role, there's not much need for more than about half a minute of training, so we wouldn't tend to have a fixed body of designated helpers - at my present church, the session chooses people from the congregation in general.


Is there a historical reason why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced black to symbolize penance?
Having dived into this question for some time now, I would like to simply postulate a possible response to this solution. At lest until another can come up with a more precise answer.
No historical reason seems to be able to be found at the present moment.
Is it not possible that the cause of this color change was due to how historical black dyes faded into other colors such as purple?
First a little background on the colors involved.
It could be noted that priests who celebrate Mass in the Ambrosian Rite (Rite of Milan) wear black vestments during Lent. Pope Paul VI was the Archbishop of Milan before being elected as Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church in 1963.

The liturgical color for Lenten feriae is that of strict penance: black.
In fact, according to the Ambrosian tradition, black is not only the colour of mourning (and, as such, used for requiem Masses), but also the true color of penance and fast: in this sense it is used at least since the XII century not only for Lenten ferial days but also for the Minor Litanies, that in the Ambrosian Rite occur after the Ascension. - Liturgical Colors for Lent in the Ambrosian Tradition

Here are the colors others than black that are of interest in either the liturgy or colors worn by Catholic prelates.

In the twelfth century, Pope Innocent III was the first to specify the colors of the vestments that were to be used for the Roman Rite; almost certainly this reflected prevailing custom in Rome, not an invention on his part. Although a separate subject from this article, it is well to remember that it was only towards the end of the 1st Millenium that the question of vestment color became a significant one. Black was designated for penitential and funeral liturgies, but violaceus was indicated as a  substitute for black. Pope Innocent’s treatise De sacro altaris mysterio (Book I, chapter 65, which was written before his election as pope in 1198) seems to be the first indication that violaceus had come to be regarded as a penitential color for the Roman Rite.
Whilst I suggest that it is an error to interpret Innocent’s violaceus as intending only the color violet as we recognize it today, it should also be noted that his treatise in a separate section (Chapter 32) discusses the use of the Mosaic colors (cf Exodus 28:5) scarlet, flax-gold, blue and purple, the latter which Innocent describes as signifying the authority and royal dignity of a bishop. In short, purpura still had the connotation of prestige in the time of Innocent III (quite distinct from a penitential use).
It is likely that at this time (12th century) Tyrian or Imperial purple was still being used in Rome, but it had become the colour used exclusively by the Pope and by nobility. So, when Innocent used the word violaceus, instead of purpura, it would seem very unlikely that he was recommending that violaceus-colored vestments were to be dyed from the expensive process for producing Tyrian purple. That expensive process would be unaffordable and unavailable to Western clergy. Rather, it would seem likely that Innocent’s violaceus was intended as Royal purple , a colour produced from the less expensive non-Murex dyes. It should be carefully noted that these less expensive dyeing processes could produce a violet-coloured dye or an amethyst (or fuchsia) purple coloured dye. But they were colours not so dark as Tyrian purple. I would suggest, therefore, that Innocent’s use of the word violaceus has nothing to do with an attempt to make a distinction (as some scholars have suggested) between the colors we recognize as violet and purple. - The Liturgical Color violaceus in the Roman Rite: Part One and Part Two

These lengthy articles show well that both the colors violet and purple were definitely colors of status. The purple that was reserved for bishops and Monsignori is actually fuchsia or amethyst. Pliny described Tyrian Purple as being the color of clotted blood and thus closer to the scarlet color of cardinals.
We can go on and on, but we seemingly can not find out how purple became associated with penance, remorse or mourning and eventually replaced black as a liturgical color.
Thus in conclusion, I would like to put forth that it may have been due to the fact that black dyes were notorious for fading.
Although somewhat mysterious as to why violet replaced black as a penitential color for Lent. One possible reason for this is that it may have come into liturgical usage due to how black fabrics faded:

Fugitive dyes are unstable. Made from pigments that are not light or color fast, they can fade even if they are well taken care of. One of the most famous examples is this black mourning dress worn by Queen Victoria on the day of her accession to the throne:

Queen Victoria’s Privy Council Dress, circa 1837

That’s a black dress?!
Well, not anymore, but it was.
Originally, this dress was a deep, shimmering black, but the fugitive dye has aged poorly. Black dyes have been historically notorious for fading, usually to this rusty brown. Some black dyes also fade to blue or even purple, depending on the dye used. - Dying Dyes: What You See Isn’t Always What Was

Could it not simply be that parish churches in past centuries could not afford new vestments and continued to use their black vestments, even after they lost their black coloring and faded purple or some shade of purple thereof?


How do Lutherns and Reformers explain when God's Preceptive Will goes against His Decretive Will?

God's preceptive will or revealed will is made known in His word, but His decretive will or secret  will is His own hidden counsel.  When we speak of God's  revealed will, this defines OUR duty and our standard responsibilities.  The reason we should do or take certain courses in our lives is because God has revealed His will for us in His word.  But suppose that I disobey God's word, have I crossed His will and if so, how can it still be true that God's will is always done and His counsel accomplished at all times?
We frequently cross God's revealed will but His secret will is never broke.  The distinction is clear in scripture.

"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification" (1Thessalonians 4:3)
"For who hath resisted His will?" (Roman's 9:19)

Can we truly declare or think that God's  will has the same meaning in these two passages.?  The 1st passage is God's  revealed will and the 2nd is His secret will.  The first passage  concerns OUR duty our responsibilities. The second passage declares that God's secret purpose is immutable and must come to pass in spite of our insubordination.
We will never be able to do Gods revealed will perfectly or fully but His secret will, will never fail to be accomplished.
His secret will is His eternal, unchanging, purpose concerning everything He has created.  These things will be brought about by certain ways of accomplishing their appointed ends.  God declares,

"My counsel shall stand, and I will do my pleasure" (Isaiah 46:10)

This is the absolute, efficacious will of God; always effective and always fullfilled.
Whatever God has decided within Himself, whether he does this by Himself, through others or permits it to be done and as long as it is within his own attributes and not revealed by divine intervention, precept or prophecy, it is His secret will.  These are the counsels of His mind and are unfathomable  to us as His creatures.
God's  will of decree is not His will in the same sense as His will of command.  Therefore there is no difficulty in supposing that one may be contrary to the other, His will, in both senses is His inclination.  Everything that concerns His revealed will is perfectly agreeable to His nature like when He commands love, obedience and service from us.  But His secret will concerns His ultimate goal or His ultimate end which all things are now working.  He has decreed the entrance of sin into the universe, though His own holy nature hates sin infinitely,  yet because it is one of the means by which His appointed ends is to be reached, He has allowed it to enter.
Gods revealed will is a matter of our responsibilities and the determined of our duty.  We have nothing to do with His secret will because these are of His concern alone.  Tho His secret will is unknown to us, His secret wills are unconsciously fullfilled in and through us.
What a mighty and sovereign God full of grace we have that has made known to us the fulfillment of salvation and His eternal plan.  His revealed will, He has gracefully given.  His secret or decretive will is His alone.  We can only pray we use His revealed will to obey and glorify His holy name.
My studies and understanding of Gods will are contributed to RC Sproul, AW Pink and reformed theology..thank you for your time


What changed between the Old and New Testaments?

Some quick, important notes about your references before answering your question directly:

Moses is not clearly justified in killing the Egyptian. He fled as a guilty man because he committed murder. There are many instance of men taking justice into their own hands, but this does not mean it was good for them to do so.
God continues to bring judgment and punishment under the New Testament. Remember Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) , and Herod (Acts 12) who were killed where they stood by God for their sin.

Perhaps these two notes together answer your question sufficiently and show that God is unchanging. He alone is judge, and he alone can delegate authority to judge. When comparing the Old and the New testament, however, we mustn't forget how the Cross is now a central feature of God's judgement. When Christ suffered the wrath of God, he was taking on wrath for sin yet to come as well as sin that had already passed. We know this because it was needful for him to die once. And I think in this is the answer to your question:

  ...but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.  And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.  Heb 9:26-28 KJV

"It is appointed for men once to die, but after this the judgement. With the Cross, God has changed the timing of his judgement. Christ suffered the wrath of God, and now more than ever God is long-suffering towards sin until the end, so that many will be saved. Even throughout the Old Testament, God suffers long toward sin, waiting centuries sometimes before people have to answer for their rebellion. We as Christ's disciples are to imitate Him, not bringing condemnation before the appointed time. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way. God has not changed the terms of judgement, just the timing and frequency with the Cross.

Perhaps it would be well to ask another question regarding judgment in the New Testament (like that of Herod in Acts 12) and how it relates to God's plan for judgement at the end. That would be a very related, albeit separate, discussion.


Is the "righteousness of God" more than a life of perfect submission?

Ten times, the expression 'righteousness of God' is used in the New Testament scriptures. Never once is the collocation 'righteousness of Christ' ever found.
The idea of 'active and passive obedience' was introduced by Dr Owen into the Savoy Declaration in 1658. It is not present in the Westminster Confession of 1647.
Luther never mentions it, nor Calvin.
It is a legal concept, the idea that 'Jesus kept the law' and that, somehow (never expressed in scripture) this is 'transferable'.
It is absent from Romans and Galatians which is where Paul would have expounded it, did it exist. Which it doesn't.
Some attempt to squeeze it into various texts like Romans 5:18 where the correct translation reads 'by one righteousness' (the special word for 'righteousness' in this place conveying 'the execution of judgment' and referring to God's righteousness who exacted righteousness upon his own Son at Golgotha) and 2 Peter 1:1 where righteousness is a matter of justification by faith, not legal works.
But these very attempts, by their clumsiness, more attest to the truth of the righteousness of God being a divine matter (not a legal matter) than they support their own theory.
The theory detracts from justification by faith which, in scripture, is a matter of God seeing his own righteousness in the faith of the believer (Abraham believed God) and rightly evaluating (logizomai) that to the believer.
And Abraham believed God and there was evaluated to him unto righteousness : is the exact wording which is extremely precise in the several places it appears.
It is a matter of God's rightness. It is not a matter of law at all. God is righteous because he is whom he is and he is what he is (I am that I am).
If law be greater than God, and if God keep the law to be righteous then Law is to be worshipped. Which breaks the second commandment of the law.
And any scheme of 'righteousness' which is based on a legal righteousness detracts from the 'righteousness of God' which is what we find in holy scripture : ten times over.

Humanity was forbidden by God to address itself to the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden. Doing so was catastrophic and led to death. It was sin to do so.
That some suggest Jesus Christ should, in humanity, do what was forbidden to humanity in the beginning just reveals how little they truly understand what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil really is.
The tree of life was that which was in the midst of the garden. Not the knowledge of good and evil. And the word of God, the word of life, was that which, in the midst, spoke truth and testified to the true nature (and source) of rightness.


How do Catholics in Japan celebrate the Feast of the Discovery of the Hidden Christians?

We attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, i.e. we "have Mass". I recall two or three years ago the priest gave a homily about it at Mass one night; apparently it was a Tuesday night.

It's not a big deal in my city, at least (which, with a population of more than 300,000, has only one Sunday sacrifice (in a church smaller than most American churches), that's how few Christians of the catholic faith there are).

"Having Mass" to celebrate perhaps shouldn't surprise you, since it is "the source and summit of our faith", the highest celebration, etc.

The Christians in Japan really need your prayers, by the way. The catechesis, evangelization, birth rate, and seminarians all appear to be really struggling, and there is still nationalism among the Japanese such that multiple times I have been told, "Of course I'm not Christian, because I am Japanese."


Complete online editions of the Church Fathers

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html will give you the complete text of the series of English translations of the church fathers that was put together in the 1800s. They also provide there a link to public domain translations of some more father which were commissioned by Roger Pearse.   Thus, its one stop "shopping" for every translation of the church fathers that is in the Public Domain, and thus free.  Although their list of the additional fathers may lag behind the one found on Roger Pearse's own site: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ And on his site, you can order the full collection plus the additional fathers on CD-ROM if you want. I think you can also order a CD-ROM on ccel of every text they have on their site.


How and when was the belief that a baptism late in life increases our chances of being saved determined to be false?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It happened before the East-West split.

Late-delayed baptism seems to have started (at the latest) in the 4th century, coexisted with some kind of "credo" baptism and some kind of infant baptism, and was pretty much gone by the 5th century.  It was not so much "false", but that Augustine was a commanding intellect who argued well for doctrines of the church such as infant baptism.

  He was convinced that his baptism was a means of grace that helped to regenerate his soul and free him from his sexual sin.

and

  He used infant baptism as evidence for the sinfulness of infants. Thus, it was a weapon in his fight against the Pelagians.

This idea was not held by all the Church Fathers before Augustine.  He cemented the power base of that doctrine, so to speak.

LONG VERSION

According to this exposition at OCA.org (https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/baptism), one facet of baptism is declaring yourself "with" or part of the Church.  Thus I infer that if one calls oneself a Christian, one would be baptized as a declaration.

Also, it looks like it is at baptism that one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Those two points alone seem enough to command baptism as early as possible.

It reads to me as though the Orthodox church has ALWAYS believed this.  Why Basil and Gregory postponed baptism may simply be bad theology on their part.

EDIT No. 1

It seems as though Basil preached against late baptism!

EDIT No. 2

EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT AN EASTERN ORTHODOX ARTICLE, it looks to be informative, if its quotes from the Church Fathers are correct.  Caveat emptor.

https://sharperiron.org/article/baptism-history-part-1
This link seems to indicate that people were not postponing baptism, into the 3rd century.

However, the second part of the post suggests there were multiple views on baptism from the 3rd century -- mainly including clear indications of infant baptism.  https://sharperiron.org/article/baptism-history-part-2  But the "postponement" of baptism didn't refer to old age, but to maturity:

  “Jerome was born in 347…[near] Dalmatia…Jerome’s parents were Christians, who took care that he had been, as a baby, ‘nourished on Catholic milk,’ he was not baptized as a child…but as a young man…In those days, baptism was postponed until maturity…Augustine and Jerome’s friends, Rufinus and Heliodorus, are parallel cases.”15 Again the pattern was to delay baptism until maturity.

The article pins the act of delaying one's baptism unusually long times is probably from the 4th century, and lasting into the 5th century:

  Many in the third and fourth centuries viewed baptism as a one-time total washing that could never be repeated. Thus, backsliders have no hope of cleansing.

If the article is correct, then it looks to me like there were at least three competing views on baptism starting in the 4th century until the church settled on infant baptism in the 5th century.

Augustine

  By the 5th century, the Catholic Church was solidifying its teaching of infant baptism. Augustine had influence on this, which will be discussed in Part 3.

(Part 3: https://sharperiron.org/article/baptism-history-part-3)


In Luke 5 did Levi become an apostle almost straight away?

Yes. From that point on Levi became a disciple of Jesus.

Levi left everything and followed Jesus. The Greek for left everything, katalipon panta, means abandoned all, forsook or deserted. The word for followed is in the imperfect tense, not a one-off action but a continuing state.

He didn't knock off for the day, he quit his job. He didn't sneak off early, he abandoned his post. That evening there was a party at his home to which Jesus was, of course, invited. Many other tax collectors were present. It was in part a Leaving Do in which many of his former colleagues came to say goodbye. It was also a chance for them to meet Jesus, and to understand for themselves what had prompted his resignation, and the new life he had chosen.

It was not until some time later, perhaps a few weeks, that Jesus chose from amongst his many disciples Twelve in particular. So whether or not Levi became one of the Twelve it did not happen immediately. Long tradition says that Levi and Matthew were one and the same person.  St Augustine of Hippo in his Harmony of the Gospels Book 2 Chapter 26 thought so. In Matthew, Mark and Luke the story of the calling of a tax collector immediately  follows the healing of the paralytic, and all say the calling of the tax collector was followed by a meal at his home, which led to identical complaints from the pharisees. It is widely conjectured that this was one and the same incident.

Luke and Mark refer to the tax collector as Levi, and include the name Matthew amongst the Twelve. If he is one and the same they may be referring to "Levi" as the name he used then, rather as we might refer to an incident involving the Duchess of Cambridge before her marriage as happening to a Miss Middleton. They may also have wished to avoid embarrassing Matthew by mentioning his former profession. Matthew,  in his own gospel, refers to the tax collector as Matthew, modestly having no wish to hide his shady past.   Similarly, whereas Luke refers to a great banquet, Matthew plays down the occasion as a dinner.

Following the Resurrection Matthew became one of the Apostles, as did all the Twelve disciples apart from Judas. The difference between a disciple and an apostle  is that a disciple learns and an apostle teaches. During Christ's earthly ministry they were disciples, afterwards apostles.

So yes, Levi became a disciple immediately.   He probably, though some reasonably doubt it,  became one of the Twelve Disciples  when they were called, a few weeks later. If so,  after the Resurrection he became an apostle.


Have any noteworthy church councils denounced Full Preterism as heresy?

I'm not sure if this is helpful or not, but there is no evidence of condemnation from the Catholic Church in a council of Preterism. Lists like this one or this one, and books dedicated to the subject, like this one, this one, and this classic make no mention of it. The Catholic Encyclopedia makes no mention of this doctrine either.

My understanding however is that the Catholic Church does not stand with preterism. The creeds clearly state that we are still waiting for the Second Coming. So many texts (e.g. here), including in the Catechism, takes this same tone. From the later (which is official doctrine, i.e. infallible), point 1040 reads:

  The Last Judgment will come when Christ returns in glory. Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming. Then through his Son Jesus Christ he will pronounce the final word on all history. We shall know the ultimate meaning of the whole work of creation and of the entire economy of salvation and understand the marvelous ways by which his Providence led everything towards its final end. The Last Judgment will reveal that God's justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God's love is stronger than death.

Surrounding points have the same tone, i.e. an event to come.

So, even if the Catholic Church has not officially declared preterism as a heresy, some of its tenets are clearly heretic (from the Catholic point of view).


Is there a respectful way to dispose of old or worn out scriptures?

Mary Fairchild belongs to the Calvary Chapel denomination, and she writes:

  There are no specific scriptural instructions on how to dispose of an
  old Bible. While God's Word is holy and to be honored (Psalm 138:2),
  there's nothing sacred or hallowed in the physical materials: the
  paper, parchment, leather, and ink.

She suggests that, instead of discarding or disposing it, a person should consider donating it to a ministry or someone who wants one.

Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational people on gotquestions.org (I think they're Fundamentalists.) write:

  There is no "biblical" way to dispose of an old/damaged/ruined Bible,
  as the Bible itself does not address this question. It is, therefore,
  a matter of personal conviction. It is important to understand that it
  is not the paper, binding, and ink that are "sacred" or "holy." It is
  the Word of God that is holy, not the material it is printed on. We
  are not to worship or idolize the Bible. The purpose of the Bible is
  to teach us about Jesus the Savior and the salvation He provides and
  to point us to worship Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and
  strength. The paper and ink of a Bible are merely the means through
  which God communicates His Word to us.

Like Mary Fairchild, they advise donating to the donator's descendants or others who want it.

Catholics agree! I will let them speak for themselves.

  There is no specifically mandated means of disposing of old Bibles.
  Some Catholics follow a custom of disposing of religious articles that
  have been blessed either by burying or burning them, but even that is
  not mandated by law. If the Bible has been blessed you might choose to
  follow that custom. If not, dispose of it as you would any other book.
  If it’s still in fair condition, you might put it on a book donation
  table to benefit someone else.

Jon M. Sweeney does not really mention the LDS Church, but he does have a rather strong opinion of what to do about any type of holy book -- be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever -- that the asker may find helpful, for the reason that the asker belongs to the LDS denomination:

  You don't burn them. You never, ever burn them.

  You bury them.


Does playing Video games affect our relationship to God?

Every now and then a passage jumps up and sticks with me. Right now it's Romans 14. The entire chapter is summed up in the very first verse,

  Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. -Romans 14:1

If there ever was a disputable matter, it's video games. I've been a gamer my entire life. I've also been a Christian my entire life. The games I've played run the gambit from educational to religious to violent to outright demonic. However, no matter what, there's never been a game that's been able to distract me from God. If anything, there were games I put down because my relationship with God made playing them uncomfortable. But my point here in the next few verses.

  2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. -Romans 14:2-4

I can handle games, video or otherwise, without losing sight of God and his purpose for me. And there are plenty of Christian game makers and gamers unions that say I'm not alone. But, here in Romans, Paul says that we shouldn't judge one another for what our faith allows us to do. Just because I play games, I'm not going to sit here and insist that playing games isn't a sin. Because while I can play a game without being desensitized to violence, death, and disobedience to God, that doesn't mean everyone can. I shouldn't judge them and they shouldn't judge me because both of us go before God who is our master and he makes both stand.

But, and this is how you know I'm a Methodist, it goes so much farther than I think it's right and you think it's wrong and we should all be OK with that. When I was 19, my father forbade me to bring my Magic: the Gathering cards into his house because he thought they were tarot cards. My father, the nerd, who handed me my first video games and my first fantasy novel couldn't wrap his mind around a card game because it said Magic on it. But, I never brought my cards to his house again because of what comes next in Romans 14.

  14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. -Romans 14:14-15

Methodists were among the biggest supporters of the prohibition movement. The lasting effect on us is that we hold Romans 14 and other similar passages to heart especially this next bit.

  19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

We know some people can't handle alcohol so we ask our Elders not to drink in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who are struggling with addiction. We use grape juice and not wine in worship because it's better to make worship easier for those who are struggling than it is to follow the church traditions.

Now, I'm not giving up video games (or alcohol) anytime soon, but, I am aware of of the effect games have on others. I have put games up for the sake of other people and played them elsewhere. I also help my friends with kids to be aware of the content of certain games so they can make informed decisions about what their kids play. I'm something of an advocate for age appropriate play to help protect games from being judged en masse. That and this entire post is how I best understand Romans 14:16-18.

  16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.


What is the Biblical basis and support for and against the view of predestination?

In Support

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

Even the dice fall according to God's plan.

Ephesians 1:11 In [Christ] we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things
according to the counsel of his will

God works everything according to his will.

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there were none of them.

God has written down (in other words, planned to the letter!) every day of our life before they even come to pass.

Matthew 10:30-31a But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; therefore

God knows how many hairs you have. He's counted them.
And now allow me to quote at length Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology, pg. 168, quoted in the Reformation Study Bible

The Bible clearly teaches God's providential control

over the universe at large, Ps. 103:19; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11;
over the physical world, Job 37; Ps. 104:14; 135:6; Matt. 5:45;
over the brute creation, Ps. 104:21, 28; Mt. 6:26; 10:29;
over the affairs of nations, Job 12:23; Ps. 22:28; 66:7; Acts 17:26
over man's birth and lot in life, 1 Sam. 16:1; Ps. 139:16; Isa. 45:5; Gal. 1:15-16
over the outward successes and failures of men's lives, Ps. 75:6-7, Lk. 1:52
over things seemingly accidental or insignificant, Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:30
in protection of the righteous, Ps. 4:8; 5:12; 63:8; 121:3; Rom. 8:28
in supplying the wants of God's people, Gn. 22:8, 14; Deut. 8:3; Phil. 4:19
in giving answers to prayer, 1 Sam. 1:19; Isa. 20:5-6; 2 Chron. 33:13; Ps. 65:2 Mt. 7:7; Lk. 18:7-8
in the exposure and punishment of the wicket, Ps. 7:12-13; 11:6

Against
I'm not very familiar with verses against Predestination, but as I understand it, a lot of the argument against it is an interpretive argument; and those who are opposed to the doctrine would say the verses above are more general in nature and are simply talking about his omnipotence, not his nitty-gritty control over the details.  I'll leave it to someone more versed in this position to answer for the against side.


What are the major problems that Chalcedonians have with Miaphysite Christology?

My understanding is that Divine nature and human nature cannot 'merge' but are united in the Person of Christ. The union is in his Person, not in an attribute : 'nature'.
I assume that I would be referred to as a 'Chalcedonian'.
From my own point of view, therefore, as a Chalcedonian, the situation is not reconcilible. The concept of Divine nature and human nature being combined (merged) into one 'nature' is not logical and I can think of no scripture that would be useful for someone arguing that it is so.
I would call that the 'main problem' (see the OP) with attempting to bring the two parties together.


According to universalists, why should we obey God?

There are two things that most universalists generally agree with- they deny that “hell” lasts forever, and they deny that we have a free will. The sovereignty of God- mixed with his desire that all of mankind will know him- means mankind has no other choice but to eventually know him. So by all means, anybody could live in disobedience if their will should lead them down that path; but there is another force at work in us- our love for God.
Our love for God does not come from some magic free will substance. We love God because God prepared us with the ability to love, and “because he loved us first”.

”Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” 1 John 4:7-8

The love God provides for us is much too wonderful to reject.  We see his plan of reconciliation, and we know that God is good. Therefore, whatever he says is good- and that means his law is good. There is no better way to live our life than to live it according to his word. I think all Christians, and even Judaism, can agree that the life God provides for us now is far superior to any other lifestyle; as the joy he brings to us is far superior to anything the world can provide.
Yeshua says:

”If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15

The “if” is not a stipulation; it’s simply the truth. If we love God, then we will understand the perfection of his commandments, and we will desire to obey them. God does not threaten us with physical torture to force us into obedience. He is most certainly to be feared, as a child ought to fear their father; however:

”There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:18-19

Why should we obey God?
Because we love God. It is a real, uncontrollable, unconditional- yet very much explainable- love:

”O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.
I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me.
How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:97-104


Why do some Catholics file up for commmunion?

I can give you an answer based on my experience.

I live in Rome, I'm Catholic, and I have travelled quite a lot. Every time I travel I search a local catholic mass.

I can tell you with a 99% of certainty that this is a cultural matter, dependinding on the community.

Here in Rome people is more or less ordered and goes in line. In France they have a more complicated 'algorithm': the one who are in the last benches go first, then the line builds up bench by bench from the last to the first.

A convincing example is this one: I went to the masses for holy week in Amsterdam. That is to say 3 masses: Thursday, Friday, Sunday (Saturday there's no mass in the holy week). As Amsterdam is quite multi-cultural, once I went to the local (Dutch) community mass, once to the french speaking community mass, once to the Spanish community mass.

In the dutch version they went in a line starting from last bench. In the french-speaking, mostly were from Africa and went in a line which was randomly formed. In the spanish community mass, people was much more 'unordered' and they crowded in the direction of the priest giving Eucharist.

So, summarizing, It seems really to be a cultural matter.


Who are the many nations that Abraham was called by God, 'the father' of?

As you can see; from this Patriarch lineage depiction taken from the book of Genesis, Abraham was indeed the father of many Nations.

There are some Things worthy of notice which many are not aware of:

Abram had a second wife named Keturah and had six sons by her, and possibly daughters.

Rebecca was Isaac's cousin.

Basemath/Mahalth was Esau's cousin.

Not shown on this chart are some facts which are cogent to your question that are available in other records of that Era.

The Ishmaelites are the predecessors of the Bedouin tribes.

The Edomites and the descendants of Abraham through Keturah, are the Arabic Nations.

( it is the opinion of some that the line through Keturah is the Palestinians, but there are apparently no known records to verify that claim).

The animosity between the Arabic Nations and Israel stems from:

Genesis 25:29 through 34  And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: 30  And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. 31  And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. 32  And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? 33  And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. 34  Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

The point of contention is that Jacob stole Esau's birthright and that the land all belonged to Esau as the firstborn son.


Paying respects during grace, benediction, etc. as a non-Christian?

While there may be some differences in how some particular Christian groups respond in such a situation, it's safe to say that the vast majority will not be offended by what you're doing. Bowing your head is certainly a sign of respect - primarily to God, but also to the community you are with. In most cases it would be neither here nor there if you close your eyes  or not - perhaps whatever you find most comfortable (when people do this, it's usually just to help them focus rather following a rule to do so).

One part of things that could potentially be more of an issue is where there are "call and response" type prayers - a prayer leader initiates and the congregation responds, whether merely with "Amen" (a very common response to "Grace" in a corporate setting) or some other liturgically required response (as in some benedictions). In this case, it is probably preferable that you only respond with what you yourself agree to. "Amen" actually means "Let it be so", so if you don't agree with what was just prayed, then rather than just echoing it with everyone else, a respectful silence would avoid hypocrisy.


What is stopping Christians from having just one doctrine/interpretation?

The answer is "sin".  The only thing stopping us from having one doctrine is sin.  If sin didn't enter into the equation, we would agree.
God wants us to agree.

Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. - 1 Corinthians 1:10

But because of sin, we don't agree.  Sin can be summarized as lust...

"In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. - Jude 1:18-19

...and pride.

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines  - 1 Timothy 1:3
For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.  - 1 Timothy 1:6-8

Example
Suppose I am doing ok financially, and I read a passage indicating that I should provide for my brothers who are in need, and for those who minister to me.  Buuut... something inside me tells me "Nah... that money is yours!  You worked hard for it.  Forget those lazy people... they can go get a job and make their own money!"  Well, such a person would be inclined to have a "different interpretation" of those passages I linked.
It's a sad reality... difficult to accept; difficult to consider a possibility in our own lives... but reality none the less.


Does the Catholic Church teach that humans are superior to all other creations on Earth?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say on the Image of Man:

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
I. "IN THE IMAGE OF GOD"
356 Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator".219 He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221
357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.
358 God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:
What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223
359 "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225
360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for "from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth":226
O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227
361 "This law of human solidarity and charity",228 without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.

Allow me to add another source, other than the Catechism to help give a better answer to your question, which is taken from A Tour or the Summa:

The image of God in man makes him superior to other earthly creatures. St. Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. vi12), "Man's excellence consists in the fact that God made him to His own image by giving him an intellectual soul which raises him above the beasts of the field." It is true that all creatures have a likeness to God, some by the fact that they exist, some by the further fact that they live, some by the still further fact that they have knowledge. But only intellectual creatures(angels and men) have a close likeness to God; only such creatures have the spiritual operations of understanding and willing. Of earthly creatures, man has a true likeness to God; other creature shave a trace or vestige of God rather than an image.


What does the "reformed and recovered Christian fundamentalist" mean?

This isn't really about Christianity, but let me answer anyway.

First, please note that Christopher Hitchens was an extreme and vociferous opponent of both Christianity and Islam. Learning about Christianity from him is like learning about America by reading Soviet Cold War propaganda.

By "reformed and recovered Christian fundamentalist", Hitchens means that Michael Shermer used to be a "Fundamentalist Christian", but isn't any more. (Hitchens describes many Christians as "Fundamentalist" that most people wouldn't).

"Knowing the price of the ticket" means that these are people who have suffered in some way for speaking about about what they believe (or in this case, don't believe). I.e. they they have experienced the cost of speaking out.


Did Jesus consider OT events to be literal history?

The short answer is "Yes."  Jesus quoted from the Old Testament scriptures as if they were authoritative, and as if they were the very words of God.  The passages of the OT that are historical were regarded by Him as historical.

Jesus affirmed the historical existence of Jonah (Matt. 12:40), Noah (Matt. 24:37-38), and Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4-6).


If God is omnipresent, is he also in hell?

Yes, God is also in hell. The separation is not from his presence as if there was a place where his power was in effect, it's a severing of the relationship with him. The thing that will be experienced in hell is the wrath of God against sin rather than the grace of God towards his Son.

I have heard this quip from several preachers so I don't know who originated it, but there is a poignant quote about heaven and hell:

  Heaven is heaven because God is there. Hell is hell because God is there.

We see over and over again that Heaven is defined by the presence of God, his holy purifying presence. Unfortunately hell will also see some aspects of his presence as he stands in utter severity against those who would defy his holiness. Those there will be separated from his grace and any relationship with him other than being objects of wrath.


What does it mean "...blood that will be shed by many of you for the forgiveness of sins"?

The phrase you quoted is part of what Jesus said to His apostles at the Last Supper, when He instituted the Eucharist. The part about "shed for the forgiveness of sins" is Jesus's prediction of what was going to happen the next day at Calvary.


Was Jesus resurrected after or {within} three days of his death?

As Lucian pointed out, people of the time would use inclusive counting. This means:

Jesus died and was buried before sundown. This is considered the first day.
The next day began at the following sundown. This is the second day. During that entire day Jesus was in the tomb.
The day after that began at the next sundown. This is the third day. On the morning of that day, i.e. the one after the second sundown following his death, Jesus is raised from the dead and encounters his followers at the tomb.

Thus Jesus is raised on the third day. It is less than 72 hours (indeed less than 48 hours) between his death and resurrection.


Jehovah's Witness view on a potential member marrying a non-Witness

A person who is studying while living with someone is usually encouraged to marry so that they are no longer living in sin.  If the person not studying (you in this case) is strongly opposed to the others becoming a JW both should evaluate if the relationship should continue. One cannot get baptized as a JW if they are living with a person without being legally married.

There are many Jehovah’s Witnesses who are married to non Jehovah’s Witness mates. They are encouraged to work hard at making the marriage a success.
1 Cor 7:12-16 (NWT)

  But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord:i If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is agreeable to staying with him, let him not leave her; 13  and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband. 14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15  But if the unbelieving one chooses to depart,* let him depart; a brother or a sister is not bound under such circumstances, but God has called you to peace.j 16  For wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband?k Or, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

As far as getting married in a court house that is perfectly acceptable and valid marriage.


What exactly is the purpose of a Patron Saint?

From http://www.catholic.org/saints/patron.php

Patron saints are chosen as special protectors or guardians over areas
of life. These areas can include occupations, illnesses, churches,
countries, causes -- anything that is important to us. The earliest
records show that people and churches were named after apostles and
martyrs as early as the fourth century.

The purpose of a Patron saint is two-fold.

One purpose is that they are someone to use as a model - to pattern our behavior after them in a certain area of our life, or,  as the article says, we can follow their example.

"I do also say it is well to keep before our eyes the supreme adventure of a virtue. If you are brave, think of the man who was braver than you. If you are kind, think of the man who was kinder than you. That is what was meant by having a patron saint."
– G.K. Chesterton (“The Supreme Adventure,” Utopia of Usurers)

The other is that we can turn to them for intercessory prayer:
Apparently, we can ask them to pray to God for us, which is an alien though to most protestants, but common among Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Catholic practice.


Why is "Fearing the Lord" equated to loving Him?

Shorter answer
Talking about lion, we are to hate our "adversary the devil who prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Pet 5:8).  But the Fear of the LORD is qualitatively the opposite, as this fear enables us to enjoy and grow in our love for God, the key to our happiness.
Longer answer
I'm attempting to show through examples below, that our everyday use of fear in common English today ALSO carries the nuances of fear that the Biblical authors utilized to render what our attitude to God should be.  Therefore, I think we need not look into specifically Hebrew / Semitic / Ancient Near Eastern culture as to why the Biblical authors chose the word 'fear'.  In this answer I attempt to show how fear can be compatible with love and in fact can help one to deepen the love beyond feelings.
If we analyze semantically, in the Biblical books the fear of the LORD is a key element of loving God, similar to how a child both fears and loves his father, or how a citizen both fears and loves his king, or how a husband both fears and loves his wife.  Of course it has to be a certain kind of fear that can be compatible with love, and not the kind of fear that leads us to hate and want to kill an enemy.
For example, a husband can fear to hurt his wife (example: not being appreciative / aloof, or doing things that his wife hates for good reason).  A citizen can fear to incur the king's just wrath (example: siding with the king's enemy, or oppressing the helpless whom the king protects, or violating laws that the king enacted).  A child can fear to alienate his father's good graces by climbing to reach the cookie jar in a precarious manner (going his own way rather than trusting his father's wisdom).
In all the examples above, the fear is the internal power within us which prevents us from hurting another's feeling, distrusting another's wisdom, disobeying a good rule/law, and damaging the trust and enjoyment of the relationship.  In relationships where there is a natural imbalance of power (such as the child to the father and the citizen to the king), the fear is supplemented by an external force to aid our internal power which in turn prevents us from doing the same things.  For example, the fear to be (justly) punished or the fear that one is at the mercy of the other's power help us from disobeying a (wise) commandment for our own good.
All those aspects of fear are compatible with our love for God, and more specifically for the LORD (Yahweh), the God of the Israelite and the Christian God:

We fear His awesome power (the imbalance between creature and creator)
We fear his (just) discipline for our own good
We fear the curtailing of his blessings if we don't do what we are supposed to do
We fear becoming His enemy: possible since He allows it (we have free will), which will result in our destruction (since He promised to punish the wicked)

All those are external force aiding our internal power of fear of hurting God (He was hurt in Hosea) to prod us into living in the right path so we can enjoy more fully our loving relationship with Him.  This force also motivates us to obey God's wisdom reflected partly in his commandments so we do not go into dangerous areas outside the right path, just like the child who has been told not to climb the cupboard to reach the cookie jar.
IN CONTRAST, fear for demons (God's enemy) which is similar to fear of natural enemies (like your lion example, criminals, terrorists) is NOT compatible with love since this fear DOES lead to hate and move us to kill them.  This fear is qualitatively different and leading us into alarm, anxiety, and defensive posture rather than into alertness, safety, and openness:

We fear their superior knowledge and power over the natural which they use to deceive us (Satan is the Father of lies)
We fear their persistent hate toward the human race (like how we fear Sauron in the Lord of the Rings)
We fear our falling into temptation which then damages our love for God and for our loved ones

CONCLUSION: God wants us to fear Him in love, by graduating FROM merely the fear of external forces of the power imbalance or of punishment TO the healthy internal fear resulting from our humility (of being creature), respect (of God being wiser), and desire for happiness in our loving relationship with Him.  Bottom line: we fear damage to our own happiness, which can only be found in our love for God, which needs to include fear of the LORD.
The book of Proverbs (wisdom for living) has these verses to highlight various aspects of this healthy kind of fear (see other verses, including from other books, here):

Fear leads to trusting God's wisdom and discipline Prov 1:7: Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
Fear acknowledges God's power to determine short/long life Prov 10:27: Fear of the Lord lengthens one’s life, but the years of the wicked are cut short.
Fear prods us to walk only in the right paths leads to our security, refuge, and protection:

Prov 14:26-27: ²⁶ Those who fear the Lord are secure; he will be a refuge for their children.  ²⁷ Fear of the Lord is a life-giving fountain; it offers escape from the snares of death.
Prov 19:23: Fear of the Lord leads to life, bringing security and protection from harm.
Prov 14:2: Those who follow the right path fear the Lord; those who take the wrong path despise him.

Signs of those who fear to obey God's commandment:

Coveting only God: Prov 23:17: Don’t envy sinners, but always continue to fear the Lord.
Truth, integrity, humility Prov 8:13: All who fear the Lord will hate evil.   Therefore, I hate pride and arrogance, corruption and perverse speech.


Is it given by God in human nature to be a creator too?

It's part of our character since we were made in His likeness. He's our Heavenly Dad - it's logical that we inherit some of His characteristics.

Furthermore, creativity is unique to humans. If your second explanation were true, animals would also be creating art.


Why did early Christians in Acts still go to the Jewish temple every day?

In Acts 2:1, it is written,

  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all together with one accord (ὁμοθυμαδὸν).

  καὶ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἦσαν ἅπαντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό

We see that the first Christians were all together with one accord in the Temple at the time they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4).

Being Pentecost, "there were, dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5), for Pentecost was one of three annual feasts during which men were required to pilgrimmage to the Temple in Jerusalem in order to appear before YHVH (Exo. 23:14-17).

The apostles desired to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with their brothers (cp. Acts 2:14-41).

And, in Acts 2:46, it is written,

  And they, continuing daily with one accord (ὁμοθυμαδὸν) in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house, ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart.

So, they continued to remain in the Temple, not all day, but rather, during the morning and evening prayers (our 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.) where a gathering of Jews would always be. This crowd may not have been as large as the one at Pentecost (which only lasted one day), but the apostles took advantage of any opportunity to share the Gospel with as many of their brothers as possible. We even see this with Paul who would rush to Jerusalem for a feast in order to share the Gospel (cp. Acts 18:21).


The reason why traditional UMC leaders want to separate themselves from the church over its stance on gay marriage is based on the traditional and historic position of the church which views the practice of homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teaching.  Here are extracts from a couple of articles on the subject:

As stated in the Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, the United Methodist Church holds that "homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth."  In other words, all individuals are of worth to God.  Nevertheless, in keeping with historic Church teaching, it considers the "practice of homosexuality [to be] incompatible with Christian teaching,"
The third plan, called the Traditional Plan, would reinforce the existing language in the Book of Discipline prohibiting homosexuality, gay marriage ceremonies on church campuses, and allow for stricter enforcement of violations of existing church law. On February 26, 2019, during a special session of the General Conference, delegates from around the world voted to pass the Traditional Plan...  In January 2020, a 16-person committee of bishops and other official submitted to the General Conference a schism proposal for the creation of a new separated "traditional Methodist" denomination, a text that still needs to be approved by the conference in May. By default, any parish will be set as a member of the United Methodist Church (UMC) and would have to conduct votes in order to enter in the new-born communion of the more conservative Methodists.  Source: United Methodist Church (Wikipedia)

EDIT: Here is an extract from an official UMC article based on the 2008 Book of Resolutions asking:  What is the denomination's position on homosexuality?   Regarding clergy:

¶ 304.3  While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.
¶ 341.6  Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.  Source:
https://archive.is/20121209051506/http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1324

The latest update on the situation suggests that a new “traditional Methodist” denomination is to be formed:

January 3, 2020 (Life Site News) – The United Methodist Church (UMC) announced Friday it will be dealing with ongoing divisions over homosexuality by formally splitting, with the formation of a new denomination for Methodists who hold to a Biblical understanding of sex and marriage.  The church has been divided over the issues of same-sex “marriage” and homosexual clergy, with its General Conference voting in February against compromising its opposition. Tensions have continued since, however, and on Friday the church announced the formation of a new “traditional Methodist” denomination for more conservative Methodists, the New York Times reports.  Source: BREAKING: United Methodist Church officially splits over gay ‘marriage,’ clergy


What is the basis of my fractured understanding of  "Sola Scriptura"?

As I understand it, the term Sola Scriptura isn't about personal interpretation so much as it refers to a closed canon, the notion that the Bible is complete and contain all necessary knowledge for salvation, and that no other words from any other source can legitimately be added to it and hold canonical status alongside the Bible.

As for its basis, there really isn't one.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is complete or closed.  (This is partially because the collection of individual works known today as "The Bible" wasn't actually compiled into its present form until centuries after the last of the individual works was written!)  The common justification that Revelation 22: 18-19 prohibits "adding to or taking away from" the Bible is clearly invalid in light of this, even before you consider that Revelation was actually written before John's other works, including the Gospel of John itself, and that extremely similar language is found in Deuteronomy chapter 4.  (Interpreted literally, that would invalidate the vast majority of the Bible, including the entire New Testament!)

Nowhere in any actual revelation or the writings of any prophet or Apostle does it say anything even resembling "Thus saith the Lord, my words are at an end."  The concept emerged during the Reformation as a counter to Catholic traditional teachings that were not found in the Bible and, in the Reformers' view at least, directly contradicted teachings that were found in the Bible.  It's a useful rhetorical device, but it is not itself a scriptural doctrine.

In fact, when you look at the history presented in the Bible itself, the concept of a closed canon is always associated with apostate groups.  The Samaritans and the Saducees both held positions that diminished or invalidated (to different degrees) the prophets after Moses.  Likewise, the Jews in the New Testament time refused to accept the new writings of Jesus's Apostles, and created the Masoretic Text (the basis for the modern Old Testament canon) as a closed work, stating that this was "The Scriptures" and nothing else could hold that status.  Sound familiar?


Did the "spirit of Samuel" come from God?

Commentators do not all agree on what happened here, but from the context the most plausible is that God overtook the wicked witch with a vision of Samuel to rebuke Saul. The rebuke is even in part for wickedly seeking a medium in the first place.

God on occasion put additional sting and irony into his rebukes by taking a strange person to act as his temporary messenger, which he would usually never do. For example, he rebuked Balaam with a Donkey in Numbers 22:28 and Balaam himself was used to temporarily transmit messages from God to King Balak, though neither were godly men. Balaam thought we was a sort of mediator between gods and Balak was trying to use him to manipulate the god of the Jews, so God made a mockery of them both by using Balaam as his temporary mouthpiece in some ways.

The reason why this seems the most plausible is found within the text itself. Once the witch sees the vision, she is in ‘shocked’ and ‘cried out at the top of her voice’. This shock either meant that she had never before experienced a vision (which God was giving her to her amazement) or she usually had some kind of wicked deceiving vision from devils which was very different from this.

That she is not just ‘faking things’ is proven by the fact that her shock immediately brings her to the realization that the ‘disguised person’ asking her to summon Samuel is Saul! She is afraid because Saul only drove out witches from the land and she knew they deserved to be put to death. (Lev 20:27) It might be asked how did seeing Samuel make her recognize Saul? It seem the vision gave her knowledge of the actors involved and it included recognizing who stood before her in disguise as Samuel had a word of rebuke to Samuel standing there. The vision thus encompasses Saul.

It is therefore implausible to either think the vision came from the Devil as it communicated God’s message, or that it was just a juggling magic act, as the witch herself is inexplicably shocked. It must have been from God through a wicked vessel.

All along I have been assuming it to be a vision and not really Samuel. I do not think Samuel would literally ascend from Sheol, a place beneath the earth where it was thought the dead resided. Rather as parts of visions may be more like parables with certain elements not intended to be literal, this ascending from Sheol would simply indicate in imagery that the witch could understand that Samuel was coming back from the dead, as Saul had asked her to perform as a medium.


Did the 19th Century Anglican Church have exorcism rituals or prayers?

I think it is safe to say that the Anglican Church has a form of exorcism ritual(or prayers) during the 19th century.

  Exorcism is more widespread in contemporary England than perhaps at any other time in history. The Anglican Church is by no means the main provider of this ritual, which predominantly takes place in independent churches. However, every one of the Church of England dioceses in the country now designates at least one member of its clergy to advise on casting out demons. Such `deliverance ministry' is in theory made available to all those parishioners who desire it. Yet, as Francis Young reveals, present-day exorcism in Anglicanism is an unlikely historical anomaly. It sprang into existence in the 1970s within a church that earlier on had spent whole centuries condemning the expulsion of evil spirits as either Catholic superstition or evangelical excess.

  This book for the first time tells the full story of the Anglican Church's approach to demonology and the exorcist's ritual since the Reformation in the sixteenth century. The author explains how and why how such a remarkable transformation in the Church's attitude to the rite of exorcism took place, while also setting his subject against the canvas of the wider history of ideas. - A History of Anglican Exorcism: Deliverance and Demonology in Church Ritual (International Library of Historical Studies)


It's important to remember that just a few days earlier, Jesus had warned his disciples:

  Matthew 18: 7:

  Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Yes, having Jesus be betrayed and killed was part of the plan, but that does not mean that the specific persons who played a part in bringing it about were not guilty of some very serious sins anyway.


Epiphanius: where does he describe Indians as the descendants of Abraham and Keturah?

The idea that Epiphanius claimed the people of India were descendant from Abraham and Keturah appears to be derived from a conflation of two passages.

In De Fide, 12.5 he writes:

  But again, I omit the names of many other mysteries, heresiarches and fomenters of schism whose leaders are called Magusaeans by the Persias but prophets by the Egyptians, and who preside over their shrines and temples.  And those Babyloanian magi who are called Gazarenes, sages and enchanters, and the Indians' Evilei so-called, and Brahmans, and the Greek's heirophants and temple custodians, and a throng of Cynics, and the leaders of countless other philosophers.

This is actually a list of mystics of which the Brahmans are one.  However, it would easy to misread the passage as equating the magi with the Indians. (The Greek of the passage is difficult to understand, I'm told.)

In De Fide, 7.6, 8.1 Epiphanius writes:

  But Abraham's gifts to Keturah's children were wealth - gold, silver, clothing, and whatever Abraham secretly hid in their wallets, the "frankincense, myrrh and gold" ...  The children of Abraham by Keturah were cast out by Abraham, and settled in Magodia in Arabia.  The same gifts were offered to Christ in Bethlehem by the magi who came from their land and, when they seen the star and come, offered presents and gifts in order to share in the same hope.

Epiphanius has tied the magi of Matthew 2 to the descendants of Abraham through Keturah.  However, he has not said they came from India, but rather "Magodia" in Arabia.  As near as I can tell, this term does not occur outside of Epiphanius in extant works, and in any case its identity has been lost. However, it is clearly not in India.

In conclusion, Epiphanius does not say the Brahmans descended from Keturah.  It was apparently via a misunderstanding of De Fide 12.5, combined with what Epiphanius actually writes in 8.1, that Paulinus got the idea.


Is God the Son's blood divine and infinite or human and finite (Western Catholic)

Regarding the Blood of Jesus itself
In order to answer the question, we need to define what exactly is meant by “blood.”
If we mean the physical bodily fluid that coursed through the veins and arteries of Jesus, then clearly it is an aspect of Jesus’ human nature, hence human and finite.
However, “blood” can be a symbolic reference to the Passion and Death of Jesus. In that case, although Jesus felt the physical effects of the Passion in his human nature, it was still his Divine Person who underwent it. The capacity of the Passion to redeem us, therefore, is infinite. (Regarding the Passion, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 603-623).
Finally, “blood” can refer to Eucharistic species of the Precious Blood. Although the Precious Blood has the appearance of wine (and thus in that respect resembles Jesus’ physical blood), in reality Jesus in his totality is present in the species of wine; in other words, it is not merely his physical blood. In that sense, the Precious Blood includes both natures: the human (and thus finite) and Divine (and thus infinite). (See CCC 1377.)
Regarding the redemptive value of Jesus’ actions
The broader question regards something called the Hypostatic Union: although the Divine Son remains the Divine Son (indeed, remains unchanged), by the Incarnation, He took on a (finite) human nature. Consequently, the Son was able to do all of the things that a man can do: be born, eat, sleep, laugh, and even die.
Nevertheless, the Person who was born, ate, slept, laughed, and even died, was none other than God Himself. (See CCC 466.)
The consequence of this fact is that all of Jesus’ actions and passions—even those accomplished in his finite human nature—have an infinite value, precisely because a Divine Person is doing them.
That is how Jesus’ finite human nature could be the instrument of something (the Passion) that was of infinite redemptive value.


Where in the bible explicitly did Jesus say he is God?

We see Jesus telling the High Priest before the public at Mk 41:62=63 that He is indeed the Son of God :
"Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”   Jesus said, “I am; and
‘you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power,’
and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”


How do the proponents of the idea that salvation once received cannot be lost explain Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29?

When looking at the overall context of all the warnings in Hebrews we have a situation for the unpardonable sin of fully rejecting Christ even under the sanctifying work and demonstrable power of the Holy Spirit making it absolute, thus unforgivable.  It represents a full grown and stubborn unbelief in the face of a long season of powerful grace and the Spirit's manifested power.

All one has to do to understand these verses is to 'think Judas'.  Although never properly sanctified by inner regeneration, his mind had been in a sense 'sanctified'.  What confuses some is they automatically think a person can experience no kind of sanctification except after justification but this is not correct. For example a 'unbelieving' spouse is sanctified in some ways by the believing spouse to make a marriage holy even when one spouse is not inwardly sanctified.

  For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (NIV 1 Corinthians 7:14)

In the same way by being with the Lord every day, having himself been given gifts to preach and to cast out demons when the Apostles were sent out two by two, Judas had 'tasted of the heavenly gift'. Judas was made 'partaker of the Holy Ghost'. Judas certainly 'tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come'. However, Judas was a bad field that did not produce a good crop and was never 'saved'. Therefore, as Judas 'fell away' it was really not possible to 'renew him again unto repentance' seeing that in his unforgivable rejection of eternal life, Judas was  'crucifying the Son of God afresh' leading him into the bowels of hell, which he himself under the horrible misery of sin cast his own life into.

The very same dangers faced many of the Hebrews soon after the resurrection of Christ.  The gospel had been recently been received by many Hebrews, but their faith was uncertain and some were tempted to reject Christ over Moses.  Such wickedness was equal with Judas' rejection. Even after they had witnessed the power of the gospel in an unusual manner.  Not only witnessing the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the evidence of the risen Christ or testimony of Apostles concerning it.  They also had the word of God proclaimed to them in fulfillment of all that the prophets had spoken and now unveiled by gifted men animated by the Spirit and wisdom and knowledge.  If they were to reject Christ, in preference to Moses, they would be no different than Judas.

Even the history of the first generation of Jews under Moses typified their situation and Hebrews recalls the story forming the context of these verses.  For example, 'What is the deliverance from Egypt but a display of God power?' Did not God provide a means to deliver the minds and bodies of the Jews from the hands of Pharaoh by his mighty hand and then present an opportunity of faith during the testing in the desert? The first deliverance through the Red Sea did not represent regeneration, the second crossing through the Jordan did, as only then did they entered a land flowing with milk and honey, wherein the battle of sanctification would begin. (i.e. the kingdom of God) How did those Jews respond to this tasting of the power of God and sanctification caused by the release under the tyrannical powers of Pharaoh? (Pharaoh is representing the Devil's malice and power to blind a man from having opportunity of faith and rest by faith).  Well they did not believe, so God destroyed them! In other words, nearly the whole generation was a Judas, a reprobate, an unsaved wicked sinner despite the power of God in saving them externally and sanctifying their minds, in order to have the option of worshiping and serving the One true God by the rest of faith.

This is the context of Hebrews and all the warnings in it.  Early on in the book we find this argument so clearly laid out.  Therefore only those who have genuine faith proven by souls that do not fall away are saved. Those who never had faith prove it by their actions. No matter their confession the Jews in the desert were unwilling to believe so they died:

  See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.
  We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.
  As has just been said:
  “Today, if you hear his voice,
  do not harden your hearts
  as you did in the rebellion.”
  Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies perished in the wilderness?
  And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed?
  So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. (NIV Hebrews 3:12-19)

The truth is those who believe that every true believer will persevere by faith (or once saved always saved) these verses pose no difficulty whatsoever.  On the contrary they are the most clear descriptions of cursed men who produce nothing but thorns even when tasting the Spirit in external convictions, powerful displays and convincing demonstration on the truthfulness of the gospel, which they fully reject.


Does the Bible make any allusions to life on other planets?

The Bible really doesn't have anything to say on the subject one way or another.

Historical writings suggest that some of early Christians believed that this world is only one of many that God has created, and particularly among Gnostic sects there were all sorts of interesting ideas on the subject, (for example, that the many worlds that God had created all had free interactions with each other, but not with us because this world was under quarantine, as no other people out of all God's creations were evil enough to murder their own Lord), but whatever the source of these ideas is, it's not found in the Bible.


How do Roman Catholics reconcile the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus with his not having returned?

Although it's true that the first Christians did believe that the Second Coming was imminent, Christ also taught that "you do not know the hour".

  Mt 24:44 — Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

  Mk 13:32–33 — But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time will come.

  Lk 12:40 — You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

As the question recognises, this hasn't happened yet. Thus it's easy to see that the belief that the Second Coming was imminent was a misunderstanding — not that it's a bad thing to live each day as if it were your last because you might face the final judgement tomorrow. That's still the case (cf Jas 4:13–15).

So the question becomes one of interpreting Mt 16:28: "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," which is also recorded in Mk 9:1: "And he said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.'"

If we are to believe that Christ did not lie to his hearers, or was mistaken himself, then a plain reading of these verses as referring to the Second Coming is obviously wrong: those standing there have certainly died by now.

There are two potential interpretations.

One is that "seeing the kingdom of God come with power" refers to Jesus' own death, when "the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised" (Mt 27:51–52). This is by far the easiest interpretation, as it admits a plain reading of the scripture. The kingdom of God had shown its power, and they would have seen it.

The second, deeper, interpretation is that the death Jesus was referring to was the everlasting damnation to Hell.

  Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgement that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven—through a purification592 or immediately,593—or immediate and everlasting damnation.594

    At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.595

  Catechism of the Catholic Church

In this interpretation, experiencing death before seeing the power of God needs explanation.

Jesus' use of before was to remind his hearers that the judgement could come at any time, and they should live each day as if it were their last. For if the Second Coming were tomorrow, they would not die before seeing it: they might see it and die tomorrow, and they would be judged tomorrow. In order that the judgement tomorrow would not condemn them, they needed to conform their lives to his teachings.

  The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."616

    Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."617

  CCC

This interpretation takes Jesus' teaching out of his own time and its narrow application to just his own contemporaries, and allows the Eternal God to apply it to all time, including to hearers today.

592: Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 857-858; Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304- 1306; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820
593: Cf. Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000-1001; John XXII, Ne
   super his (1334): DS 990
594: Cf. Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1002
595 St. John of the Cross, Dichos 64
616: Mt 7:13-14
617: Lumen Gentium 48 # 3; Mt 22:13; cf. Heb 9:27; Mt 25:13, 26, 30, 31 46