How were people baptized in the name of Jesus without the Holy Spirit in Acts 8?

You are correct that all believers have the Holy Spirit indwelling them from conversion on. However, Samaria is an instance of Spirit Baptism.

Luke consistently presents a pattern of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit being distinct from and subsequent to salvation1. These texts in Acts 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, and 19 form the basis of the Classical Pentecostal "Doctrine of Subsequence." (Subsequence is one of the core distinctives of the Assemblies of God. They address it in the Statement of Fundamental Truths #7.)

That receiving the Spirit is distinct from salvation can be seen numerous times in Acts.

In Acts 1:4,5, Jesus himself, while speaking to those who had trusted in Him as Messiah and Lord, said "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me. For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." The Baptism in the Spirit was yet to come for these believers. Drawing the distinction even more clearly between receiving the Spirit and being baptized in the Spirit, prior to this (John 20:22), Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Now, He is saying that their Baptism in the Spirit is yet to come.
Before the first outpouring (Acts 2), the 120 are specified as "disciples/believers" (Acts 1:15) and "brethren" (1:16), that is, they were already baptized believers but the Holy Spirit had not come upon them (Acts 1:5, 8) but were now receiving the Spirit.
As you mention in Acts 8, belief and Spirit Baptism are presented as distinct.
In Acts 9:17, the believer Ananias calls Paul "brother" before Paul receives the Spirit.
In Acts 19, the recipients follow Paul's command for water Baptism in Jesus' name (19:5). It is only after this, (vs 6) that the Holy Spirit came upon them.

An example against this might be Cornelius' house. There receiving the Spirit (Acts 10:44-46) comes before water Baptism and at the same event as conversion.2 Since no amount of time is mentioned, it cannot definitively be stated as subsequent. However, the pattern in the rest of Acts shows a period of time to be normal.

The Holy Spirit indwells all believers at conversion, but the baptism in the Holy Spirit is shown in Acts to be distinct and subsequent almost all of the time.

1 "...a temporal separation is typical of the outpourings of the Spirit in Acts," Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, Baker Academic, reprinted 1990, pg. 65.

2French L. Arrington, (The Acts of the Apostles: an Introduction and Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988, pg. 113) states that these men were already saved before Peter arrived. He argues this based on 1) how Peter leaves out any mention of conversion or repentance in his sermon and 2) that the phrase "you know" is also used by Paul to emphasize doctrine that the recipient already accepts. However, as helpful as this interpretation is to the Doctrine of Subsequence, Peter does give them a call to repentance when he says "everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (vs. 43). Also, in 11:14, Peter says God sent him to take Cornelius a message "through which you and all your household will be saved." Thus, the household was not saved before the sermon.


This all kind of depends on what you mean by "young".

Titus 1:5 - 9 has a more detailed description of what an elder should be:

  Titus 1:5 - 9

  5 I left you on the island of Crete so you could complete our work
  there and appoint elders in each town as I instructed you.

  6 An elder
  must live a blameless life. He must be faithful to his wife, and
  his children must be believers who don’t have a reputation for being
  wild or rebellious.

  7 For an elder must live a blameless life. He
  must not be arrogant or quick-tempered; he must not be a heavy
  drinker, violent, or dishonest with money.

  8 Rather, he must enjoy
  having guests in his home, and he must love what is good. He must live
  wisely and be just. He must live a devout and disciplined life.

  9 He
  must have a strong belief in the trustworthy message he was taught;
  then he will be able to encourage others with wholesome teaching and
  show those who oppose it where they are wrong.

As you can see while this description does not explicitly give an age requirement, it gives the expectation that this person is established, and that they have a proven track record of being Godly.


According to the Catholic Church, do animals have free will?

I'm not sure if the Church has an explicit doctrinal position on this question, but I can give you the view of classical philosophy,  as originally expounded by Aristotle and then developed chiefly by St. Thomas Aquinas. This view undergirds the thinking of most orthodox Catholic theologians, historically speaking.

In this way of thinking -- assuming you mean non-human animals, the short answer is 'no'.

Classical philosophy identifies three kinds of soul, each with its own distinctive powers:

The vegetative soul has the powers of nutrition, growth, and reproduction
The sensitive soul has the powers of the vegetative soul but also the powers of sense, imagination, and memory.
The rational soul has the powers of the sensitive and vegetative souls, but also the powers of reason and will.

Plants have vegetative souls1. Most animals have sensitive souls, but human animals have rational souls.

The implication of saying that men have wills and animals don't is that men can, at least in principle, choose what they understand to be good even when it's not what their senses immediately perceive as good. E.g. I can choose to eat my supper before my dessert even when both are sitting in front of me.

Whereas non-human animals are pretty much compelled to pursue the goods that their senses perceive, unless they are directed otherwise by a rational will (e.g.,. a well-trained work animal is largely subject to the will of its owner).

1 Yep, I did indeed say plants have souls. In classical philosophy the "soul" is in general just that which living things have, but non-living things don't have (that's a very informal account).


What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to baptismal regeneration?

Justin Martyr wrote a chapter (LXI) on Christian baptism in his First Apology, written sometime in the 2nd century:

  I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God
  when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we
  seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are
  persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and
  undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and
  to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are
  past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us
  where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which
  we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and
  Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy
  Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also
  said, Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
  heaven [John 3:5].  Now, that it is impossible for those who have
  once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all.
  And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is
  declared by Isaiah the prophet, as I wrote above, he thus speaks:
  Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the
  widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though
  your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though
  they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse
  and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath
  spoken it [Isaiah 1:16-20].  And for this [rite] we have
  learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born
  without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together,
  and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that
  we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may
  become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the
  water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced
  over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins,
  the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to
  the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name
  alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any
  one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless
  madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who
  learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the
  name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in
  the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all
  things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

Cyprian of Carthage, another Ante-Nicene Father, wrote in the 3rd century of his own baptism:

  For as I myself was held in bonds by the innumerable errors of my
  previous life, from which I did not believe that I could by
  possibility be delivered, so I was disposed to acquiesce in my
  clinging vices; and because I despaired of better things, I used to
  indulge my sins as if they were actually parts of me, and indigenous
  to me. But after that, by the help of the water of new birth [i.e.,
  baptism], the stain of former years had been washed away, and a light
  from above, serene and pure, had been infused into my reconciled
  heart,—after that, by the agency of the Spirit breathed from heaven, a
  second birth had restored me to a new man;—then, in a wondrous manner,
  doubtful things at once began to assure themselves to me, hidden
  things to be revealed, dark things to be enlightened, what before had
  seemed difficult began to suggest a means of accomplishment, what had
  been thought impossible, to be capable of being achieved; so that I
  was enabled to acknowledge that what previously, being born of the
  flesh, had been living in the practice of sins, was of the earth
  earthly, but had now begun to be of God, and was animated by the
  Spirit of holiness (Epistle I, To Donatus).

These are the earliest sources I could find who comment on the nature of baptism.  I am sure there are many, many such commentaries among the Post-Nicene Fathers, but rather than search through them I thought I would simply quote what John of Damascus wrote later in his An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.  Written in the early 8th century, Exposition was probably the first summary of Church dogmatic theology and reflects the collected teaching of recognized Church Fathers up to that point.  In "Concerning Faith and Baptism", he writes:

  We confess one baptism for the remission of sins and for life eternal.
  For baptism declares the Lord’s death. We are indeed buried with the
  Lord through baptism [Col 2:12], as saith the divine Apostle. So
  then, as our Lord died once for all, we also must be baptized once for
  all, and baptized according to the Word of the Lord, In the Name of
  the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt 28:19],
  being taught the confession in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  The baptism then into Christ means that believers are baptized into
  Him. We could not believe in Christ if we were not taught confession
  in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit4. For Christ is the Son of the Living
  God5, Whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit: in the words of
  the divine David, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the
  oil of gladness above thy fellows [Ps 44:7 LXX]. And Isaiah also
  speaking in the person of the Lord says, The Spirit of the Lord is
  upon me because He hath anointed me [61:1]. Christ, however, taught
  His own disciples the invocation and said, Baptizing them in the Name
  of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For since
  Christ made us for incorruption, and we transgressed His saving
  command. He condemned us to the corruption of death in order that that
  which is evil should not be immortal, and when in His compassion He
  stooped to His servants and became like us, He redeemed us from
  corruption through His own passion. He caused the fountain of
  remission to well forth for us out of His holy and immaculate side [Jn
  19:34], water for our regeneration, and the washing away of sin and
  corruption; and blood to drink as the hostage of life eternal. And He
  laid on us the command to be born again of water and of the Spirit [Jn
  3:5], through prayer and invocation, the Holy Spirit drawing nigh unto
  the water. For since man’s nature is twofold, consisting of soul and
  body, He bestowed on us a twofold purification, of water and of the
  Spirit: the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image
  and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the
  body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed
  expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of
  life.  For from the beginning the Spirit of God moved upon
  the face of the waters [Gn 1:2], and anew the Scripture witnesseth
  that water has the power of purification [Lev 15:10]. In the time of
  Noah God washed away the sin of the world by water [Gn 16:17]. By
  water every impure person is purified, according to the law, even the
  very garments being washed with water. Elijah shewed forth the grace
  of the Spirit mingled with the water when he burned the holocaust by
  pouring on water [3 Kingdoms 18:32 LXX]. And almost everything is
  purified by water according to the law: for the things of sight are
  symbols of the things of thought. The regeneration, however, takes
  place in the spirit: for faith has the power of making us sons (of
  God), creatures as we are, by the Spirit, and of leading us into our
  original blessedness.  The remission of sins, therefore, is
  granted alike to all through baptism: but the grace of the Spirit is
  proportional to the faith and previous purification. Now, indeed, we
  receive the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit through baptism, and the
  second birth is for us the beginning and seal and security and
  illumination of another life


What does the Bible say about praying too much?

The Bible in no place says that you can possibly pray too much.  In fact, it says just the opposite.  Not only in the passage in Luke, but also in 1 Thessalonialns 5:17, which says we should be praying continually.

Like most "contradictions' this one is simple to resolve by showing that the problem arises from taking verses out of context.  (See Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies.)

Take a look again at Ecclesiastes 5 with the surrounding verses:

  1 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to
  listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not
  know that they are doing evil. 2 [b] Be not rash with your mouth, nor
  let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in
  heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few. 3 For a
  dream comes with much business, and a fool's voice with many words.

  4 When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it, for he has no
  pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow. 5 It is better that you should
  not vow than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Let not your mouth
  lead you[c] into sin, and do not say before the messenger[d] that it
  was a mistake. Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the
  work of your hands? 7 For when dreams increase and words grow many,
  there is vanity;[e] but[f] God is the one you must fear.

This is not talking about not praying, it's talking about not speaking rashly and carelessly to God.

This is backed up by most commentaries.  Here's a small sampling to show that this is an established teaching/understanding of the verses, and not just my opinion:

  Benson Commentary

  Be not rash with thy mouth — Speak not without due consideration; and
  let not thy heart be hasty — Do not give way to every sudden motion of
  thy heart, nor suffer it to break out of thy lips till thou hast well
  weighed it. We must think, and think twice, before we speak, when we
  are to speak, either from God in preaching, or to God in prayer, or in
  solemn vows and promises made in his presence; which were very much in
  use in those times, and of which he speaks in the following verses.
  For God is in heaven — Is a God of infinite majesty, holiness, and
  knowledge, and therefore not even to be thought of, and much more not
  to be worshipped, without profound veneration, great solemnity, and
  much serious consideration; and thou upon earth — Thou art a poor worm
  of the earth, infinitely below him, and therefore oughtest to stand in
  awe of him, and fear to offend him; therefore let thy words be few —
  1st, In prayer: use not vain repetitions, nor a multitude of words, as
  if they were necessary to inform God of thy wants, or to prevail with
  him to grant thy requests; or as if thou shouldest certainly be heard
  upon that very account: see Matthew 6:7. 2d, In vowing: be not too
  prodigal in making more vows and promises than thou art either able or
  willing and resolved to perform. Remember that God looks down from
  heaven, hears all thy vows, and expects a punctual accomplishment of
  them.

  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

  5:1-3 Address thyself to the worship of God, and take time to compose
  thyself for it. Keep thy thoughts from roving and wandering...

  Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter
  any thing before God,....


Reference for this "New is in the Old Concealed" quote that is attributed to Augustine?

“In the Old Testament the New is concealed, in the New the Old is revealed” (Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus Testamentum in Novo patet) literal: New Testament in the Old lies, the Old Testament in the New is clear. St. Augustine, Quaest. in Hept. 2,73: PL 34, 623; cf. DV 16.

In case the reference needs decoding; Quaestiones in Heptateuchum VII (Seven Questions Concerning the Heptateuch) Dated AD 419-420.


How do Protestants who do not hold Communion/Eucharist every week interpret Acts 2:42?

The simple answers is that Acts is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Like all the narrative books it gives us wisdom and informs our decisions, but out relationship to a narrative text is different to our relationship to a text of commands (although those can be embedded within a narrative, as they are in the Pentateuch.)

Now there is one command that speaks of the frequency of communion, 1 Corinthians 11:25-26; you should have asked about that instead.

  1 Cor 11:25-26 (ESV): In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

One command directly from the mouth of Jesus, and one explanation from Paul. But it's far from clear that Jesus's words require this act to become a formal ritual for the church. As Acts records, sharing meals together, in remembrance of the death of Christ, was a common activity for the early Church. I think the common practice of giving thanks to God before a meal is a faithful way to obey Jesus's command.

There are many ways that churches have interpreted these verses. Many, taking note of "as often" have communion every week. Some Anglican churches actually have it every day. Some churches, rather than a token bite sized piece of bread and sip of a cup, have a full celebratory meal, like we imagine the early church doing. And in some Catholic churches the laity sometimes receive only the bread and not the wine, even though it was specifically about the wine which Jesus said "as often as you drink it."

But Paul gives us more than just this quote from Jesus, he gives us principles by which to decide how to implement this sacrament. The Corinthian church, by the time Paul was writing, had settled on a full celebratory banquet. The way they celebrated this banquet was deeply problematic however. Rather than sharing, some got drunk while others went hungry (1 Cor 11:21). Some may also have started eating before others even arrived, so Paul says to eat for the purpose of sating hunger at home, before you gather together (1 Cor 11:33-34). Paul says that we are to examine ourselves and others in the body to ensure we are worthy to eat this meal in remembrance of Jesus Christ.

I think this goal of serious remembrance of the sacrificial work of Jesus on the Cross can be achieved through different practices and frequencies of communion. For the churches which have it weekly (or daily) they want to ensure that the cross of Christ is never take for granted. By having communion this frequently they ensure that no matter what songs are sung, no matter what the topic of the sermon, the death of Christ is explicitly spoken of and deliberately remembered in every meeting.

For churches that have it less frequently, I have often heard the concern that weekly communion can become a motion you go through rather than a heartfelt act. I'm sure there have been church leaders who have felt at times that they've had to rush through communion because the preacher went overtime. While it is ultimately the individual church member's responsibility to take communion seriously rather than just as a habit to keep, the leaders of churches that have it monthly or quarterly hope this will help their congregants to not take it for granted but to be in the right mindset each time. When it is done monthly or quarterly, it can be something you set aside time for, you can include time for reflection in the service, you can choose particularly cross-centred hymns.

Personally I see merits in both weekly and monthly communion. I remember times when I was in a church that had it weekly that sometimes I treated it as just a motion to go through, and when I was in a church that had it monthly that if I missed the week it was on that I could almost forget it was something the church even did. I wouldn't want it to be less frequent than monthly however.


Are there examples of English words and phrases that are associated with blasphemy of the Virgin Mary?

People exclaim, "Mother of God!" when they see something astonishing, which would be a minced oath towards Mary.


According to Martin Luther, which Councils contradicted each other?

Luther, at the Diet of Worms, offered to show, at any time that might be assigned to him,  that councils had erred. He does not seem to have been taken up on this directly, although conversations may have been held in private.  About a week later Luther was summoned to see the Archbishop of Treves (Trier), where were assembled several others including Hieronymus Vehus, Chancellor of Baden. The Chancellor began a "long harangue" in which he said that:

  the church, like any other power, had its constitutions which might be modified according to the requirements of the particular nations to which they were applied, the diversity of manners, of climate, of epochs; and that herein lay the apparent contradictions which Luther had denounced as existing in the internal system of the church. These contradictions, in fact, only proved more emphatically the religious care with which the church regulated its spiritual administration, and in no degree affected the integrity of the catholic dogma. That dogma was yesterday what it is to-day, and what it will continue to be till the end of time.

Vehus concedes that councils have differed on what today are called "disciplinary" matters,  but denies that they have differed on matters of dogma.

Ref: Famous Trials

Luther had previously said, during the Leipzig Disputation of 1519, that Councils contradicted each other and so could not all  be certainly correct.  It is no necessary to go back far to find an instance of a Council doing exactly that, and in no uncertain terms.  The Fifth Lateran Council ran from 1512 to 1517. In 1516 the following was issued at Session 11 (paragraph 15 of December 19th):

  Just as pope Leo I, our predecessor of holy memory, whose footsteps we readily follow insofar as we can, gave orders and brought to pass that the measures which had been rashly carried out at the second synod of Ephesus, contrary to justice and the catholic faith, were later revoked at the council of Chalcedon, for the sake of the constancy of the same faith, so we too judge that we cannot, or ought not to, withdraw from or abandon the revocation of so evil a sanction {the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges}  and its contents if we are to preserve our own honour, and that of the church, with a safe conscience. The fact that the sanction and its contents were published at the council of Basel and, at the instance of the same council, were received and recognised by the meeting at Bourges, ought not to influence us since all those happenings after the transfer of the same council of Basel took place — the transfer being made by pope Eugenius IV, our predecessor of happy memory — have remained the deeds of the quasi-council, or rather the conventicle, of Basel,

Here the Fifth Lateran Council is very clearly contradicting the Council of Basel.(1431 - 1445).  The Fifth Lateran Council also overturned the Sacrosancta Decree from the Council of Constance in 1415, asserting that Popes were subordinate to Councils. In its second session in 1512 it had condemned the  Council of Pisa, 1511, and declared everything it had done null and void.

The Fifth Council is justifying this power to contradict earlier Councils,  by the fact that Chalcedon had overturned Second Ephesus more than a thousand years previously.

It is also making the point that some Council are  seen, wholly or partly,  as lacking legitimacy. In the case of Sacrosancta,   it was never approved by a Pope, and so can be, and was, regarded as invalid.

The denunciation by the Fifth Lateran Council, of those earlier councils, was so recent, and so unequivocal, that it must have been clearly in the minds of all involved, as a recent instance of a Council contradicting another Council.


From the Doctrine and Covenants, section 77, which lays out revealed interpretations of some of the symbolism in the Book of Revelation:

  6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

  A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

  7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

  A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Therefore, the four horsemen represent the past, from the perspective of John and his contemporaries: the workings of the world throughout the 4000 years from Adam until Christ.  Among other things, this interpretation explains why the events of the first four seals (and the fifth, to a lesser extent) are glossed over so quickly in John's writing: they're history, they're stuff that's already happened, much of which his audience is already familiar with, so he just provides a quick recap before getting on to the real focus of things which are to come and going into greater detail there.

The Church's New Testament Student Manual, in its chapter on Revelation 4-11, goes into further depth about a third of the way down, speaking of possible interpretations and correlations with scripture and history.


Is it Proper to State that Chalcedonianism is a Moderate Position In-between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?

A better summarization of your statement would be "Monophysitism and Nestorianism are heresy; the Chalcedonian position is orthodox. The heresies over-emphasize one of the natures, but the orthodox position stresses that both are fully present and effective."

Obviously, "heresy" is a word that carries a strong connotation, but it does have an actual definition - heresy is heresy because the orthodox position is to reject.

Nestorianism was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD by Theodosius.  As you said, it emphasizes the human nature of Jesus to such an extent that his divine nature often gets overlooked.  A good modern example would be "Jesus Christ Superstar" by Andrew Lloyd Weber.
Monophysitism was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. This position emphasizes the divine nature to the exclusion of his human one.  Many old school Baptists in particular want to think of Jesus as this magical God whom they neglect to see as also human, sharing in our sufferings and knowing our pains.  This too, is heresy.

The Council of Chalcedon was, by definition, church dogma - indeed, it being one of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, it is accepted by Orthodox and Catholic alike as reflecting the will of the church.

The line "fully human, fully divine," emphasizes that both natures are fully Christ, and is the orthodox position of the "Church", even to this day.  While there are denominations that reject this position, to do so is to put oneself at odds with the historical consensus of the church assembled, as defined by the best measure of "Christian."

Your overall assessment then could be taken as fully accurate, although admittedly, I don't like the idea of it being a "compromise." A compromise suggests that both positions are valid, but that are optimized by rawing from each. Rather, here, I consider it to be the middle way that represents the truth, and either of the other positions is an error that emphasizes one nature in hypostasis over against the other.  Most (All?) heresies - Christological and Trinitarian - tend to result from the over emphasis of one part to the exclusion of the whole.


How does Catholic Church deal with priests who have since turned atheists?

If the priest who apostatized and became atheist is obstinate in his heresy, he is to be deposed/defrocked:
1917 can. 2314:

§1. All apostates from the Christian faith and all heretics and schismatics:
1°. Incur excommunication ipso facto, and
2°. Unless they repent, shall be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension or other charge which they may hold in the Church, and be declared infamous; clerics, after repeated warning, shall be deposed;


What if your prayer for them is part of the "choosing process"?  If you are prompted (or commanded) to pray, then pray.
What God has foreknown, He has predetermined in the creative act.  Will we be a part of His plan or will we step aside?  Jesus did not do many miracles in Nazareth, the place of His upbringing, because of their little faith.
For example, God has determined that creation and Law declare His glory (Psalm 19).  This is not a request...it is a statement, but if we will not willingly do it then inanimate nature will drown out our voice.  God will be glorified!

As he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives—the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” - Luke 19:37-40

As is well said by Ron Kenoly, "Ain't gonna let no rock out-praise me"
What God has determined to be contingent upon our prayers is contingent upon our prayers.  Such knowledge is too lofty for us, we cannot attain it...obey.


When might a Christians consider taking anti-depressants or psychiatric medications?

Medically speaking, it's a matter for your doctor to discuss with you.

From a doctrinal perspective, there is no one answer.

Group #1: Some traditions hold that there is no such thing as mental illness at all, and that any depression or other mental illness are the result of sin, or demonic influence.
Group #2: Others will regard the opinions of the above group as bunk.
Group #3: Yet others will tell you that in some cases, illness (including mental) could be a either/or medical issue or a spiritual one.

It boils down to what your convictions are. Your convictions are yours alone.  They may be influenced by your church, or your peers, or your family, but they are yours alone.

At judgment day, you will stand before God, not anybody else. Your convictions, or your preferences are not for anyone else to decide.

All of that said, I have never once found in Scripture the idea that medical treatment is in any way sinful.  The arguments I hear (and I hear them regularly) about not taking anti-depressants, or getting your kids vaccinated are based, not on Scripture, but on personal beliefs and the opinions of their own peers.

The idea that illness is a punishment for sin is one of the oldest pieces of bad advice in the book.  (See the book of Job.)

I have seen news stories about people who have died refusing medical treatment and instead, depending on faith.

I happen to fall into group #3 above, with strong leanings toward #2.

I do believe we over-medicate our kids, and use drugs to make things easier on the parents in some cases, but overall, I also believe that God gave us medical knowledge, as well as medicine, because He intends us to use it.

Again, it's going to boil down to your choice.  General advice I'd give to anyone:

Pray about it
Educate yourself.
Ask your doctor questions
Do your best to make an informed decision, one that takes your beliefs, convictions, and personal situation and weighs the options.

One might call this "Discernment" - something we're called to exercise.

Suggested reading: http://www.learnthebible.org/convictions.html


How does one explain that the Church is the Bride of Christ?

1. Reading the Gospels as Protestants

This verse from the Aramaic scriptures tells us the virgins (we, Christians) will meet both the bridegroom and bride.

A few things here: firstly only a very small number of Protestants would accept Aramaic-primacy. It also doesn't have any relevance to this question. Just because the Greek text doesn't include "Again Jesus said to his disciples" doesn't mean that he was speaking to someone else. Moving on...
Second, when Jesus tells a parable we have to be careful to not draw too much out from it. Most parables have just one, maybe two, main points they are trying to teach. Protestants do not generally participate in allegorical interpretation where every detail corresponds to some spiritual reality.
Third, we have to note that Jesus was speaking to Jews prior to the cross. It is anachronistic to call his audience the Church or Christians. Much of what he says does of course apply to Christians, but not all. We have to carefully consider what he says in that original context before applying it to ourselves.
2. The Church as the Bride of Christ
Protestants believe this metaphor for the Church is taught in these passages:

Ephesians 5:25-27, 31-32 (NIV): Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ... “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
2 Corinthians 11:2-3 (NIV): I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

And in Revelation, John calls the Church the New Jerusalem, and then the New Jerusalem the Bride of Christ:

Revelation 3:12-23 (NIV): The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
Revelation 21:2 (NIV): I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
Revelation 21:9-10 (NIV): One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

Note that in the Old Testament Israel is also frequently pictured as the wife of God, but Protestants differ over to whether the Church's relationship to Israel should be seen as a continuation, replacement, or parallel group of God's people.
3. Interpreting those parables

Matthew 9:14-15 (NIV): Then John’s disciples came and asked him, “How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?”
Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

In this metaphor Jesus says that, like Ecclesiastes says, "there is a time for everything". Fasting is one practice of spiritual devotion, but not the only one. Just as you don't fast during a wedding banquet, Jesus didn't think his disciples should fast while they were with him. But in the future, either while he was dead or after he ascended, it would be appropriate for his disciples to fast.
Should we make anything of the fact that his disciples are the guests rather than the bride? I don't think so, for as I wrote before, we are not allegorists who must find the spiritual parallel to every detail. But even if you do want to see a significance here, it doesn't negate the Bride of Christ metaphor. Because the New Testament uses many metaphors to describe the relationship between Christ and Church. A married couple is one, but another is that of the head and body of Christ. Are we to say that the Church is therefore married to itself because it is the body of Christ? Of course not. We don't mix metaphors; each one stands by itself to illustrate a different aspect of our relationship with God.

Matthew 25:1: At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
Matthew 25:13: Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

This parable tells us what its own meaning is: we have to watch and wait carefully for the "the sign of your coming and of the end of the age" (Matthew 24:3).
I think it's possible in this parable that the virgins/bridesmaids also refer to the Jewish people, some of which were waiting eagerly for their messiah, and some of which were not.
And lastly, some Dispensationalists see Israel as an enduring category even into the New Earth. Those who died as faithful Jews before Christ are the people of God, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. If our lives after resurrection are seen as one giant wedding reception then those faithful Jews are the guests while the church is the bride. But this is a minority position within Protestantism.


How do Evangelicals explain when Paul writes "I, not the Lord"?

Evangelical commentators generally hold that Paul is speaking authoritatively in 1 Corinthians 7:12, and only indicating that he was not aware of any direct teaching on this subject by Jesus during his earthly ministry.  The Reformation Study Bible explains:

With regard to the problem treated in vv. 10, 11, there was a well-known instruction given by Jesus during His earthly ministry (Mark 10:1–12).  In vv. 12–16, however, Paul discusses a difficult situation that had not been expressly addressed by the Lord while He walked the earth.  His apostolic commands, however, come by inspiration and have divine authority, as 14:37 makes clear.

Others who make this point include The New Bible Commentary:

The problem of mixed marriages would hardly have arisen during Christ's ministry, and so Paul cannot quote a specific word of the Lord.  But his own judgment is given authoritatively.

And Barry G. Webb, writing in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, edited by D. A. Carson, says:

Paul's distinction between what he gives as a command of Christ ("not I, but the Lord") and what he gives only as his own word ("I, not the Lord") cannot be taken as distinguishing between what has apostolic authority and what does not.  He writes the entire epistle as "an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God" (1:1).  The basic distinction seems to be between appealing to a specific teaching of Jesus, and speaking as an apostle without being able to appear to any specific teaching of Jesus regarding the issue at hand. (chapter 19, fn. 17)

The ESV Study Bible says:

Paul views his admonition here as authoritative and inspired, not merely as human wisdom (v. 40; cf. 14:37–38).

The MacArthur Study Bible:

Not a denial of inspiration or an indication that Paul is giving human opinion, but simply a way of saying that Jesus had not spoken on this and God had not previously given revelation on the matter, as Paul was then writing.

Constable's Commentary agrees:

For mixed couples, Paul could not cite a teaching of Jesus, because He had
not spoken on this subject. At least, as far as Paul knew He had not.
Nevertheless, the risen Lord inspired Paul's instructions on this subject, so
they were every bit as authoritative as the teaching Jesus gave during His
earthly ministry.

And so does the Moody Bible Commentary:

Paul was not aware of any teaching on mixed marriages given by Jesus, but as an apostle inspired by God, Paul's words are binding.

Conclusion
Evangelicals broadly agree that what Paul writes in 7:12 is inspired and just as authoritative as the other teachings that Paul gives.
That said, it's perhaps worth noting that Evangelicals accept that some apostolic speeches and writings are not strictly inerrant in their content (though the record is still accurate).  For example, they admit that Paul speaks erroneously in Acts 20:25, and that in 2 Corinthians 8, he gives advice, not a divine command.  On the latter case, Barry Webb writes:

Just as the Old Testament Scriptures contain "command" (law) and "advice" (wisdom teaching), so do the writings of the apostles; but all of it is Scripture.

But with respect to the verses in question here, these comments are merely tangential – Evangelicals generally accept 1 Corinthians 7:10ff. as authoritative commands, under the inspiration of God.


What is the Catholic concept of "freedom to sin"?

To the extent that an act is compelled by an outside source, the actor is not responsible for it:

  Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1731)

  As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

(Catechism paragraph 1732; emphasis added)

  Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary.

(Catechism paragraph 1734; emphasis added)

And most importantly for our purposes:

  Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.

(Catechism paragraph 1738)

The Church will recognize a distinction between an act which does good (to the receivers of the action) and an act which is good (that is, which allows one to evaluate the actor as a morally good person). Aquinas (Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 21, Article 2) states:

  An action is said to deserve praise or blame, from its being imputed to the agent [that is, from the agent being responsible for it]: since to praise or to blame means nothing else than to impute to someone the malice or goodness of his action. Now an action is imputed to an agent, when it is in his power, so that he has dominion over it: because it is through his will that man has dominion over his actions, as was made clear above. Hence it follows that good or evil, in voluntary actions alone, renders them worthy of praise or blame.

So let's distinguish between what might be called useful actions (those which produce something good) and praiseworthy actions (those which allow us to call the actor "good"). Paragraph 1734 above is saying that one is not morally responsible for acts done involuntarily—acts you're forced into. In that sense, no forced actions are praiseworthy; you can't be a truly good person through being forced into it. (Neither, incidentally, can you be a truly evil person—everything depends on the extent to which you are forced into your actions.)

Thus, in the example you give in the SciFi question, Gandalf is producing "useful" actions—or rather forcing people into doing so—but he is not helping people be good people. And this, the Catechism says, is part of the responsibility of those who govern, at least to the extent that they must allow people to be free to choose to be good people. That's what paragraph 1738 (on the "right to the exercise of freedom") is saying. If Gandalf were to force his subjects to do good (i.e. to do useful things), he would be doing so at the cost of fundamentally injuring their human dignity—a grave sin.

Would this be worse than forcing them to do bad things? Perhaps not; in neither case would it reflect poorly on them, and in both cases it would be a grave sin on the ruler's part. (And forcing them to do bad things would, of course, result in objective evil being done.) But in no case would it ever be an acceptable course of action, or method of rulership.


According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy, is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none?

According to Chalcedonian Doctrine (that is shared by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestant churches) Christ is fully God and fully human.

Christ is however one person which is both God and human. He isn't a person of God that dwelled in a separate human person (which is the teaching of nestorianism).

The Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic) churches reject the teaching of Chalcedonian Council, however they mostly declare, they are not monophysitic. The argument here is partly about the meaning of the work 'nature'.


How does the divine office compare between the different rites?

Commonalities between the Horologion (Eastern Divine Office) and the Divinum Officium (Roman Office):

Psalms are all found, that is assured.

Some differences between the Divinum Officium and the Horologion:

The Hours in the Eastern Church often are made up of a variety of different books. Whereas the Hours of the Roman Church can be used within a single book called the Roman Breviary, plus the Matins, usually separate, which contains the rest of the entire Sacred Scripture, papal homilies, and the Gospel.
The Psalter in the Byzantine Office is divided into 20 kathismata, where each is divided into three stases each. Whereas in the Roman Office, the psalms are distributed across the span of (not 3, but) 4 weeks in the Liturgium Horarum, and in a span of 1 week for the 1962 Divine Office and the pre-1955 Divine Office.
The rubrics of the timing of the recitation of the Hours differ between the Horologion and the Divinum Officium.

In the Horologion, The Ninth Hour, Vespers, and Compline (Apodeipnon) may be said in block before sunset, calling it the Evening Aggregate. The Midnight Office (Mesonyktikon), Othros(Matins), and the First Hour can be recited in the morning before sunrise. The Third Hour and the Sixth Hour are recited in the midday, calling it the Midday Aggregate.

In the Roman Office however, Matins is typically said with Lauds in the morning, then Vespers with Compline in the evening, then the person typically recites the other Hours--Prime, Terce, Sext, and None separately throughout the day. There are not much governing rubrics as to mind when the Hours may be recited, except that:

In the pre-1955 Office, Matins and Lauds may be anticipated as early as 2 PM before.
In the pre-1969 Office, Matins may be anticipated without Lauds in the evening after Compline of the Day
In the Liturgium Horarum, you can recite the Office of the Readings any time of the day.

The Canticles (Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis, Magnificat) are said in different Hours:

The Magnificat is said at Vespers in the Roman Office, meanwhile it is said in Matins in the Eastern Offices
Benedictus is not sung as a canticle in the Eastern Office, but it is the Gospel reading for Matins and the Divine Liturgy on the Feast Day of the Nativity of John the Baptist (June 24). It is a Canticle however, at Lauds
Nunc Dimittis is sung every Compline in the Roman Office, whereas in the Eastern Offices it is sung at Vespers.

The differences in the Divine Office between the two churches are vast; depending on the version of the Offices in question, the liturgical season, day, religious orders, and even the number and status of the participants.


If Jesus' ministry was to the Jews, why did He go to Syria?

By "Syria" in this passage, the evangelist did not intend specifically the area now taken up into the Arab Republic of Syria (which was not a country until after the First World War). Rather, what was meant was the Roman province of Syria, which included all the modern-day country of Lebanon, as well as parts of modern-day Israel, Jordan, and Syria. It was a much larger area than the Roman client kingdoms of Judea or Galilee (which it included), and there were Jews throughout the area at that point.

In other words, as the evangelist is using "Syria" here, Jesus was already in Syria - he was born, lived, and died in Rome's Syria Provincia. The impression the evangelist wants to give is of Jesus' reputation spreading over a much wider area than just the neighborhood he was traveling and working in at the time.


Did the two sides anathematize each other in the East–West Schism of 1054?

Strictly speaking, no.  There were mutual excommunications, but they were only intended to apply to the specific individuals involved: Leo IX excommunicated Patriarch Michael by, famously, sending a delegation that laid the bull of excommunication upon the altar of the Hagia Sophia shortly before the celebration of Divine Liturgy, while Michael in return excommunicated and anathematized the legates themselves but not all of the church of Rome.


How did the Brownists/Calvinists justify capital punishment for witches?

Exodus 22:18 famously says:

  Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Without a doubt, this was the basis of the belief that witches should be put to death. The Calvinist Bible commentator Matthew Henry says about this verse ("our law" refers to the law of Britain and Wales):

  Witchcraft not only gives that honour to the devil which is due to God
  alone, but bids defiance to the divine Providence, wages war with
  God's government, and puts his work into the devil's hand, expecting
  him to do good and evil, and so making him indeed the god of this
  world; justly therefore was it punished with death, especially among a
  people that were blessed with a divine revelation, and cared for by
  divine Providence above any people under the sun. By our law,
  consulting, covenanting with, invocating, or employing, any evil
  spirit, to any intent whatsoever, and exercising any enchantment,
  charm, or sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person
  whatsoever, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending
  to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is an
  iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death.
  The justice of our law herein is supported by the law of God recorded
  here.

Matthew Henry wrote this decades after the Salem witch trials. But his argumentation is much the same as that of the English Puritan William Perkins, who I'll get to later, who died well before the trials began.

According to Puritan doctrine, as codified in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the law of Moses can be divided into three categories: the moral, civil, and ceremonial. According to the confession, the moral law is still binding on all Christians, but the ceremonial law, which was a shadow of Christ who was to come, is done away with. But we have a more complicated relationship with the civil/judicial law (from chapter 19):

  To them [Israel] also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial
  laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not
  obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may
  require. [Exo 21-22; Gen 49:10; 1Pe 2:13; Mat 5:17; 1Co 9:8]

So did the general equity of the people require witches to be executed? That's the question of the day.

William Perkins, a "foremost" Puritan, gave three reasons for executing witches in his Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft:

  First, this Law of Moses flatly enjoineth all men, in all ages,
  without limitation of circumstances, not to suffer the Witch to live;
  and hereupon I gather, that it must stand the same both now and
  forever to the world's end.

Perkins then mentions the objection that this was a law of the Old Covenant, and replies:

  Those Judicial Laws, whose penalty is death, because they have in them
  a perpetual equity, and do serve to maintain some moral precept, are
  perpetual.

He adds that laws "that hath in it the equity of the Law of nature" are also perpetual, and says that all states execute traitors to the king, so how much more should one who is a traitor to the king of kings be executed.

He goes on:

  The second reason for the proof of the point in hand is this:
  According to Moses' law, every Idolater was to be stoned to death. ...
  Peter did not upon his denial betake himself to the Devil, but turned
  unto Christ again, which he testified by his hearty and speedy
  repentance: but witches deny God, betake themselves to the devil, of
  their own accord, as is manifest even by their own confessions, at
  their arraignments.

  ...

  The third reason. Every seducer in the Church, whose practise was to
  draw men from the true God to the worship of Idols, though it were a
  mans owne son or daughter, wife or friend, by the peremptory decree
  and commandment of God, was at no hand to be spared or pitied, but the
  hand of the witness first, and then the hands of all the people must
  be upon him, to kill him, Deut. 13. 6. 9. If this be so, no Witches
  convicted ought to escape the sword of the Magistrate; for they are
  the most notorious seducers of all others.

Perkins examines several objections to this line of thinking:

  the hurt that is done, comes not from the Witch, but from the devil;
  he deserves the blame because it is his work

Perkins replies to this objection with an analogy: the devil and witches are like robbers in a conspiracy. The devil is the head of the conspiracy and the chief actor, but the witches are still guilty.

Another objection:

  Witches convicted either repent, or repent not: If they repent, then
  God pardoneth their sin, why should not the Magistrate as well save
  their bodies, and let them live, as God doth their soules. If they do
  not repent, then it is a dangerous thing for the Magistrate to put
  them to death: for by this means he kills the body, and casts the soul
  to hell.

To this he replies, "the Magistrate must execute justice upon malefactors lawfully convicted, whether they repent or not," but he adds that if they repent it is "possible for them to be saved by God's mercy."

Perkins concludes by saying, among other things:

  By the laws of England the thief is executed for stealing, and we
  thinke it just and profitable; but it were a thousand times better for
  the land, if all witches, but especially the blessing Witch might
  suffer death. For the thief by his stealing, and the hurtful
  Enchanter by charming, bring hinderance and hurt to the bodies and
  goods of men; but these are the right hand of the Devil, by which he
  taketh and destroyeth the souls of men.

For some reason, dear reader, I have a feeling you're not convinced by Matthew Henry or William Perkins. Yes, their argumentation does not seem sound to our modern ears. With the benefit of hindsight we know what tragic and grave errors these men made.

However, C. S. Lewis believed that the main reason we're so repulsed by witch executions is simply that we don't believe in witches anymore, and that, if we did, we wouldn't see a problem with their execution so long as adequate evidence was presented (Mere Christianity, Chapter 2):

  One man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were
  putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human
  Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute
  witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did –
  if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold
  themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in
  return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive
  them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if
  anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did.
  There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is
  simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge
  not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing
  them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man
  humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed
  there were no mice in the house.


Are there any verses showing God being fooled or deceived?

In standard Christian theology, God is described as omniscient, or all-knowing (by major theologians such as St Aquinas).  This is incompatible with being deceived.  Accordingly we would not interpret any passage in the Bible as implying God was deceived, unless we wished to discard this core belief.


What is the status of the New Testament in the LDS teachings?

The New Testament, though not viewed as the cornerstone of the LDS Doctrine or church, is the foremost authoritative document on the mortal life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ as well as the ministry of the Apostles in teaching the young church how to live the new or "Higher" law as taught by Jesus Christ. Speaking of the New Testament, the late Elder L. Tom Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said this:

  "This sacred volume is the centerpiece of scriptural history, just as the Savior Himself should be the centerpiece of our lives. We must commit ourselves to study it and treasure it!" (The Sabbath and the Sacrament, May 2011 Ensign, 6)

ShemSeger is correct in that the translation is, at times, called into question and the Joseph Smith Translation was created to clarify the mistranslations, but that, by itself, is not the status of the New Testament in LDS Doctrine. The Joseph Smith Translation only serves as a study tool and does not replace the New Testament.

As you look at the teachings of the leaders of the church in General Conference, modern revelation and their own published doctrinal books, you'll see that they are all consistent with this status.

As Examples of published doctrinal books, Jesus the Christ By James E. Talmadge and Bruce R. McConkie's Messiah Series (consisting of The Promised Messiah, four volumes of The Mortal Messiah, and The Millennial Messiah)

It is the when the other books of scripture are read through the lens of the New Testament that we begin to understand the fullness of the Nature and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament's main role is prophesying that Christ will come and atone for the sins of the world (Luke 24:44; John 5:39) and the Book of Mormon's main purpose is to act as a second witness and testament of Christ's divinity and mission and testifying to the validity of the Bible, both Old and New Testament (Mormon 7:9). When the prophecies and doctrines pertaining to Christ in these two other books of scripture are viewed through this lens of the New Testament, it helps us understand more of Christ's mission and ministry, but they, standing alone, are not enough and are not able to fulfill their mission without the New Testament's existence.

The coordination of these was mentioned by Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in April of 2007:

  "The Book of Mormon does not dilute nor diminish nor de-emphasize the Bible. On the contrary, it expands, extends, and exalts it. The Book of Mormon testifies of the Bible, and both testify of Christ.
  The first testament of Christ is the Bible’s Old Testament, which predicted and prophesied of the coming of the Savior, His transcendent life, and His liberating Atonement.
  The second Bible testament of Christ is the New Testament, which records His birth, His life, His ministry, His gospel, His Church, His Atonement, and His Resurrection, as well as the testimonies of His Apostles.
  The third testament of Christ is the Book of Mormon, which also foretells Christ’s coming, confirms the Bible’s account of His saving Atonement, and then reveals the resurrected Lord’s visit to the earth’s other hemisphere. The subtitle of the Book of Mormon, the clarifying purpose statement printed on the cover of every copy, is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”
  Each of these three testaments is a part of the great, indivisible whole of the Lord’s revealed word to His children. They contain the words of Christ, which we have been admonished to feast upon as a means of qualifying for eternal life (see 2 Nephi 31:20)." ("The Miracle of the Bible", Ensign, May 2007)


Does the Catholic Church have any guidelines as to what is the ideal age to start dating?

No. There are only official guidelines for marriage: by the Code of Canon Law (book VI, can 1083)

  A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.
  The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.

Anyway, local churches often follow civil laws for the age of marriage (18 y.o. in most of Europe)


In LDS, how are 'milk' doctrines distinguished from 'meat' doctrines?

Great question. As far as I know there is not a definitive list separating the two types of teachings. But perhaps a good reference point is those who first introduce non-members to the teachings of the Church: the missionaries.

LDS missionaries start by teaching people the plain and basic doctrine of the gospel. Every lesson is custom-tailored to each individual based on their needs. See, if they're teaching a scholar of the Bible in the US south, the discussion of the Restoration or the Plan of Salvation goes very differently than if they are teaching someone in India who may have never heard of Jesus Christ.

The Bible scholar would not be impressed by being taught about why scriptures are valuable and that we should read them every day. But that might be the very thing that a family in India needs to learn in order to grow their faith. So the missionaries might focus more on the need for a Restoration and the blessings of ordinances of exaltation to the scholar, and on the basic commandments and nature of God to the family in India, for example.

So what is milk to one individual is meat to another.

When missionaries introduce the Book of Mormon to someone, that is enough to overwhelm them: a whole other book of scripture comparable and equal to the Bible in its canonical authority; essentially the bible of the New World? Wow. Because of this milk/meat thing, missionaries typically do not also introduce the Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price at the same time.

As another example, the Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi 13 discusses the discovery of America by the Gentiles in the centuries following the dark ages. This is a very cool vision that strengthens the testimonies of long-time members of the Church who are accustomed to the basic doctrines, but this is often irrelevant to new investigators of the Church. Teaching this too early can easily come across as too fanatical or dramatic, as it discusses in detail the transfer of the Bible to the New World, the American revolutionary war and how the Spirit was with them, and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon shortly thereafter. Those who still need "milk" teachings should be focusing their study on faith, repentance, baptismal covenants, keeping the commandments, etc. (Not that veteran members shouldn't -- but I mean it's like a ladder, you can still go back down to the basics, but you can't start at the top and expect it to make sense.)

Gotta learn arithmetic before you can understand calculus. This is why the ordinances of the LDS church are progressive: baptism & confirmation, young men receiving the Aaronic Priesthood and adult men the Melchizedek Priesthood, then eventually, when they are ready, Mormons receive further ordinances in temples which teach even more celestial truths. But the temple is like the Lord's university: although the gospel is simple enough for a child to understand, the teaching style in temple ordinances is appreciated by more prepared individuals who have already gone to "grade school" so to speak.


Is it true that Martin Luther never considered the works of the early Church Fathers?

No, it is not true. Luther was widely read in many works of theology and church history and and if you take into consideration his commentary on various church Fathers and the merit or  issues with their theology it is ridiculous to make such a claim.

It is true that he was sometimes critical of their works, but he clearly used them in his own studies. Sometimes he made favorable remarks about things that he had learned from them. For example he seems to have prefered Epiphanius over Jerome:

  Epiphanius compiled a history of the church long before Jerome; his writings are good and profitable, and, if separated from dissentious agruments, worth printing. -- Martin Luther

In Augustine's writings he seems to have found a friend and ally:

  Augustine was the ablest and purest of all the doctors, but he could not of himself bring back things to their original condition, and he often complains that the bishops, with their traditions and ordinances, troubled the church more than did the Jews with their laws. -- Martin Luther

However he didn't seem to think too highly of Chrysostom:

  I will not presume to criticize too closely the writings of the Fathers, seeing they are received at the church, and have great applause, for then I should be held an apostate; but whoso reads Chrysostom, will find he digresses from the chief points, and proceeds to other matter, saying nothing, or very little, of what pertains to the business. When I was expounding the Epistle to the Hebrews, and turned to what Chrysostom had written thereupon, I found nothing to the purpose; yet I believe that he at that time, as being the chief rhetorician, had many hearers, though he taught without profit; for the chief office of a preacher is to teach uprightly, and diligently to look to the chief points and grounds whereon he stands, and so instruct and teach the hearers that they understand aright, and may be able to say: this is well taught. When this is done, he may avail himself of rhetoric to adorn his subject and admonish the people. -- Martin Luther

For further study you could check out the book The Table Talk of Martin Luther, a collection of misc writings by Martin Luther that includes lots of mentions of works he read and either profited from or objected to.

  We must read the Fathers cautiously, and lay them in the gold balance, for they often stumbled and went astray, and mingled in their books many monkish things. Augustine had more work and labor, to wind himself out of the Father’s writings, then he had with the heretics. Gregory expounds the five pounds mentioned in the Gospel, which the husbandman gave to his servants to put to use, to be the five senses, which the beasts also possess. The two pounds, he construes to be the reason and understanding. -- Martin Luther


Angelology: Can Archangels Have More Than 1 Set of Wings?

I was completely unaware that Archangels only have one set (one pair) of wings.  Where in the Bible does it say that?  As for Seraphim, the Bible informs us that they have three pairs of wings:

NLT Isaiah 6:2: Attending him were mighty seraphim, each having six wings. With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew.

As for the mighty cherubim, the Bible does not mention multiple pairs of wings:

NLT Genesis 3:23-24: So the Lord God banished them from the Garden of Eden, and he sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made. After sending them out, the Lord God stationed mighty cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden. And he placed a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
NLT Exodus 25:17-22: Then make the Ark’s cover—the place of atonement—from pure gold. It must be 45 inches long and 27 inches wide. Then make two cherubim from hammered gold, and place them on the two ends of the atonement cover. Mold the cherubim on each end of the atonement cover, making it all of one piece of gold. The cherubim will face each other and look down on the atonement cover. With their wings spread above it, they will protect it. Place inside the Ark the stone tablets inscribed with the terms of the covenant, which I will give to you. Then put the atonement cover on top of the Ark. I will meet with you there and talk to you from above the atonement cover between the gold cherubim that hover over the Ark of the Covenant. From there I will give you my commands for the people of Israel.

Another biblical reference to a mighty angelic guardian (NLT) or a guardian cherub (NIV and ESV) or anointed cherub (KJV and YLT) is found in Ezekiel 28:14, but no mention is made of wings.
Regardless of how many pairs of wings the various angelic spirt creatures have, if the Bible doesn’t say then you can be sure we do not need to know.  What is important is their function:

Holy angels fall into special classes, and certain individuals are named and mentioned. Michael the archangel is likely the head of all the holy angels, and his name means "who is like unto God?" (Daniel 10:21; 12:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 1:9; Revelation 12:7-10) Gabriel is one of the principal messengers of God, his name meaning "hero of God," and was entrusted with important messages such as those delivered to Daniel (Daniel 8:16; 9:21), to Zechariah (Luke 1:18-19), and to Mary (Luke 1:26-38). Most holy angels are not named in the Bible but are described only as "elect angels" (1 Timothy 5:21). The expressions "principalities" and "powers" seem to be used of all angels whether fallen or holy (Luke 21:26; Romans 8:38; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; Colossians 1:16; 2:10, 15; 1 Peter 3:22). Some angels are designated as "cherubim," which are living creatures who defend God's holiness from any defilement of sin (Genesis 3:24; Exodus 25:18, 20). "Seraphim" are another class of angels, mentioned only once in Scripture in Isaiah 6:2-7, and are described as having three pairs of wings. They apparently have the function of praising God, being God's messengers to earth, and are especially concerned with the holiness of God. - What are the different types of angels?

Furthermore, human attempts to depict the holy angels will never come close to reality.


This is an awfully big question, but here are what I think are the key points from scripture:

Prayer is more than just asking for things.  Tom Duckering's answer does a good job outlining this, but to gloss it again, prayer is communication with God which involves both talking to God and listening to him.  As our primary form of communication with God, it reinforces in us our relationship with him in all its forms.
Prayer does include asking for specific outcomes.  There are far too many examples to ignore: Abraham conversing with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, David pleading for Bathsheba's son, Hannah praying for a child, even Jesus praying that the cup be taken from him.  God wants us to ask for things, even though he doesn't always give us what we ask for.
(Here's where it gets a bit controversial) God can and does "change his mind"†.  My favorite example of this is Exodus 32, the story of the Golden Calf. Briefly, God tells Moses he is going to destroy the Israelites, but relents when Moses pleads with him not to. This is the classic definition of intercession: Moses stands between Israel and God and intervenes on their behalf.

This seems counter-intuitive, but God makes it quite clear that he wants people to intercede with him.  See Ezekiel 22:30:

  I looked for someone among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found no one. (Ezekiel 22:30 NIV)

This verse makes explicit what lots of stories in the Old Testament imply: God actively seeks people who will intercede with him.  So in the story of Golden Calf, it seems quite likely that God went to Moses hoping that Moses would react the way that he did.  Why?  Because as long as Moses was faithful there was still hope for Israel, and the rest of the story bears this out as Moses goes down to the camp and restores order.

The important point here is that God does not change, we do.  If Moses responds with apathy, then Israel is lost and the best that God can do is show his righteous wrath by destroying them.  But because Moses responds with prayer, God can take the better path of using Moses to lead them back to him.

What about times when we intercede but we have no actual control over the situation, like praying for healing?  Our prayers affect what God does because our involvement changes the picture from God's perspective.  If we are indifferent and don't bother praying, then what he does will not have any great effect on us.  But if we are deeply involved in prayer, then our hearts are on the line.  If God comes through, we will be affected and we will give the glory to God.  Our prayers, then, factor into God's decision of what he will do, and maybe, just maybe, our involvement will be enough to tip the balance.

If none of this made any sense, here's at least a great C. S. Lewis quote on the topic:

  "Praying for particular things," said I, "always seems to me like
  advising God how to run the world. Wouldn't it be wiser to assume
  that He knows best?"

  "On the same principle", said he, "I suppose you
  never ask a man next to you to pass the salt, because God knows best
  whether you ought to have salt or not. And I suppose you never take an
  umbrella, because God knows whether you ought to be wet or dry."

  "That's quite different," I protested.

  "I don't see why," said he. "The odd thing is that He should let us influence the course of events
  at all. But since he lets us do it in one way I don't see why He
  shouldn't let us do it in the other."

  (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock)

† God "changes his mind" perhaps only from our perspective inside of time.  God actually seems to exist outside of time entirely, and so perceives all points in time simultaneously.  It's hard to understand this without time words, but before (a time word!) the creation of the world God sees everything that will happen, and writes his entire plan around what he knows that we will do.


Does Numbers 5:11-22 describe sanctioned abortion?

It is not about abortion, it's about Jealousy and the Lord acting as a witness in trials that otherwise had none.

Note that the NIV is the only translation to use the word 'miscarriage' (see Numbers 5:22 in parallel to 18 other translations). The translators interpret 'Your thigh to rot' and 'to rot [your] thigh' as 'miscarriage'. Whereas the Hebrew for 'thigh', יָרֵ֑ךְ (yā·rêḵ), is translated elsewhere in the NIV Bible as 'side'.

  "Gird your sword on your side, you mighty one; clothe yourself with
  splendor and majesty." (Psalm 45:3 NIV)

And the Hebrew for 'to rot', or 'waste away', נֹפֶ֥לֶת (nō·p̄e·leṯ), is translated elsewhere in the NIV as 'to fall down' (see Judges 19:27 NIV) Similarly, only a couple of translations even translate בֶּ֖טֶן (be·ṭen) and בִּטְנֵ֖ךְ (biṭ·nêḵ) as 'womb'. The rest use 'belly' or 'abdomen'.

Interpreting these scriptures to mean abortion is isolated to the questionable translation given in the NIV.

The section copied below does a really good job of explaining these verses (source link included).

Numbers 5:11–31. The Trial of Jealousy

This law for determining the guilt or innocence of an adulterer is puzzling in many respects. At first it seems heavily biased against the woman for there is no similar requirement for the man. A close examination of the law will show what was involved in it and why the Lord revealed it.

“The rabbins who have commented on this text give us the following information: When any man, prompted by the spirit of jealousy, suspected his wife to have committed adultery, he brought her first before the judges, and accused her of the crime; but as she asserted her innocency, and refused to acknowledge herself guilty, and as he had no witnesses to produce, he required that she be sentenced to drink the waters of bitterness which the law had appointed; that God, by this means, might discover what she wished to conceal. After the judges had heard the accusation and the denial, the man and his wife were both sent to Jerusalem, to appear before the Sanhedrin, who were the sole judges in such matters. The rabbins say that the judges of the Sanhedrin, at first endeavoured with threatenings to confound the woman, and cause her to confess her crime; when she still persisted in her innocence, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel, where she was stripped of the clothes she wore, and dressed in black before a number of persons of her own sex. The priest then told her that if she knew herself to be innocent she had no evil to apprehend; but if she were guilty, she might expect to suffer all that the law threatened; to which she answered, Amen, amen.

“The priest then wrote the words of the law upon a piece of vellum, with ink that had no vitriol in it, that it might be the more easily blotted out. The words written on the vellum were, according to the rabbins, the following:—‘If a strange man have not come near thee, and thou art not polluted by forsaking the bed of thy husband, these bitter waters which I have cursed will not hurt thee: but if thou have gone astray from thy husband, and have polluted thyself by coming near to another man, may thou be accursed of the Lord, and become an example for all his people; may thy thigh rot, and thy belly swell till it burst! may these cursed waters enter into thy belly, and, being swelled therewith, may thy thigh putrefy!’

“After this the priest took a new pitcher, filled it with water out of the brazen bason that was near the altar of burnt-offering, cast some dust into it taken from the pavement of the temple, mingled something bitter, as wormwood, with it, and having read the curses above mentioned to the woman, and received her answer of Amen, he scraped off the curses from the vellum into the pitcher of water. During this time another priest tore her clothes as low as her bosom, made her head bare, untied the tresses of her hair, fastened her torn clothes with a girdle below her breasts, and presented her with the tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints of barley-meal, which was in a frying pan, without oil or incense.

“The other priest, who had prepared the waters of jealousy, then gave them to be drank by the accused person, and as soon as she had swallowed them, he put the pan with the meal in it into her hand. This was waved before the Lord, and a part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the woman was innocent, she returned with her husband; and the waters, instead of incommoding her, made her more healthy and fruitful than ever: if on the contrary she were guilty, she was seen immediately to grow pale, her eyes started out of her head, and, lest the temple should be defiled with her death, she was carried out, and died instantly with all the ignominious circumstances related in the curses.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:634.)

Several points should be noted.

Although this ritual focused on the woman, it in no way implied that men who committed adultery were to be excused, for the law clearly stated that adulterers of both sexes were to be stoned (see Leviticus 20:10).
In a way, the law provided protection of two different kinds for a woman. First, without this law it is possible that a husband could unjustly accuse his wife of infidelity. If his word alone were sufficient to convict her, she would be in a terrible state indeed. Putting the determination of guilt or innocence into the hands of God rather than into the hands of her husband, or even other men, ensured that she could vindicate herself if she were innocent.
The second positive benefit is more subtle but probably is of even greater value. If a husband suspected his wife of adultery, one result would be a terrible strain in the husband-wife relationship. In today’s legal system, with no witnesses to prove her guilt, the court would probably declare her not guilty. But the basis for her acquittal would be a lack of positive evidence of her guilt rather than proof of her innocence. Such a legal declaration, therefore, would do little to alleviate the doubts of the husband and the estrangement would likely continue. Neighbors and friends also would probably harbor lingering suspicions about her innocence. With the trial of jealousy, however, dramatic proof of God’s declaration of her innocence would be irrefutable. The reputation of the woman would be saved and a marriage relationship healed. Thus, true justice and mercy were assured, and the whole matter would be laid promptly to rest.
Those who ask why there was no parallel test a woman could ask of her husband should remember that if the accused woman refused to undergo the trial by drinking the water, her action was considered a confession of guilt. Thus, she and her partner in the evil act would be put to death (see Leviticus 20:10). If she attempted to lie and pass the test, but brought the curses upon herself, this result too was considered proof of the guilt of her male partner. It is possible that a wife who believed her husband guilty of infidelity could ask that his suspected partner be put to the trial of jealousy. The outcome would immediately establish the guilt or innocence of her husband as well as that of the other woman.
Thus, in a world where the rights of women were often abused, the Lord provided a means for protecting their rights as well as seeing that evil was put away and justice done.

Thus, in a world where the rights of women were often abused, the Lord provided a means for protecting their rights as well as seeing that evil was put away and justice done.

Source: Old Testament Student Manual Genesis-2 Samuel, (1980), 196–202: Numbers 1–12: Wilderness Wanderings, Part 1, (section 17-10: Numbers 5:11–31. The Trial of Jealousy)


Old Roman Catholic Bibles having indulgence charts?

I would imagine that the Orthodox priest, his interlocutor, or both, misinterpreted what they were seeing.

As you know, the Church has a concept of "partial indulgence", historically often associated with a specific amount of time. The intention, as I understand it, is that gaining the indulgence corresponds not to that amount of time off Purgatory, but to a remission equivalent to what one would get from performing "old-school" penance for that duration. In effect, the counts in days and years are units of measure of the penance that is being done, not the results. I have also seen indulgence lists where the measure was given not in terms of time, but something like "all the remissions one would gain if one were to make a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Genericus in Exampleton".

Lists of indulgences have been published for a long time. There are books that reproduce every prayer, etc., in full detail. I have also seen leaflets and prayer cards which give very abbreviated reminders, like "Benedictus qui venit - 500 days". The big books will obviously include much more explanation of the doctrine. If summaries of this kind were printed in a Bible, or a devotional book other than a Bible, in early 1900s Ireland, I'd assume that such a book would only be produced with the nihil obstat and imprimatur of the local bishop. That approval would certainly be required from the perspective of the Church, and anyone producing a book for Catholics in Ireland would be pretty motivated to follow the rules. I don't know what process is required for more ephemeral materials, but in that case it's certainly more likely that someone would just print the thing on their own account.

Therefore, I think that any official list of this kind would not be intended to refer to "time off Purgatory". That does not stop it being read that way, especially if it's one of the highly abbreviated reminder lists. I imagine that this sort of confusion lies behind the abolition of temporal measures for partial indulgences (Paul VI, Indulgentiarum Doctrina, 1967; section 12 and norm 5).

In this case, I suspect that the "list" may not have been an actual list, but just a reproduction of the specific indulgences related to the reading of Scripture. I have found a few Catholic Bibles on Google Books which include this text; for example, a 1914 Douay-Rheims Bible from the USA. After the approbations by three American cardinals, and before the preface and table of contents, there is a single page with the following text:

  An indulgence of three hundred days is granted to all the Faithful who read the Holy Gospels at least a quarter of an hour. A Plenary Indulgence under the usual conditions is granted once a month for the daily reading. 13 December, 1898. LEO XIII.

This reference must be to the edition of Enchiridion indulgentiarum, the official indulgence manual, published on that date. There is no further explanation of the doctrine of indulgences, the "usual conditions", and so forth. It is followed by a 1778 letter of Pius VI commending the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue, and a suggested prayer for the reading of Scripture.

It seems quite likely to me that the Bible in question was one like this, and the reference to "three hundred days" - in the absence of any text explaining the doctrine - was misinterpreted by the readers.


What is the case against seeing the Medieval Catholic Church as oppressive?

I think, as is often the case, that in some times and places, the Church was co-opted by the Aristocracy. While the Church certainly had a vested interest in promoting learning, the Aristocracy did not. After all, Scripture is a revolutionary thing, and if the working classes (peasantry) became to well versed in exactly what the Bible teaches, they might be harder to control, and indeed even revolt. And given that the hierarchy of the medieval Church was often drawn from the Aristocracy, the notion that at least some elements in the Catholic church were oppressive, and attempted to keep some of the people from being educated, is at least a question worth pursuing. This is not to suggest, by the way, that all members of the Hierarchy of the church felt this way, but unquestionably some did.

On the other hand, the church did not always side with the aristocracy. In the New World, for example, the aristocracy as a whole sought from Rome a decree that the native peoples that they found here were not rational beings, as this would allow the locals to be put into slavery. However, the church refused, to the consternation of some of the Aristocracy in the new world.

I think this is yet another instance where the answer does not lie at either extreme, but somewhere in the middle. I would say, that in the long term, yes the Church did promote learning, and preserve the body of knowledge. However, in some times and in some places, it was less noble in this regard than in others.


From where do Jehovah's Witnesses derive the doctrine that Jesus was and now is Michael the Archangel?

Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) take Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1 to equate Michael to Christ.  They believe that since it refers to Michael as "one of the foremost princes", and,

"Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people."

They also interpret "stand up" to be mean "take control and reign as king." From their book Your Will Be Done On Earth,

"the Michael that stands up as the 'great prince' to fulfill Daniel 12:1 is the Lord Jesus Christ at God's right hand."

Additionally, they cite 1 Thessalonians 4:16,

"The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."

They argue that it is the Lord Himself who issues forth the commanding call as the archangel, from Aid to Bible Understanding,

"Michael is the only one said to be the 'archangel', meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel'.  The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular.  This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief or head of the angelic host.  At 1 Thessalonians 4:15 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel."

Because of this, they interpret Christ's identity, both pre-incarnation and post-incarnation, to be the archangel Michael.
Their book Reasoning From the Scriptures, under section 'Jesus Christ', and "Is Jesus Christ the same person as Michael the archangel?", cite the above as well, and also add:

"Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ.  Jesus is latter depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as "ruler of this world," Satan the Devil? (John 12:31) Daniel 12:1 associates the 'standing up of Michael' to act with authority with "a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time."  That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them.  So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God."

This question from a Watchtower reader and the answer provides further explanation.


According to Trinitarian belief how is Isaiah 48:16 interpreted?

The New American Standard Bible Updated Edition seems to assume that Isaiah 48:16 is speaking of the Triune God, in that the words Me and Spirit are capitalized. Not so the NET Bible, however, which does not capitalize either word.
The reason for the NET's approach to the verse is that the NET's translators are perhaps thinking of a man, an earthly king known as Cyrus the Great, who would be an instrument in the hand of the Lord God to defeat the Chaldeans/Babylonians who had held Israel in captivity for 70 years.

"Approach me! Listen to this!
From the very first I have not spoken in secret;
when it happens, I am there.”
So now, the sovereign Lord has sent me, accompanied by his spirit."

In Ezra, chapter 1, we read the following:

"In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order to fulfill the Lord’s message  spoken through Jeremiah, the Lord stirred the mind [the Hebrew noun רוּחַ, ruakh, or spirit] of King Cyrus of Persia. He disseminated a proclamation throughout his entire kingdom, announcing in a written edict the following: 'Thus says King Cyrus of Persia:
The Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth. He has instructed me to build a temple for him in Jerusalem, which is in Judah'" (vv.1-2a NET).

Notice who stirred up King Cyrus's mind (or spirit): the LORD. Proverbs 21:1 tells us that

"The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD ; He turns it wherever He wishes."

In other words, God's wish is the king's command, so Cyrus declared that the Jewish exiles in Babylon were free to return to Judah to rebuild the House of God in Jerusalem, and Cyrus even provided the financing to make the trip and the building project possible! Moreover, Ezra tells us,

"Then the leaders of Judah and Benjamin, along with the priests and the Levites--all those whose mind God had stirred--got ready to go up in order to build the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem" (1:5).

In conclusion, then, God stirred the spirit of a king and he stirred the mind of his chosen ones, his leaders of the Judahites and Benjamites to accomplish his purposes and plan. Very likely Isaiah 48:16 does not contribute to the teaching of the Scripture on the triune nature of God, but it does tell us that the LORD is sovereignly in charge of the affairs of men, and in particular "his people" (see Ezra 1:3).


What are the differences/connections between the Churches of Christ and the Congregational Churches?

Congregationalist churches are of the Protestant Reformed tradition, and go way back to the English Civil War when the King tried to gain control over the governance of the Church.  Back in the mid 1600’s, Puritans resisted the influence of the Church of England and broke away.  By the early 1800’s, the Congregational Church had established itself in America with its own form of governance, with a strong emphasis on the autonomy of the local church, and tolerance of doctrinal variations.  In 1957, the Evangelical Reformed Church merged with the Congregational Christian Churches to become the United Church of Christ.  The Conservative Congregational Christian Conference was formed in 1948 in opposition to the liberal theology making inroads in other Congregational churches.  Then, in 1955, the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches was formed.

More information on the history of Congregationalism here: https://www.gotquestions.org/congregationalism.html

The Churches of Christ came out of the Restoration Movement:

  The Restoration Movement began in the early 19th century...  Among the most influential leaders of this movement were Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone.  Although the fundamental views remained, in 1906 this group split. The followers of Campbell and Stone divided into two sects, called the Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental) and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Over time many additional schisms have formed from these core groups as well. Currently there are three major and several minor groups who trace their roots back to the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement: the Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, Churches of Christ in Australia, Associated Churches of Christ (New Zealand), United Reformed Church (UK), and others...  Although a key principle of the Restoration Movement is concern for Christian unity, the history of the movement is itself riddled with numerous splits, re-splits and schisms.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Restoration-movement.html

Perhaps the most significant difference between the beliefs of Congregationalists and the Churches of Christ is the view of the latter that baptism by full water immersion (for consenting adults only) is a requirement for salvation. Equally worrying is the view that a person must continue to strive to maintain their salvation by doing works.  Insisting that the use of music in worship is unbiblical almost certainly won’t affect anybody’s salvation, but it should be of concern that any religious group would be so dogmatic.  Even the Free Church of Scotland has now conceded on that one!  The article in the link below came to this conclusion:

  Many Church of Christ churches are in fact solid, biblically based churches. There are many Church of Christ churches which declare the true Gospel of salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. At the same time, with an extreme over-emphasis on the absence of musical instruments, with a claim of exclusive access to salvation, and with a doctrine of salvation that is borderline (at best) works-based, there are other Church of Christ churches that should definitely not be attended / participated in. This requires discernment on the part of a believer considering joining a Church of Christ church. The answer to the question depends entirely on which type of Church of Christ church it is.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Church-of-Christ.html

I hope this information will help you in your research into the differences and connections between the two groups.