How many authors wrote the Old and New Testament?

I think it’s like this: 32 Old Testament and 8 New Testament

old testament

1   Moses
    2   Joshua
    3   Samuel
    4   Ezra
    5   Jeremiah
    6   Nehemiah
    7   Mordecai
    8   Author of Job
    9   Sons of Korah
    10  Asaph
    11  Heman
    12  Ethan
    13  Hezekiah
    14  David
    15  Solomon
    16  Agur
    17  Lemuel
    18  Isaiah
    19  Ezekiel
    20  Daniel
    21  Hosea
    22  Joel
    23  Amos
    24  Obadiah
    25  Jonah
    26  Micah
    27  Nahum
    28  Habakkuk
    29  Zephaniah
    30  Haggai
    31  Zechariah
    32  Malachi

New Testament

1   Matthew
    2   John
    3   Mark
    4   Luke
    5   Paul
    6   James
    7   Peter
    8   Jude


Are there any specific food / slaughter / butchery / preparation rites in Christianity?

Not sure how definitive an answer I can provide to this question, but thought I'd contribute a few thoughts that came to mind.

The "law," or "law of Moses," was codified by the Rabbi's in ancient times into the mitzvot, a collection of 613 laws compiled from a close reading of the Pentateuch.

The mitzvot consists of "positive" (ie "do this") and "negative" ("do not do this") requirements, and is traditionally divided into three basic categories:

The "ceremonial law"
The "judicial law"
The "moral law"

Christians, believing that Christ is the "fulfillment of the law," believe that his atonement rendered the ceremonial and dietary laws void. Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-15 is sometimes offered as a proof that the Old Testament dietary law does not apply to Christians.

(Note that the requirements in the "moral law" category still apply, because, AFAIK, they are consistent with -- and, essentially, the basis for -- Christ's teachings about how to love others).
Edit: A link to the mitzvot follows -- however, please note that I am no scholar of Judaism, and I don't know if the site is credible or not. It's apparently a personal project maintained by a Tracey R. Rich, and is currently ranked fourth for a Google search of "mitzvot." "Judaism 101" link. Their list uses a different set of classifications, which the page says was created by the site's editor. Some examples of the Jewish dietary laws can be found in items 143-169.
< /edit >
1 Corinthians 10 is also germane to the question; see v. 14-31, esp. v. 25-30. In 1Cor 10, Paul emphasizes that what's important to God is Christians' love for one another, rather than their legalistic compliance with things like dietary requirements. See v. 28-30. This is consistent with the Christian concept of God's grace, and its priority over legalism. The section headings in the NIV translation are helpful in this chapter.
Also, in Acts 15, Luke quotes James as elaborating the requirements that would apply to Gentiles who wanted to join the church. In verse 20, he says that they are not to eat meat from animals that had been strangled, and they are not to drink blood. I think I recall hearing at some point that strangulation of animals was a common practice in pagan ceremonies of the time, and that the overwhelming majority of the meat that could be purchased in the market in cities like Corinth had been slaughtered in such ceremonies.
I wish I had some references to good commentaries to substantiate more of this response for you, but I'm a bit out of my depth here. And I'm not familiar with the teachings & traditions of the Eastern Orthodox church, so I can't address that element. FWIW, I hope this response provides something of a starting point for further inquiry. Cheers.
Edit: Also useful here is Paul's discussion of vegetarianism in Romans 14.
Edit: Here are a few related Christianity.SE questions:

Does Christianity have any dietary guidelines?
Did the ancient Hebrews believe that blood had unique spiritual properties?
Have the dietary prohibitions of Acts 15:20 been applied to Christians today?


From where did Mary get the attribution of "Full of Grace"?

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you," is an appropriate translation of the Greek at Luke 1:28, which reads

  και εισελθων ο αγγελος προς αυτην ειπεν χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη ο κυριος μετα σου ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν.

(Scrivener 1894 Greek NT)

The key phrase in that passage is "Chaîre, kecharitōménē, ho Kýrios metà soû." (NOTE: I am transliterating the Greek to its English equivalent.) Kecharitōménē is a hapax legomenon (literally a word or phrase that is "expressed once" in all known Greek literature).

Kecharitōménē is the verb χαριτόω (charitóō) rendered in the perfect participle passive. In researching the word, I learned that the perfect participle passive describes a state that exists at the time coincident with that of the leading verb as a result of action completed prior to the time of the main verb. See, http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson34.htm. Thus, one could translate "Chaîre, kecharitōménē, ho Kýrios metà soû" in English as "Rejoice, you who have been, and are, filled with grace, the Lord is with you." "Grace" here would refer to God's grace of salvation.

This word is important in understanding Catholic doctrine and dogma related to Mary. Reading this passage in the four senses of Scripture [literal, allegorical, moral (aka tropological), and anagogical] gives some good insights into the thinking leading to the Catholic Marian doctrines.


If Adam is an allegorical character, which Bible character in messianic genealogy is the first real human?

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), whose teachings are accepted in the various "New Church" or Swedenborgian denominations, stated that all of the early stories of Genesis up to the point of Eber in Genesis 11:14-16 are purely symbolic.
In the introduction to his interpretation of Genesis 11 he states:

The historical events mentioned up to now, apart from those concerning Eber, are not true but made-up. This can be be seen from the details given in this chapter concerning the tower of Babel.  (Arcana Coelestia #1283)

Elsewhere in the same work he makes several similar statements:

From here [Genesis 5:1] down to Eber in chapter 11 the names used nowhere mean actual persons, but real things. (Arcana Coelestia #470)
Everything put together as history from Genesis 1 down to Eber in chapter 11 means something different from what appears in the literal meaning, and . . . the historical narratives there are purely made-up history, which was customary among the most ancient people. (Arcana Coelestia #1020)
This chapter [Genesis 10], and the next as far as Eber, continue the most ancient style . . . The names in this chapter, apart from Eber and his descendants, are used to mean just so many nations - just so many nations as constituted the Ancient Church, a Church that was spread abroad widely throughout areas surrounding the land of Canaan. (Arcana Coelestia #1140)
From Genesis 1 down to this point [Genesis 12:1], or rather, down to Eber, the narratives have not consisted of true history but of made-up history, which in the internal sense meant things that are heavenly and spiritual. In this and subsequent chapters, however, they are not made-up but true historical narratives, which in the internal sense in like manner mean things that are heavenly and spiritual. This may become clear to anyone simply from the consideration that it is the Word of the Lord. (Arcana Coelestia #1403)

Swedenborg, like many other commentators, saw Eber as the father of the Hebrew nation:

These [the sons of Joktan listed in Genesis 10:26-29] were just so many nations consisting of the families of Eber. This becomes clear from their condition at that time. As stated already, in the most ancient times nations lived distinguished into separate families, and families into houses. Each nation recognized one father from whom it took its name. When the sons of one father multiplied, they in a similar way constituted houses, families, and nations, and so on; as did those who were the sons of Joktan. This becomes clear from the sons of Jacob who at a later time when they multiplied constituted tribes, each one of which recognized as its father, and took its name from, one of the sons of Jacob. But taken all together they were descended from Jacob, and were called Jacob. In the same way these nations were descended from Eber and were called the Hebrews. (Arcana Coelestia #1246, italics added)

Though Swedenborg considered Eber to be the first real, non-symbolic person in the Bible, from there to Terah, Abraham's father, there is only a genealogy, with no stories attached to the names. Terah's story is told in Genesis 11:24-32. By the time the stories of Abraham begin in Genesis 12, the style of the Biblical narrative has shifted decisively from its earlier mythical and symbolic style to a much more historical style.
Because of all of this, present-day Swedenborgians generally consider real, non-symbolic (non-allegorical) people to start somewhere between Eber and Abraham.
However, I should add that even after that point, Swedenborg and Swedenborgians still consider the Bible narrative to have a symbolic, spiritual meaning. And many present-day Swedenborgians do not think it is necessary to insist that the events described in the Bible from Genesis 12 onward took place historically exactly as described in the Bible narrative.


What is the basis for the belief that the wise men did not arrive in Bethlehem until several months after the birth of Jesus?

That the wise men did not arrive until Jesus was a child and no longer an infant is derived from several Scriptures, particularly in Matthew.
Matthew chapter 2: KJV

8  And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
9  When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
11  And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
13  And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14  When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

In these Scriptures Jesus is referred to as a child and not a babe. In the following scripture is where it is thought that Jesus was at least a year old and maybe as old as two when the Wise men arrived.
Mat 2:16  KJV

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

Even though this is not definitive it is a pretty strong argument that Jesus was no longer a babe.


Why aren't the two greatest commandments part of the Decalogue?

Jesus had a way of calling attention to that which underpinned the Law as the Jews were accustomed to viewing it.  For instance:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. - Matthew 5:21-22

The letter (of the Law/Old Covenant) kills but the spirit (of the Law/New Covenant) gives life:

Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. - 2 Corinthians 3:5-6

The first and greatest commandment, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind", summarizes the Spirit of the first 4 commandments of the Decalogue in particular and, since all sin is against God, all 10 in general.  If a person truly loves God with everything that they have they will not be in violation of the first 4 commands which specifically have one's personal relationship with God in view.
The second commandment,  "Love your neighbor as yourself", summarizes the Spirit of the last 6 commandments in particular.  These commands have to do with one's personal relationship and responsibility under God to our fellow man.  If a person loves God in the fashion that produces righteousness under the first 4 commands they will be able, then, to love neighbors as self and not be in violation of the remaining 6 commands.
Some view the 5th command within the first grouping (vertical relationship), others as within the second grouping (horizontal relationship), and still others as a kind of a hinge between the two.  Regardless of where #5 falls, love for God is critical for it's fulfillment.
In this way all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two.  Thus it is said in 1 John 4:19-21 -

We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

The only way to love our neighbor as ourselves (2nd greatest command) is to first love God with all we have (1st greatest command).  The only way to love God in this fashion is to receive the love that God first loved us with:

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. - 1 John 4:10

The way to receive this love of God is to believe in the Son, to be born again/from above (John 3) and to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, through whom the love of God is shed abroad in the heart's of men:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. - Romans 5:1-5

Therefore:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. - Romans 8:1-4


Popes Benedict XVI or Pope St. John Paul II on the subject of the Antichrist and the end times?

St. John Paul II once stated that we are now nearing the final confrontation.

  “We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.

  “We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it. . . .How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.” - The Final Confrontation

Prophecy is usually recognized as true while the thing prophesized have run their course. The anti-church and anti-gospel of Pope John Paul II should be seen as something the against the Church and against the Gospels and not as a counterfeit church or a counterfeit gospel, although the Antichrist will no  doubt teach a false gospel of sorts.

  There are so many mistakes made today regarding the coming of Christ and the coming of the Antichrist by people like Father Gobbi, Michael H. Brown and the like that I simply offer the truth as offered by the early Church fathers.  So many false prophets have made the mistake of thinking that the seat of the Antichrist will be Rome or that the Church will become the seat of the Antichrist or that some future Holy Father will be the Antichrist and all of this is false.  The Jews must return and live in the Holy Land so that they can prepare the way for the Antichrist, for he and he alone will re-build the old Temple of David and this will be his seat and not Rome. - Prophesies of the Antichrist

What have Popes said about Vladimir Soloviev?

  Soloviev is a “Russian figure of extraordinary depth,” said St. John Paul II during his Angelus of July 30, 2000.

  He is “one of the greatest Russian Christian philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries,” John Paul II said again in 2003 in a long message about Soloviev that the Holy Father sent to participants gathered to discuss this major figure on the 150th anniversary of his birth.

  In his Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II refers to Soloviev, and in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) he lists Soloviev as standing in a line of distinguished Christian philosophers.

  During a talk on Soloviev Cardinal Giacomo Biffi noted that the theologian-mystic was “cited approvingly by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.”

  Obviously, Soloviev has exceptional credentials...

  Although Soloviev died in 1900 as the door opened on the 20th century, Cardinal Biffi, a noted scholar of his works, pointed out his predictions of things that would happen in the 20th century are "astonishing" in their accuracy. - Vladimir Soloviev, the Mystic Admired by Popes

Both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI held in high esteem the Russian Philosopher Vladimir Solovyov and his book on the Tale of the Anti-Christ.

  In his Tale of the Antichrist, Vladimir Soloviev details a vision of how events might take place in the 20th century and into the 21st that usher in the Antichrist, and then how that monstrous person would act.

  Although Soloviev died in 1900 just as the 20th century began, he clearly showed himself a mystic, that’s along with him also being one of the greatest of philosopher-theologians named in league with the likes of Cardinal Newman — who a little earlier had given lectures on the times of the Antichrist — and even very close to Aquinas. St. John Paul II mentioned or specifically wrote about Soloviev several times. Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, referred to him.

  Soloviev was Russian Orthodox but, as John Paul II described him, a figure who “noted with great clarity the tragic division among Christians and the urgent need for their unity…” Soloviev worked for Eastern-Western unity under one religious head, the pope, and in person got Leo XIII’s blessing for his work. Four years before he died, Soloviev became a member of the Eastern Rite Catholic Church. - Soloviev and His Tale of the Antichrist

More on Vladimir Soloviev and the Antichrist and the end times follows here:

  This Antichrist showed himself as a kindhearted humanitarian who appeared to love all forms of life. He was a vegetarian, was concerned about ecology, and was an ecumenist.

  “The twentieth century was the epoch of the last great wars and revolutions. The greatest of these wars had its distant cause in the movement of Pan Mongolism which originated in Japan as far back as the end of the nineteenth century.” China became heavily involved. Europe was invaded.

  Not long after the defeat of the invaders, the European states started to reorganize. The old institutions become extinct. Soloviev says: “Europe in the twenty-first century represented an alliance of more or less democratic nations — the United States of Europe.”

  Sounds a lot like the European Union.

  The Freemasons in the European Council have a hand in getting this man elected as president of the United States of Europe then giving him the next title of Roman Emperor — emperor of the world — as the Antichrist promised peace to the world, and food and prosperity under his rule. Governments around the world joined the United States of Europe.

  The Holy See was banished from Rome and made its way to St. Petersburg. But, Soloviev says, “In all the other countries, particularly in North America, the Catholic priesthood still had a good many representatives possessed of strong will, inexhaustible energy, and independent character, who welded together the Catholic Church into a closer unity than it had ever seen before…”

  As those true to the Faith look to the Gospel and Church Fathers on the Antichrist and see the nations led astray, the exposure of this wicked leader begins. Of course, he confronts them, but in a way not expected.

  He invites the true Christians to send representatives to meet with him where he has transferred his imperial residence to Jerusalem where he built luxurious palaces and a huge temple to unite all cults.

  Soloviev envisions the reaction of the Jews when they also learn this unmasked wicked imposter has led them astray from the real Messiah, and then the final say with Heaven’s answer. - Soloviev and His Tale of the Antichrist

Vladimir Solovyov (January 28, 1853 - August 13, 1900)


Different books of the Bible use the terms apostle and disciple in differing ways. The word disciple means a follower or student of a teacher, while the word apostle means a messenger or ambassador who champions a particular cause.

Initially, the term "apostle" was used to describe the early followers of Jesus. There were specific requirements to be called an apostle, some of which were, the chief of which was that they had to have seen him after his Resurrection. Additionally, the apostles were the foundation of the early church, after Jesus, the chief cornerstone. So the "apostles" were limited in number, but not to only 12 (a disciple, however is a much broader term. A disciple is any follower of Christ, and as such there are millions of disciples today).

However, there is a common convention of a difference between "apostle" and "Apostle", with "Apostle" denoting the those specifically appointed by Jesus as apostles (the twelve, along with Paul). So there were the Twelve, but these were set apart by Jesus as his closest companions during his earthly ministry, and not an artificial distinction posed by the writers of the gospels. So depending on your definition, there might be 12 apostles or several hundred (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)


Why don't priests give Holy Communion to everyone at Mass?

Why don't priests give bread to everyone at mass?

Priests are normally on their toes at all Masses on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. The reason is quite simply. Many non-Catholics show up and many Catholics who are not properly disposed to receive Communion show up. In order to receive Communion in a Catholic Church, one must be Catholic and a practicing Catholic at that. In other words, a Catholic must be in the state of grace before receiving Holy Communion.

It has been decades now that I have noticed that priests have made an announcement just before the reception of Communion of the requirements needed to receive Our Lord in the Sacred Host. Priests are not being rude in doing so, they are simply, a matter of fact like, doing their duty so to speak!

One a simple note, Catholic must fast for one hour before receiving Holy Communion and more follows.

What does Canon Law say in this matter?

  Can.  919 §1. A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine.

  Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

  Can.  914 It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible. It is for the pastor to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach holy communion.

Non-Catholics Receiving Communion

  The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and published in many missalettes, explain, “Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law.”

  Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.

  Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:29).

Addendum:

At one time, it was somewhat common practice to take home some ”Blessed Bread”. These blessed breads were generally associated with a  particular diocese or saints.

  The little loaves or cakes of bread which received a special benediction and were then sent by bishops and priests to others, as gifts in sign of fraternal affection and ecclesiastical communion were also called eulogiae. Persons to whom the eulogia was refused were considered outside the communion of the faithful, and thus bishops sometimes sent it to an excommunicated person to indicate that the censure had been removed. Later, when the faithful no longer furnished the altar-bread, a custom arose of bringing bread to the church for the special purpose of having it blessed and distributed among those present as token of mutual love and union, and this custom still exists in the Western Church, especially in France. This blessed bread was called panis benedictus, panis lustratus, panis lustralis, and is now known in France as pain bénit. It differs from the eulogia mentioned above, because it is not a part of the oblation from which the particle to be consecrated in the Mass is selected, but rather is common bread which receives a special benediction. In many places it is the custom for each family in turn to present the bread on Sundays and feast days, while in other places only the wealthier families furnish it. Generally the bread is presented with some solemnity at the Offertory of the parochial Mass, and the priest blesses it before the Oblation of the Host and Chalice, but different customs exist in different dioceses. The prayer ordinarily used for the blessing is the first or second: benedictio panis printed in the Roman missal and ritual. The faithful were exhorted to partake of it in the church, but frequently it was carried home. This blessed bread is a sacramental, which should excite Christians to practice especially the virtues of charity, and unity of spirit, and which brings blessings to those who partake of it with due devotion. The Church, when blessing it, prays that those who eat it may receive health both of soul and body: "ut omnes ex eo gustantes inde corporis et animae percipant sanitatem"; "ut sit omnibus sumentibus salus mentis et corporis". In some instances the pain bénit was used not only with superstitious intent, and its virtues exaggerated beyond measure, but also for profane purposes. This usage was brought from France to Canada, and was practised chiefly in the province of Quebec. There the pain bénit had blessed immediately after the Asperges, and then distributed to those who assisted at high Mass. The parishioners furnished it in turn, and vied with one another in presenting as rich and fine a pain bénit as possible, until finally the bishops, seeing that it entailed too much expense upon the poor circumstances, prohibited it. Within the last twenty-five and thirty years the custom has almost entirely disappeared.

  In the present Roman ritual there are six blessings for bread. Two of these are entitled simply benedictio panis, and as mentioned above, are often used for blessing the panis benit. The third entitled benedictio panis et placentarum (blessing of bread and cakes), is found in the appendix among the blessings which are not reserved. The other three are approved for particular localities, and are special blessings given under the invocation of certain saints, usually on their feast days, in order to gain special favours through their intercession. The first, approved for the Archdiocese of Cologne, is a blessing of bread, water, and salt given under the invocation of St. Hubert; the second, approved for the Diocese of Bois-le-Duc, is a blessing of bread and water under the invocation of St. Machutus, and the third, for the Diocese of Urgel, is a blessing of bread, wine, water, and fruit to be used on the feast of St. Blasius. Some other places have local of blessing bread on certain feast days, as for instance on the feasts of St. Genevieve, of St. Nicholas of Tolentino and others. - Liturgical Use of Bread


How did Christians respond to abortion in the early Church?

There were church commandments against it, and from the earliest times.

The Didache, i.e. the earliest Christian catechetical document (and contemporaneous with the Gospels, probably earlier than A.D. 70) says "οὐ φονεύσεις τ́κνον ἐν φθορᾷ" (you shall not murder an infant with abortion) and "οὐδὲ γεννηθὲν ἀποκτενεῖς" (nor slay the begotten). So both abortion pre-birth and the monstrous ancient (and regrettably, and shockingly, current) practice of awaying with unwanted and undesirable babies is here condemned.

Athenagoras, also a very early Christian, writes in his A Plea for Christians (a work against calumnies against the Christian faith by pagans, to the Roman Emperor), cap. 35:

  And when we [Christians] say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?

He wrote about A.D. 177.

Tertullian, writing in 197 (Apology, cap. 9):

  In our case [Christians'], murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.

This sentiment, attitude, doctrine, is never taken back or rejected by any later Christians, so to cite more would be rather superfluous. That is to say, all abortion is considered murdering that infant.


The idea you are referencing - that God started everything from nothing - is called creation ex nihilo.  It is by far the most common Christian understanding of how the world came to be.

In Genesis, the first words we have say that:

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

This presupposes that there was nothing, then God acted, and then there was something.  This is not altogether unlike the Big Bang, in which there was {nothing | nothing that bears any resemblance to our world}, and then something happened, and there was the universe.

The term eternal imperative is not one with which I am familiar, but Aquinas' cosmological argument and more specifically the argument from contingency may be what you are referring to.

While rarely the first argument we turn to, it hasn't necessarily been rejected. The very simplistic idea is that because things exist, there had to be a thing that caused them to exist, necessarily proving God.  The "First Cause" argument is still relatively popular.

You will note, however, that the argument itself is not contingent on science - it is derived theologically, using methods of logic which originally came from theology and philosophy - a set of techniques that "science" later incorporated into the scientific method.


Do the LDS believe in the Hypostatic Union?

Affable Geek's comment that "my understanding is that Mormons reject the Credal terminology, but accept the upshot" is pretty much on the money.  In my research to answer this question, it seems that the Catholic concept of the Hypostatic Union is mixed in with a lot of Trinitarian implications that LDS theology rejects.  However, the basic concept of the man Jesus of Nazareth having a unique nature--that of being both a mortal man and a divine God during his life on Earth--is readily accepted.

A passage in the Book of Mormon discussing the Atonement, while it does not particularly emphasize Jesus's mortal nature, speaks directly to the issue expressed in the question above as to Jesus's nature as God while in mortality:

  Alma 34: 8-16

  8 And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these
  things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ
  shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the
  transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of
  the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

  9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according
  to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made,
  or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened;
  yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through
  the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

  10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last
  sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of
  any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must
  be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

  11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which
  will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold
  will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto
  you, Nay.

  12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore
  there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which
  will suffice for the sins of the world.

  13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last
  sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should
  be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be
  fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and
  none shall have passed away.

  14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit
  pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last
  sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

  15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe
  on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring
  about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth
  about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

  16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles
  them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto
  repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice;
  therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought
  about the great and eternal plan of redemption.

Here, we see Alma using the divine nature of Jesus as a part of his reasoning: if he was not divine, "infinite and eternal" and something more than an ordinary man, it would not be possible for the sacrifice that marked the end of his mortal life to provide an atonement for the sins of mankind.

In a talk given in 1983, Ezra Taft Benson, who was then the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, (he became President of the Church about two years later,) spoke of Jesus's nature as both God and Man:

  Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

  He came to this earth at a foreappointed time through a royal
  birthright that preserved His godhood. Combined in His nature were the
  human attributes of His mortal mother and the divine attributes and
  powers of His Eternal Father.

  His unique heredity made Him heir to the honored title—The Only
  Begotten Son of God in the flesh. As the Son of God, He inherited
  powers and intelligence which no human ever had before or since. He
  was literally Immanuel, which means “God with us.” (See Matt. 1:23.)

  Even though He was God’s Son sent to earth, the divine plan of the
  Father required that Jesus be subjected to all the difficulties and
  tribulations of mortality. Thus He became subject to “temptations, …
  hunger, thirst, and fatigue.” (Mosiah 3:7.)

  To qualify as the Redeemer of all our Father’s children, Jesus had to
  be perfectly obedient to all the laws of God. Because He subjected
  Himself to the will of the Father, He grew “from grace to grace, until
  he received a fulness” of the Father’s power. Thus He had “all power,
  both in heaven and on earth.” (D&C 93:13, 17.)

So yes, it's safe to say that Latter-Day Saints do believe that Jesus retained his divine nature while living as a mortal man, and do not believe that "Jesus was, for a time, not God."


Did Martin Luther ever remove books from the New Testament canon?

Martin Luther disliked James, in particular, for its emphasis on works.  He called it his "epistle of straw."  That said, there is simply not a mechanism for removing anything from the canon in Christian circles.

Likewise, of Revelation, Luther said:

  About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel."( Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (398). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. )

In other words, he didn't like, but again recognized his own inability to edit the canon.

The canon is simply the consensus on what is best.  The marks of canonicity are settled, insofaras there is basically consensus.  (Okay, there is a question about those 7 books between Protestants and Catholics, but it is a very, very minor point)  Indeed, if Luther were to publish "his canon" at best he could only have said, "this is Luther's canon." And there is evidence he wished he could, but again, he couldn't.

I have no doubt that Luther preached very rarely on these books - but he simply did not have the standing to "remove" them from the canon.  It would be like one person saying, "Harry Potter is not on the best sellers list."  He might think it shouldn't have been, but he simply doesn't have the standing to say.

Finally, there is a deragatory term "canon within the canon," which refers to a person's favorite books within the canon - the ones he or she may elevate over others.  That Luther suredly had. His canon within the canon was Paul's epistles - but that doesn't mean he could downgrade the status of the others.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Paul's apparent equating of Yahweh and Jesus in Romans 10?

The explanation of any group or individual regarding which 'Lord' (or Lords) Romans chapter 10 deals with depends upon their theology, as Ben Mordecai has actually pointed out. Any group or individual believing that Jesus was created by God the Father (Jehovah, to Jehovah's Witnesses) cannot see Romans chapter 10 in any way other than, that, although Jesus is the Lord of verse 9, it is the name of Jehovah that must be called upon in order to be saved by verse 13.

However, for those who believe from the Bible that prior to becoming the man, Jesus, he was the eternal, uncreated Word of God who made everything that was made (John 1:1-14) Romans chapter 10 is clear that the Hebraic phrase to "call upon the name of the Lord" (or Yahweh) to be saved (as in Joel 2:32) becomes calling upon the name of Jesus to be saved in the Christian Greek scriptures (Acts 2:38-39). Jesus is the one Lord Christians acclaim. They do not have two Lords (1 Corinthians 8:6).

For Jehovah's Witnesses, when Romans 10:9 says "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" they agree that that Lord is Jesus, but when verse 13 quotes Joel 3:32, they say THAT Lord is Jehovah and it's actually faith in the name of Jehovah that saves people, not faith in the name of Jesus. That's because, to them, Jesus is subordinate to Jehovah due to having been created by Jehovah.

Now, this is not the place to examine whether the ancient Christian Greek scriptures had the Hebrew letters for Yahweh in verse 13, which Jehovah's Witnesses claim as their reason for refusing to equate Jesus with Yahweh here. Unsurprisingly, their Greek Interlinear footnotes for chapter 10 claim some 'J' manuscript references for putting 'Jehovah' there in place of 'Lord,' whilst insisting that 'Lord' was in ancient texts for verse 9, adding, "Not 'Jehovah'." (Pages 722 & 723 of the Kingdom Interlinear of the Christian Greek Scriptures produced by New World Bible Translation Committee, 1985 edition)

To examine whether the Jehovah's Witness Bible is justified in putting 'Jehovah' in verse 13 yet retaining 'Lord' in verse 9, is another question entirely.  This answer simply explains why Jehovah's Witnesses do not equate the Lord of verse 9 with the Lord of verse 13. They do not believe it is theologically possible so to do, and they can give their reasons for that. This question should not provide a platform for Jehovah's Witnesses trying to convince others that their interpretation and translation is correct. The information here is merely being used in this answer to show why Romans chapter 10 presents no conundrum to Jehovah's Witnesses, because they think they can change the Lord in verse 13 to Jehovah and so maintain their clear differentiation between Jesus and Jehovah, which their theology demands.


What is the basis for the belief among some Protestants that Christ's teachings do not apply to us today?

The category of beliefs you are hearing about fall mainly under the heading of Dispensationalism. I'm not going to give you a detailed description,  but now you have the name you can read up in it for yourself.

My experience is that practitioners of this often have very little direct Biblical basis for preaching it (ironically since it is largely preached by conservative evangelicals who claim to teach only what the Bible says) - rather it falls out because preachers decide that some teachings in the New Testament cannot be practiced literally, so decide they must be inapplicable.

I'm aware this is not strictly an answer to the question,  but I will leave it unless someone actually comes up with a good Biblical basis for the belief.


Moses was born 1526 B.C.  His mother was Jochebed, his father was Amram (Exodus 6:20; Numbers 26:59) and his sister was Miriam (Exodus 15:20-21).  Hebrews 11:23 confirms that Moses was hidden for three months by his parents.  After Pharaoh’s daughter discovers the baby Moses hidden in a basket by the place where she came to bathe, Miriam persuades her to allow her to find a nurse for the baby (Exodus 2:9). Miriam brings baby Moses back home so her mother can nurse him.  After a period of time, Moses had been weaned and was then handed over to Pharaoh’s daughter.  How long was that period of time?  The Bible does not say.  However, there are other sources of information that may give us a clue.

  In the ancient world, children were nursed for three or four years before being weaned. (Breast-feeding Practices in Ancient Israel,” 61–83; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 32; some of the key evidence comes from 2 Macc 7:27 and 1 Sam 1:23, as well as from the Egyptian “Instructions of Ani” (ANET, 420) (p.10)  Source: https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/exposition/exodus/exodus_2.pdf

The exact length of time it took before Moses was weaned is not important.  However, the article quoted above provides some interesting information on dates and the characters involved.


What is the basis for the idea of a seven year peace treaty with Israel in the end times?

There are two seemingly conflicting descriptions of the end times for Israel, that many resolve by figuring there will be a peace treaty.  Since the tribulation is 7 years, they assume that to be the duration.

To wit, the references in question are:

Per Matthew 24:6, it will be a time of war

  You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

Per Ezekiel 38, it will be a time of "peace" (although, see #3)

  7 “Be ready and keep ready, you and all your hosts that are assembled about you, and be a guard for them. 8 After many days you will be mustered. In the latter years you will go against the land that is restored from war, the land whose people were gathered from many peoples upon the mountains of Israel, which had been a continual waste. Its people were brought out from the peoples and now dwell securely, all of them.

The simplest resolution comes from continuing to read Ezekiel 38:

  9 You will advance, coming on like a storm. You will be like a cloud covering the land, you and all your hordes, and many peoples with you.

  10 “Thus says the Lord God: On that day, thoughts will come into your mind, and you will devise an evil scheme 11 and say, ‘I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will fall upon the quiet people who dwell securely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having no bars or gates,’ 12 to seize spoil and carry off plunder, to turn your hand against the waste places that are now inhabited, and the people who were gathered from the nations, who have acquired livestock and goods, who dwell at the center of the earth

The idea is actually fairly simple - it is a treacherous time.  There is all sorts of war, and israel is duped into a bad alliance.  (Note: This is a recurring theme throughout the Prophets and Kings)  The peace treaty with an unscrupulous nation (the Anti-Christ) gives the appearance of peace, but is actually a setup for a very bad outcome.
This also reads well with Daniel 9

  And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Traditionally, premillenial dispensationalists view the "70th week" of Daniel as the end times.  The first sixty-nine weeks are viewed as the time between Daniel and the Messiah, then the Church age puts the 'pause' button on the 70th week.  The tribulation is basically that last week.

This is the traditional pre-trib / dispensationalist reading, such as those popularized by Tim LaHaye in the Left Behind series. I am quite familiar with the reading, but remain unconvinced either way by it.  As such, this answer is not based on the merits of the claim, only that the combination of the two is typically the basis for the claim.


Do any Protestant denominations organize a canon starting from a collection of books other than the Roman Catholic Church's canon?

Many of the Reformation confessions (statements of belief) mention an Apocrypha, but most do not explicitly give a list of non-canonical books. Two do however, which I have quoted below. Most of those non-canonical books are in the Catholic canon, but three are not:  the Prayer of Manasseh and 3rd and 4th Esdras (sometimes confusingly called 1st and 2nd Esdras). What marks these books out is that they were included in the Vulgate. So I think the debate over the Protestant canon was not so much about revising the Catholic canon, but evaluating the books that were well known in Europe.

I haven't found any modern statements of belief that explicitly list excluded books. Although Protestant academia is of course aware of the other canons and I'm sure you could find detailed arguments for why each book is excluded, in general there is little debate now over any of the OT apocrypha. Now the debate is over why the Pseudepigrapha were excluded.

I found one more interesting statement in the Helvetic Consensus, which I will quote last: it says that only the Hebrew of the OT is to be accepted, and that it should not be corrected (i.e. through textual criticism) by the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch etc. This is a position which would be rejected by most Protestants today, and most Bible translations do frequently prefer the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. This is significant for this question because most of the books rejected by the Western church were not written in Hebrew. As the Eastern church emphasised Greek texts and preferred the Septuagint over the Hebrew, there would've been little issue with accepting additional books written in Greek. This is probably the ultimate reason why the Orthodox churches accept so many more books than the Western churches.

Dutch Reformed: The Belgic Confession (1566)

  Article 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books

  We distinguish between these holy books
  and the apocryphal ones,

  which are the third and fourth books of Esdras;
  the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch;
  what was added to the Story of Esther;
  the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace;
  the Story of Susannah;
  the Story of Bel and the Dragon;
  the Prayer of Manasseh;
  and the two books of Maccabees.

  The church may certainly read these books
  and learn from them
  as far as they agree with the canonical books.
  But they do not have such power and virtue
  that one could confirm
  from their testimony
  any point of faith or of the Christian religion.
  Much less can they detract
  from the authority
  of the other holy books.

Anglicanism: The 39 Articles (1571)

  Article VI

  Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

  Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

  Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

  Genesis
  Exodus
  Leviticus
  Numbers
  Deuteronomy
  Joshua
  Judges
  Ruth
  The First Book of Samuel
  The Second Book of Samuel
  The First Book of Kings
  The Second Book of Kings
  The First Book of Chronicles
  The Second Book of Chronicles
  The First Book of Esdras
  The Second Book of Esdras
  The Book of Esther
  The Book of Job
  The Psalms
  The Proverbs
  Ecclesiastes or Preacher
  Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
  Four Prophets the greater
  Twelve Prophets the less

  And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

  The Third Book of Esdras
  The Fourth Book of Esdras
  The Book of Tobias
  The Book of Judith
  The rest of the Book of Esther
  The Book of Wisdom
  Jesus the Son of Sirach
  Baruch the Prophet
  The Song of the Three Children
  The Story of Susanna
  Of Bel and the Dragon
  The Prayer of Manasses
  The First Book of Maccabees
  The Second Book of Maccabees

  All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Swiss Reformed: The Helvetic Consensus (1675)

  Canon II:

  But, in particular, The Hebrew original of
  the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as
  handed down by the Hebrew Church, “who had been given the
  oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but
  in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least
  the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its
  words, inspired by God. It thus forms, together with the
  Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and
  practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant
  versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever
  they differ, be conformed.

  Canon III:

  Therefore, we are not able to approve of
  the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew
  Original exhibits was determined by man’s will alone, and do not
  hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider
  unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other
  Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic
  Targums, or even from other sources. They go even to the point
  of following the corrections that their own rational powers
  dictate from the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself
  which, they maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and
  finally, they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the
  present time, there are in the versions of the ancient
  interpreters which differ from our Hebrew text, other Hebrew
  Originals. Since these versions are also indicative of ancient
  Hebrew Originals differing from each other, they thus bring the
  foundation of our faith and its sacred authority into perilous
  danger.


What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to the doctrine of baptism as a necessity for salvation?

“First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism
  for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the
  name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and
  rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is
  the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we
  should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and
  perpetual God.”

-Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching Ch. 3

  “Those, then, who, after having been baptized into Father, Son, and
  Holy Spirit, and having been taught that there is one divine nature in
  three subsistences, are rebaptized, these, as the divine Apostle says,
  crucify the Christ afresh (chapter 3)… But those who were not baptized
  into the Holy Trinity, these must be baptized again.” (chapter 9)

-John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV

  “It is possible that a man is wishing to pay court to a woman, and
  came hither on that account. The remark applies in like manner to
  women also in their turn. A slave also perhaps wishes to please his
  master, and a friend his friend. I accept this bait for the hook, and
  welcome thee, though thou camest with an evil purpose, yet as one to
  be saved by a good hope. Perhaps thou knewest not whither thou wert
  coming, nor in what kind of net thou art taken. Thou art come within
  the Church's nets: be taken alive, flee not: for Jesus is angling for
  thee, not in order to kill, but by killing to make alive: for thou
  must die and rise again.” (5)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 1

  “Great is the Baptism that lies before you: a ransom to captives; a
  remission of offences; a death of sin; a new-birth of the soul; a
  garment of light; a holy indissoluble seal; a chariot to heaven; the
  delight of Paradise; a welcome into the kingdom; the gift of
  adoption!” (16)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 1

  “We may not receive Baptism twice or thrice; else it might be said,
  Though I have failed once, I shall set it right a second time: whereas
  if thou fail once, the thing cannot be set right…” (7)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 1

  “Jesus sanctified Baptism by being Himself baptized. If the Son of God
  was baptized, what godly man is he that despised Baptism? But He was
  baptized not that He might receive remission of sins, for He was
  sinless; but being sinless, He was baptized, that He might give to
  them that are baptized a divine and excellent grace. For since the
  children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise
  partook of the same, that having been made partakers of His presence
  in the flesh we might be made partakers also of His Divine grace: thus
  Jesus was baptized, that thereby we again by our participation might
  receive both salvation and honor (11)… For thou goest down into the
  water, bearing thy sins, but the invocation of grace, having sealed
  thy soul, suffereth thee not afterwards to be swallowed up by the
  terrible dragon. Having gone down dead in sins, thou comest up
  quickened in righteousness. For if thou hast been united with the
  likeness of the Saviour's death, thou shall also be deemed worthy of
  His Resurrection. For as Jesus took upon Him the sins of the world,
  and died, that by putting sin to death He might rise again in
  righteousness; so thou by going down into the water, and being in a
  manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock art raised again
  walking in newness of life (12)… Moreover, when thou hast been deemed
  worthy of the grace, He then giveth thee strength to wrestle against
  the adverse powers. For as after His Baptism He was tempted forty
  days…” (13)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 3


From a Protestant perspective why didn't the Apostles address the problem of deutrocanonical books?

The church did not practice "66 book sola scriptura" on the deaths of the original apostles. The biblical canon was not established definitively until the 5th century. It would not therefore have been feasible for the 1st century apostles to state the boundaries of the canon. (Or at least, history would have been very different from what it actually was had they done so).


What is the justification for reciting creeds in public worship according to the regulative principle?

Those who hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship and recite creeds in public worship typically base this practice on two types of biblical evidence:

Biblical commands to confess one's faith
New Testament evidence that creeds were used liturgically in the apostolic age

Biblical commands to confess
Proponents of reciting creeds often point to biblical passages that teach that God's people are to confess their faith publicly and together.  Some of the passages cited along these lines include:

the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. [1 Timothy 6:12]1
that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. [Romans 15:6]2

Other cited passages, perhaps less obviously related, include 1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Peter 3:21, and Hebrews 13:15.1,2 To some, these passages and others like them are sufficient evidence to justify the corporate use of creeds in worship.  Others, however, emphasize more indirect New Testament evidence.
Evidence for creeds in apostolic liturgies
Many Reformed thinkers find evidence for the apostolic practice of reciting creeds in worship.  The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for example, writes:

1 Timothy 3:16 leaves the impression that creeds were uttered in the worship of the early Church.3

That verse is often rendered as poetry in English bibles, reflecting its rhythmic meter:

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
  He was manifested in the flesh,
     vindicated by the Spirit,
        seen by angels,
  proclaimed among the nations,
     believed on in the world,
        taken up in glory. [ESV]

Robert Rayburn points to several other passages in his defense of creeds:

Whether creedal statements of liturgical origin and usage can likewise be detected in the New Testament is probable, though less certain (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3). The Shema was in use as a liturgical creed in the synagogue by the time of the New Testament. In any case, psalms which functioned as confessions of faith (e.g. 33; 97; 136) provide biblical justification for the liturgical use of creeds.4

1 Corinthians 12:3 is also cited as evidence for the use of creeds in the apostolic church by J. N. D. Kelly, though he did not subscribe to the Regulative Principle:

no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit. [ESV]

He furthermore argues that passages like 1 Corinthians 15:3–7, Romans 1:3–5, Romans 8:34, 2 Timothy 2:8, and 1 Peter 3:18–22 are examples of "apostolic kerygma," that is, summaries of apostolic teaching used for teaching, preaching, and confessing.5
"The most impressive example," he says, is Philippians 2:6–11, a creedal statement that was "almost certainly an ancient Christian hymn, probably of Palestinian derivation, which was already arranged in rhythmic strophes by the time it fell into St. Paul's hands."  Similarly, behind 1 Timothy 6:13–15 he sees "a formal confession of belief" associated with "doctrinal preparation for baptism."5
Another scholar, Jerome H. Neyrey, summarizes the scholarship on worship in the early church:

[David] Aune, following Delling, Cullmann, and Martin, identifies a variety of activities that fall under the genus "worship": (1) prayers, creeds and confessions, doxologies, hymns, songs, and psalms; (2) prophecy [...]; (3) sermons and homilies; and (4) public reading of Scripture.6 [emphasis added]

Summary
Of course, proponents of the RPW and the recitation of creeds also point to the practical value of creeds. Some, attempting to locate this practice in the Westminster Standards, categorize them as "oaths," as shown in another answer.  But for RPW advocates, the primary defenses of this practice are found in the biblical commands to confess one's faith and the New Testament evidence that creeds made up a part of the apostolic liturgy.

References:

Edmund Clowney, "Presbyterian Worship," in Worship: Adoration and Action, D. A. Carson, ed., 117.  Quoted (approvingly) in D. A. Carson, Worship by the Book, 48.  Clowney cites three verses that command confession, and one that is evidence of the use of creeds in the apostolic church.
"A Plea for Creeds," British Reformed Journal, No. 21, 1998. (WebCite)
"The Doxology, Gloria Patri and the Regulative Principle of Worship." (WebCite)
Robert S. Rayburn, "Biblical and Pastoral Basis for Creeds and Confessions," in The Practice of Confessional Subscription (1995). (WebCite)
Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 15–23.
Neyrey, Give God the Glory, 170.


Does Mark 2:21-22 mean that we don't need to obey Old Testament Laws?

Even though as bruised reed, stated your question is not directed at any specific denomination, and as such becomes a truth question, I feel compelled to answer your question since it, points out a common problem encountered when reading the Bible. Many Scriptures taken alone are at best confusing and at worst misleading. Your question appears to be spawned in that category.

Lets take a look at those Scriptures you quoted and see what other Scriptures can help us understand what they refer to.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

  Mark 2:21 and 22  No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. 22  And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.

When we also consider that Jesus was answering this specific question:

  Mar 2:18  And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?

and that he prefaced the Scriptures quoted in your question with:

  Mark 2:19 and 20  And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20  But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

We are then being directed to a specific train of thought which is that there is something much more important in that hearing what Jesus has to say; is much more important than how it is to be enacted, after his departure. Or put another way he is telling them that before they can instruct others they must themselves have the whole story. This is emphasized by verses 19 and 20.

Now we can analyze the last Scriptures in this diatribe, with a clearer understanding.

Verse 21 and 22 are used as an illustration which they would be familiar with, that being that when an un-shrunk fabric or animal skin (Goat skin was used to fabricate wineskins)
is inserted into already shrunken cloth or skins would as it shrank; instead of repairing, further ruin the old.

Why this is important to understand can be best illustrated by considering that without his resurrection, his death would have no impact. It is only his taking up his life after, everyone knew that he had died, which gives meaning to his promise of eternal life.

The proper attitude toward how the Old Testament is to be viewed in relation to the New Testament is in the following Scriptures:

  Matthew 5:17and 18  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

In these two Scriptures we are taught that:

The laws of God given in the Old Testament will always be in effect until:

  Revelation 21:1  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

That Jesus came to the Earth expressly to fulfill those requirements laid down by God, because we could not live up to Gods standards, but he could.

Hope this helps.


The broadest sense of an OT prophet was the Spirit of God coming up or moving a person to reveal something about God.  The narrow sense is a prophet speaking "thus sayeth the LORD".  It is in the former sense that Christ calls Abel a prophet.

  And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.  And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: ... If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
  Gen 4:3-4,7

  Prophet:
  "one who speaks forth or openly" (see PROPHECY, A), "a proclaimer of a divine message,"
  Vines

So, how was Abel a prophet?  What was the divine message from God as regards the offerings of Cain and Abel?

  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
  Gen 3:21

Obviously from the very first example of God slaying the animal to cover the sin of Adam and Eve, the prophetic voice of Abel is one of blood sacrifice that culminates in Christ Jesus.


Does the Catholic Church teach that some who died before Christ are still in Limbo? Why?

In Dante's story, those who were in Limbo but taken to Heaven were

  the shade of our First Parent [Adam], Abel his son, and that of Noah; of Moses the Legislator, and obedient Abraham the Patriarch; David the King; Israel with his father, and his sons, and Rachel, for whom he did so much; and many others

(Canto IV, lines 55–61)

These appear to be those of the Jewish people and their forebears who knew God (as for example Adam and Abel) and who worshiped Him obediently ("obedient Abraham").

Homer, Horace, Ovid, Lucan, and Virgil, on the other hand, were pagans; "they worshiped not God aright" (Canto IV, line 38), and Dante cites this as the reason they were not taken up to Heaven.

The Catholic Church, nowadays, doesn't say much about Limbo; the term does not appear in the 1992 Catechism. In 2007, the International Theological Commission (a body of Catholic theologians overseen by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document titled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized". This document is the most wide-ranging discussion of the question of Limbo that has been issued since the Second Vatican Council. Certain news stories published just before the document was released reported that it "closed the doors" of Limbo and concluded that Limbo did not exist; that conclusion was premature, but certainly the Church has recently focused much more on the hope that those who died without baptism, especially without the possibility of baptism, may somehow attain salvation:

  Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision.

("The Hope of Salvation", paragraph 102)

So how does this apply to the patriarchs, the noble pagans, and the Harrowing of Hell? The Catechism states:

  Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom": "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."

(paragraph 633; the last quotation is taken from the Roman Catechism)

Who, then, are the "just"? Might they include these "noble pagans" Dante refers to? Again, the Catechism has something to say:

  The Bible venerates several great figures among the Gentiles: Abel the just, the king-priest Melchisedek - a figure of Christ - and the upright "Noah, Daniel, and Job". Scripture thus expresses the heights of sanctity that can be reached by those who live according to the covenant of Noah, waiting for Christ to "gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad".

(paragraph 58)

These of course do not, and could not, include the great poets Dante refers to. Nevertheless, as the Church begins to reflect on the great mercy and salvific will of God, it may hold out hope that they, too, are somehow saved.


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on what happens to humans after death?
Catholicism

Individual eschatology
Death
Death, which consists in the separation of soul and body, is presented under many aspects in Catholic teaching, but chiefly

as being actually and historically, in the present order of supernatural Providence, the consequence and penalty of Adam's sin (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12, etc.);

as being the end of man's period of probation, the event which decides his eternal destiny (2 Corinthians 5:10; John 9:4; Luke 12:40; 16:19 sqq.; etc.), though it does not exclude an intermediate state of purification for the imperfect who die in God's grace; and

as being universal, though as to its absolute universality (for those living at the end of the world) there is some room for doubt because of 1 Thessalonians 4:14 sqq.; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 2 Timothy 4:1.

Particular Judgment
That a particular judgment of each soul takes place at death is implied in many passages of the New Testament (Luke 16:22 sqq.; 23:43; Acts 1:25; etc.), and in the teaching of the Council of Florence (Denzinger, Enchiridion, no. 588) regarding the speedy entry of each soul into heaven, purgatory, or hell.
Heaven
Heaven is the abode of the blessed, where (after the resurrection with glorified bodies) they enjoy, in the company of Christ and the angels, the immediate vision of God face to face, being supernaturally elevated by the light of glory so as to be capable of such a vision. There are infinite degrees of glory corresponding to degrees of merit, but all are unspeakably happy in the eternal possession of God. Only the perfectly pure and holy can enter heaven; but for those who have attained that state, either at death or after a course of purification in purgatory, entry into heaven is not deferred, as has sometimes been erroneously held, till after the General Judgment.
Purgatory
Purgatory is the intermediate state of unknown duration in which those who die imperfect, but not in unrepented mortal sin, undergo a course of penal purification, to qualify for admission into heaven. They share in the communion of saints and are benefited by our prayers and good works (see PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD). The denial of purgatory by the Reformers introduced a dismal blank in their eschatology and, after the manner of extremes, has led to extreme reactions.
Hell
Hell, in Catholic teaching, designates the place or state of men (and angels) who, because of sin, are excluded forever from the Beatific Vision. In this wide sense it applies to the state of those who die with only original sin on their souls (Council of Florence, Denzinger, no. 588), although this is not a state of misery or of subjective punishment of any kind, but merely implies the objective privation of supernatural bliss, which is compatible with a condition of perfect natural happiness. But in the narrower sense in which the name is ordinarily used, hell is the state of those who are punished eternally for unrepented personal mortal sin. Beyond affirming the existence of such a state, with varying degrees of punishment corresponding to degrees of guilt and its eternal or unending duration, Catholic doctrine does not go. It is a terrible and mysterious truth, but it is clearly and emphatically taught by Christ and the Apostles. Rationalists may deny the eternity of hell in spite of the authority of Christ, and professing Christians, who are unwilling to admit it, may try to explain away Christ's words; but it remains as the Divinely revealed solution of the problem of moral evil. (See HELL.) Rival solutions have been sought for in some form of the theory of restitution or, less commonly, in the theory of annihilation or conditional immortality. The restitutionist view, which in its Origenist form was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 543, and later at the Fifth General Council is the cardinal dogma of modern Universalism, and is favoured more or less by liberal Protestants and Anglicans. Based on an exaggerated optimism for which present experience offers no guarantee, this view assumes the all-conquering efficacy of the ministry of grace in a life of probation after death, and looks forward to the ultimate conversion of all sinners and the voluntary disappearance of moral evil from the universe. Annihilationists, on the other hand, failing to find either in reason or Revelation any grounds for such optimism, and considering immortality itself to be a grace and not the natural attribute of the soul, believe that the finally impenitent will be annihilated or cease to exist — that God will thus ultimately be compelled to confess the failure of His purpose and power. - Eschatology (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

The Catholic Church holds that "all who die in God's grace and friendship but still imperfectly purified" undergo the process of purification which the Church calls purgatory, "so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven". It bases its teaching also on the practice of praying for the dead, in use within the Church ever since the Church began, and mentioned in the deuterocanonical book 2 Maccabees 12:46.2
Limbo of Infants

On 20 April 2007, the advisory body known as the International Theological Commission released a document, originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized." After tracing the history of the various opinions that have been and are held on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, including that connected with the theory of the Limbo of Infants, and after examining the theological arguments, the document stated its conclusion as follows:
Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.[33] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.
What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.
Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, indicating that he considers it consistent with the Church's teaching, though it is not an official expression of that teaching. Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo" are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. Still, that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition. The traditional theological alternative to Limbo was not Heaven, but rather some degree of suffering in Hell. At any rate, these theories are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members, just as is the theory of possible salvation for infants dying without baptism. - Limbo (Wikipedia)

Benedict XII (reigned 1334-1342) declared the following dogma in Benedictus Deus (1336):

We define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.

Orthodoxy

God created us for life; it is not His will that we die. Death was not intended for us, not willed by God. It is, as St. Paul says, “the last enemy”. Death is a rebellion against God. It came into the world because the first man and woman chose death, darkness, and themselves over God. Because of sin, death entered this world. And we are all affected by the consequence (death) of Adam and Eve’s sin in Paradise.
When we die, our souls separate from our bodies. After this separation, the body then returns to the earth and, eventually, decomposes. But what happens after that?
Between the moment of our death and the Final Judgment (more on this shortly), the soul lives in a “middle state” and undergoes what we call the particular judgment (Hebrews 9:27). In other words, immediately after death, we experience a foretaste of paradise or hell, depending on the kind of life we lived here on earth. And our souls remain in this state until the Final Judgment, when all will “come forth – those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).
The Final Judgement
At the Final Judgment, our souls will be reunited with our bodies, and both will be judged before God (2 Corinthians 5:10). We will be judged according to our faith and our works (the fruits of faith).
God will separate the just from the unjust or sinners. To the righteous He will say, “Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matthew 25:34). And to the sinners: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). Then, the sinners “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46).
After the Final Judgement, there is either eternal life or eternal punishment. Which one, depends entirely on us and the kind of lives we live. Think of it this way. When we’re born into this world, it’s like having bad vision. Nothing is clear. When we become Orthodox and meet Christ, we’ve just received a pair of glasses. Things clear up, but we keep getting the lenses dirty. The sacraments are God’s way of helping us clean our glasses, over and over again. When we die, we’ll finally see God clearly and will have no need for our glasses anymore. And we will either rejoice in finally seeing Him clearly (if that was our goal in this life) or our eyes will hurt with the sudden vision of light after being so long in the dark. We will experience His presence as either absolute bliss or unbearable agony, for eternity.
What About Purgatory?
Some Church Fathers, including St. Cyprian and St. Augustine, seemed to believe in a purification after death. However, the character of this purification is never clarified, and (as St. Mark of Ephesus underlined at the Council of Florence) it seems there is no true distinction between heaven, hell and the so-called purgatory. In other words, all souls partake in the same mystical fire (which, according to St. Isaac of Syria, is God’s Love), but experience it differently depending on their spiritual state: bliss for those who are in communion with him; purification for those in the process of being deified; and remorse/agony for those who hated God during their earthly lives. - What Happens When We Die?

Protestantism

For Protestants this life is a pilgrimage, a journey toward an eternal destination. That destination is an eternity spent either in heaven or in hell. Those saved enjoy some benefits here on earth during their pilgrimage. Salvation is not just an experience for the afterlife; it involves the "first fruits" of blessedness, that is, a proper relationship with God, a gradual transformation into the likeness of Christ, and the filling of the Holy Spirit. This process will not be complete, however, in this life.
Some Protestants hold that there is nothing one can do to earn a spot in heaven; God freely chooses to forgive the sins of some, and they can enter heaven.  Others hold that though forgiveness is only possible through God's grace, it is offered to all and anyone can freely accept this forgiveness.  These Protestants, who endow humans with some degree of free will and some responsibility for effecting their own salvation, tend also to believe that one's ultimate fate rests to some extent on one's works—both in actively choosing God through faith, and in a life of growing conformity to the teaching of Christ.
Because purgatory is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, nearly all Protestants reject the Roman Catholic teaching that there is also a transitional place or process of purification of the soul after death. That said, there is some diversity of thought about what happens immediately after death. While nearly all Protestants believe that the individual retains its unique identity after death (unlike Eastern religions), some believe that the soul goes immediately to be with Christ in heaven, awaiting the Day of Judgment and a resurrected body. Others suggest that there is an intermediate time of "soul sleep," an unconscious waiting for the resurrection. Some believe that the souls of the dead proceed immediately on death either to heaven or hell. Still others argue that the temporality of this life versus the eternality of the life to come makes intermediate periods of time meaningless altogether.
Traditionally Protestants believe in a judgment day at the end of history. On this day all the dead from throughout human history will be resurrected, and will possess some sort of physical body that will resemble but yet be different from the body possessed during their earthly existence. Jesus' resurrection, described in all four Gospels, is the basis for this belief, and the apostle Paul emphasizes the resurrection, linking Christ's resurrection to the experience believers will have at the end of time. Paul insists that without the resurrection, Christian faith is meaningless (1 Cor. 15:12-19). At the final resurrection of the dead, the saints (or, the elect) enter heaven, while the damned are sent to hell. Heaven is a state of blessedness in the presence of God, something humans have not been able to experience since the fall in the Garden of Eden. Hell is a place of torment, as just punishment for sin. - Afterlife and Salvation

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

When the physical body dies, the spirit continues to live. In the spirit world, the spirits of the righteous “are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow” (Alma 40:12). A place called spirit prison is reserved for “those who [have] died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:32). The spirits in prison are “taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and all other principles of the gospel that [are] necessary for them to know” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:33–34). If they accept the principles of the gospel, repent of their sins, and accept ordinances performed in their behalf in temples, they will be welcomed into paradise.
Because of the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, physical death is only temporary: “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Everyone will be resurrected, meaning that every person’s spirit will be reunited with his or her body—“restored to their proper and perfect frame” and no longer subject to death (Alma 40:23; see also Alma 11:44–45). - Death, Physical (Overview)
Spirit World
The postmortal spirit world is a place where the spirits of those who have died live before the Resurrection. The spirit world consists of paradise, where the righteous dwell, and spirit prison, where those who were wicked in mortality dwell.
Overview
The postmortal spirit world is a place where the spirits of those who have died live before the Resurrection. The spirit world consists of paradise, where the righteous dwell, and spirit prison, where those who were wicked in mortality dwell.
President Brigham Young taught that the postmortal spirit world is on the earth, around us (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 279).
Spirit beings have the same bodily form as mortals except that the spirit body is in perfect form (see Ether 3:16). Spirits carry with them from earth their attitudes of devotion or antagonism toward things of righteousness (see Alma 34:34). They have the same appetites and desires that they had when they lived on earth. All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 131–32).
The prophet Alma in the Book of Mormon taught about two divisions or states in the spirit world.
Paradise. According to the prophet Alma, the righteous spirits rest from earthly care and sorrow. Nevertheless, they are occupied in doing the work of the Lord. President Joseph F. Smith saw in a vision that immediately after Jesus Christ was crucified, He visited the righteous in the spirit world. He appointed messengers, gave them power and authority, and commissioned them to “carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:30).
The Church is organized in the spirit world, and priesthood holders continue their responsibilities there (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:30). President Wilford Woodruff taught: “The same Priesthood exists on the other side of the veil. … Every Apostle, every Seventy, every Elder, etc., who has died in the faith as soon as he passes to the other side of the veil, enters into the work of the ministry” (Deseret News, Jan. 25, 1882, 818).
Spirit Prison. The Apostle Peter referred to the postmortal spirit world as a prison, which it is for some (see 1 Peter 3:18–20). In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. The spirits may progress as they learn gospel principles and live in accordance with them. The spirits in paradise can teach the spirits in prison (see Doctrine and Covenants 138). If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise.
Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them either on earth or in the spirit prison. These spirits suffer in a condition known as hell. They have removed themselves from the mercy of Jesus Christ, who said, “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–18). After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the Telestial kingdom. - Spirit World

Jehovah's Witness

The Bible says: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalm 146:4) Therefore, when we die, we cease to exist. The dead can’t think, act, or feel anything.
“To dust you will return”
God explained what happens when we die when he spoke to the first man, Adam. Because Adam was disobedient, God said to him: “Dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19) Before God created Adam “out of dust from the ground,” Adam did not exist. (Genesis 2:7) Likewise, when Adam died, he returned to dust and ceased to exist.
The same thing happens to those who die now. Speaking of both humans and animals, the Bible says: “They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust.” — Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20.
Death is not necessarily the end of everything
The Bible often compares death to sleep. (Psalm 13:3; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60) A person who is fast asleep is unaware of what is happening around him. Likewise, the dead are not conscious of anything. Yet, the Bible teaches that God can awaken the dead as if from sleep and give them life again. (Job 14:13-15) For those whom God resurrects, death is not the end of everything. - What Happens When You Die?
What Is the Resurrection?
In the Bible, the word translated as “resurrection” comes from the Greek a·naʹsta·sis, which means “raising up” or “standing up again.” A person who is resurrected is raised up from death and restored to life as the person he was before.—1 Corinthians 15:12, 13.
Although the word “resurrection” is not in the Hebrew Scriptures, often called the Old Testament, the teaching appears there. Through the prophet Hosea, for example, God promised: “From the power of the Grave I will redeem them; from death I will recover them.”—Hosea 13:14; Job 14:13-15; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2, 13.
Where will people be resurrected? Some people are resurrected to life in heaven to rule as kings with Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:1; Revelation 5:9, 10) The Bible calls this “the first resurrection” and “the earlier resurrection,” both expressions implying that there is another resurrection to follow. (Revelation 20:6; Philippians 3:11) This later resurrection will be to life on earth, which the vast majority of those brought back to life will enjoy.—Psalm 37:29.
How are people resurrected? God grants Jesus the power to raise the dead. (John 11:25) Jesus will restore “all those in the memorial tombs” to life, each one with his unique identity, personality, and memories. (John 5:28, 29) Those resurrected to heaven receive a spirit body, while those resurrected to life on earth receive a healthy physical body, completely sound.—Isaiah 33:24; 35:5, 6; 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 50.
Who will be resurrected? The Bible says that “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) The righteous include faithful people, such as Noah, Sarah, and Abraham. (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:11; James 2:21) The unrighteous include those who failed to meet God’s standards but did not have the opportunity to learn and follow them.
However, those who become so wicked that they are beyond reform will not be resurrected. When such ones die, they suffer permanent destruction with no hope of a return to life. — Matthew 23:33; Hebrews 10:26, 27.
When will the resurrection take place? The Bible foretold that the resurrection to heaven would take place during Christ’s presence, which began in 1914. (1 Corinthians 15:21-23) The resurrection to life on earth will occur during the Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, when the earth will be transformed into a paradise.—Luke 23:43; Revelation 20:6, 12, 13.
Why is belief in the resurrection reasonable? The Bible provides detailed accounts of nine resurrections, each confirmed by eyewitnesses. (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:32-37; 13:20, 21; Luke 7:11-17; 8:40-56; John 11:38-44; Acts 9:36-42; Acts 20:7-12; 1 Corinthians 15:3-6) Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus is especially noteworthy, since Lazarus had been dead for four days and Jesus performed the miracle before a crowd of people. (John 11:39, 42) Even those who opposed Jesus could not deny the facts of the matter, so instead they plotted to kill both Jesus and Lazarus.—John 11:47, 53; 12:9-11.
The Bible shows that God has both the ability and the desire to bring back the dead. He keeps in his limitless memory a detailed record of each person he will resurrect by means of his almighty power. (Job 37:23; Matthew 10:30; Luke 20:37, 38) God is able to restore the dead to life, and he wants to! Describing the coming resurrection, the Bible says of God: “You will long for the work of your hands.” — Job 14:15.
Who Go to Heaven?
God selects a limited number of faithful Christians who, after their death, will be resurrected to life in heaven. (1 Peter 1:3, 4) Once they have been chosen, they must continue to maintain a Christian standard of faith and conduct in order not to be disqualified from receiving their heavenly inheritance. — Ephesians 5:5; Philippians 3:12-14.
What will those who go to heaven do there?
They will serve alongside Jesus as kings and priests for 1,000 years. (Revelation 5:9, 10; 20:6) They will form the “new heavens,” or heavenly government, that will rule over the “new earth,” or earthly society. Those heavenly rulers will help restore mankind to the righteous conditions that God originally intended.—Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13.
How many will be resurrected to heaven?
The Bible indicates that 144,000 people will be resurrected to heavenly life. (Revelation 7:4) In the vision recorded at Revelation 14:1-3, the apostle John saw “the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000.” In this vision, “the Lamb” represents the resurrected Jesus. (John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:19) “Mount Zion” represents the exalted position of Jesus and the 144,000 who rule with him in the heavens.—Psalm 2:6; Hebrews 12:22.
Those “who are called and chosen” to rule with Christ in the Kingdom are referred to as a “little flock.” (Revelation 17:14; Luke 12:32) This shows that they would be relatively few in comparison with the complete number of Jesus’ sheep. - John 10:16.

As for your subset questions (Can the dead communicate with each other? Can the dead communicate with the living?), I will pas over it superficially.
The Scriptures are very clear that sorcerers and mediums are not allowed to exist in Israel. They are considered an abomination in the eyes of God.

31You must not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out, or you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God. - Leviticus 19:31
You shall not permit a sorceress to live. - Exodus 22:18
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.n11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. - Deuteronomy 18:10-12

Mediums, magicians, and others who practice occult arts might offer entertainment by means of deception, but some mediums legitimately communicate with either the dead or with demons. The point is that any spirit not from God comes from Satan.
Saul consulted the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28).
During the trial of Joan of Arc, she admitted that both St. Catherine and St. Margaret communicated with her.