How does John Owen account for scriptures which state that justification by faith is not through the law?

Great question in my opinion. I would start by looking at Romans 8:2, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6 and Proverbs 24:16.
Jesus is justified because He is God's Son. He is loved because of who He is. God also wants to "include" us in Christ as Paul talks about in Ephesians 1:13.
Romans 8:2 tells us that we are free from condemnation because we are set free in the inner man. This tells me that we are justified because we are born again. We are not born again because we are justified. We are justified, because, like Jesus we are sons and daughters, having been born again by the Holy Spirit.
We are able to be born again because the blood of Jesus made that possible for us while we were still sinners.
If we are in Christ, we are justified because we are in Christ's inner circle or His family, per se. How do we get into His family? If we trust God as Abraham did, then we are in the inner circle even if we are imperfect. This righteousness that is not perfect, but that trusts God can be seen in Proverbs 24:16. Galatians 3:6 and Romans 4:3 talk about Abraham trusting God and thus being justified.
Jesus trusted the Father. His trust in God is different than ours though because He didn't carry the same corrupted nature that we had before being in Christ and so His trust in the Father led to total sinlessness during His life on Earth.
A lot of the problems here are that the translators of the New Testament translate the verb and noun of the same root differently. The noun is translated as "faith" and the verb is translated as "believe". The exact same word conjure 2 quite different ideas in the English language here. Hebrews 11 shows us that they both basically mean "trust" - confidence of what we do not see.
We are saved by grace through trust, would be an appropriate translation of Paul's statement. It makes it far less mystical sounding and actually is what it is.
NEXT
"but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works." - Romans 9:31-32a
Romans 9:31-32 is crucial. It shows us that the law is not the opposite of faith. You can practice the law by faith or practice the law by works. Practicing the law by faith is good and Biblical, but it shows that the practicing of the law must be the fruit of faith and that faith is how you are justified. And this makes sense logically too.
I don't refrain from murdering so that I will be justified before God. I refrain from murdering because I'm not psychologically damaged, and thus I love the people in my life. You can't be justified by following the law. You are justified by trusting Jesus, and then you learn from Jesus about how to act righteously as you trust Him.
Practicing the law by works: my interpretation is that some Jews didn't trust God at all and were practicing the law to try and tie God's hands as far as allowing them into the Kingdom. It just doesn't and will never work that way. Grace is uncoerced favor. God is the decider of who is let in, and the one condition for Him letting someone in is trusting Him.
Justification is through trust in God. Works of the law are the fruit of that trust. For us sinless perfection will only come after a lifetime + more of practicing and being retrained by the Father Himself in the next life. For Jesus He was able to live in sinless perfection in this life because He didn't have a corrupted nature.
Jesus was legitimately able to die on our behalf because He was the pure spotless lamb, but that language of being pure and spotless is about freedom from corruption. The law teaches how to avoid corruption, it doesn't gain us any kind of standing with God. It's like sin is a cliff. Not jumping off the cliff isn't an accomplishment, but it prevents you from being destroyed. Jesus didn't get destroyed. That's good, but it was His powerful uncorrupted nature that made Him able to die on our behalf, not anything He accomplished by following the law.
Basically, following the law isn't an accomplishment that caused Jesus to be able to coerce God into saving us. Coercion just isn't part of the equation. Following the law kept Jesus free from corruption so He would have organic power to set us free.
Basically Jesus kept the law because it was the righteous thing to do and righteousness is in His nature. Keeping the law didn't gain Him anything before God, but failing to keep the law would have lost Him the ability to intercede on our behalf. There is a middle place where WHO HE IS causes Him to be able to intercede just as WHO HE IS made Him able to live righteously. He is that He is. He is the pure and spotless lamb.


What is the difference between apostolic pardon and absolution?

cf. Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI Indulgentiatum Doctrina

  NORMS n.18—To the faithful in danger of death who cannot be assisted by a priest to bring them the sacraments and impart the
  apostolic blessing with its attendant plenary indulgence (according to canon 468, para. 2 of the Code of Canon Law) Holy Mother
  Church nevertheless grants a plenary indulgence to be acquired at the
  point of death, provided they are properly disposed and have been in
  the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime. To use a
  crucifix or cross in connection with the acquisition of this plenary
  indulgence is a laudable practice.

From this and other reading online, the Apostolic Blessing is [a sacramental] to grant a plenary indulgence (under the usual conditions).

Therefore absolution [via the sacraments] forgives sin and the apostolic blessing with its attendant plenary indulgence is imparted for the removal of all the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin.

Please note: "Canon 468, paragraph 2 of the Code of Canon Law" refers not to the current (1983) Code of Canon Law, which was not yet in force at the time of Indulgientiarum Doctrina, but to the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Latin translation) which was binding at the time (the numbering of sections was changed greatly between the two Codes). In that Code, Canon 468 paragraph 2 reads:

  Parocho aliive sacerdoti qui infirmis assistat, facultas est eis concedendi benedictionem apostolicam cum indulgentia plenaria in articulo mortis, secundum formam a probatis liturgicis libris traditam, quam benedictionem impertiri ne omittat.

which could be translated roughly

  Any parish priest at all who cares for the sick has the power of giving the apostolic benediction with a plenary indulgence at the point of death, according to the traditional form in approved liturgical books; giving this blessing is not to be omitted.

cf.
 - Apostolic Blessing with the Plenary Indulgence | iBreviary.
 - Apostolic blessing at the hour of death | Rituale Romanum.

Endnote

cf. "apostolic pardon" | Wikipedia. "Apostolic Pardon" = "Apostolic Blessing with attached plenary indulgence".


Does a classic Trinitarian formulation consider God to be his own "Family"?

Scope: This post offers an answer for the first part of the question, as I understand it: whether or not Jesus' identification of himself as the Son of God makes the Trinity an instance of Partialism.

The Short Answer

No, it doesn't. The fact that there is no earthly analogue for the Trinity makes it difficult to accurately describe in human language, so a certain amount of "lexical flexibility" is necessary, and theological terminology is necessary if one wants to describe the Trinity with any precision. History has affirmed this necessity. Let me try to explain...

The More Detailed Answer

The First Ecumenical Council

The doctrine of the Trinity began to acquire some of the distinctions by which it is known today at the First Ecumenical Council, or Council of Nicea, in 325 CE, though it did exist prior to the fourth century. At the Council, it was established as the orthodox teaching that the Son and the Father were 'of the same substance' (Gk. homoousios), contra the Arian teaching that the Son was created by the Father.

Athanasius of Alexandria

Athanasius was present at the First Ecumenical Council as a young man, and went on to dedicate much of his life to leading the battle against the Arian heresy. In so doing, he contributed much of what we today recognize as the doctrine of the Trinity. Church historian Justo Gonzalez offers the following summary of the doctrinal position at which Athanasius' arrived after many years of study and debate:1

  Finally, in a synod gathered in Alexandria in 362 CE, Athanasius and his followers declared that it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "of one substance" as long as this was not understood as obliterating the distinction among the three, and that it was also legitimate to speak of "three substances" as long as this was not understood as if there were three gods.

The Second Ecumenical Council

Several years later, in 381 CE, the Second Ecumenical Council was held, this time in the city of Constantinople. Its findings were significantly influenced by the work of the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. The Council affirmed the Nicene faith as orthodox under Emperor Theodosius, and equality of the Holy Spirit was incorporated in the teaching on the Trinity. The council also further clarified the nature of the Trinity. To again quote Gonzalez:2

  [The Cappadocian Fathers'] main contribution was in clarifying the difference between ousia ("essence") and hypostasis -- a word that literally means "substance" but which the Cappadocians defined as the translation of the Latin persona. Thus, the Latin West and the Greek East came to agree on a common formula: one essense -- or ousia -- in three persons -- or hypostases.

Conclusion

So, it seems like those are a few important events in Church history that elaborate on some of the complexities involved in attempting to accurately describe the nature of the co-existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If the historic teachings are accurate understandings of the Biblical text, then it should be entirely acceptable to understand the Trinity as consisting of multiple "persons" -- so long as we also understand that they are of one "essence" or "substance."

I also think it's worth noting that, while composing a response to another recently asked question about Partialism (at the risk of self-promotion, the question can be found here), I was unable to locate any historic references to the heresy under the particular name, "Partialism." After checking several of my usual primary sources, I went through the first half-dozen or so results pages on a few different Google searches looking for some historical background for the term, all to no avail. As far as I can tell, the source of most of the Google-indexed references to Partialism can be traced to one of two web pages: a Monergism list of Trinitarian heresies, and a comical YouTube video that attempts to explain the Trinity through a cartoon of St. Patrick. Neither one lists any sources or offers historical background (though I've not viewed the entire YouTube video). The next step is to visit a fairly heavy duty seminary library that I thankfully have access to here in town.

Sources:

1: The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition, by Justo Gonzalez. Chapter 19, "Athanasius of Alexandria."

2: The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition, by Justo Gonzalez. Chapter 20, "The Great Cappadocians."

Edit: Further searching has not revealed any historic theological references to the idea of the Trinity as a family. While the two following articles are no exception in that respect, and are from popular, rather than academic sources, you may find them to be of some use, if for no other reason than that they could point the way for continued research.

Note: I'm not familiar with the work of these authors, and can't vouch for the reliability of either source.

* The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: The Trinity as Theological Foundation for Family Ministry, by Bruce A. Ware. Blog of The Center for Christian Family Ministry at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Link.

* The Most Holy Trinity: Supreme Model for Family And Marriage, by F. K. Bartels. Article at Catholic.com. Link.


Does the 'Sons of Jacob' refer to only Jews, or also Christians and Muslims?

Having read the lyrics, I'm not convinced this has anything to do with the biblical Jacob at all. There is no other reference, except for an oblique reference to Israel.

If one does assume that this is the Jacob who became Israel (hence Jews only), then the "sleeping sons of Jacob" would probably refer to the lost 10 tribes of Israel. After Israel was invaded by Assyria in 722bc, the northern tribes were dispersed throughout the empire and the known world. After that invasion, only Judah and Benjamin (the remaining two tribes of the Southern kingdom) retained any distinct identity as Jews.  Some parts of Africa (Uganda and Ethiopia to name two in particular) claim to be descended from these northern tribes.

The idea that a once great part of western history is alive in Africa could be the spark the writer wishes to blow into full flame, that Africa might "wake up" and play a greater role on the world stage, as it did in the past.

To get back to the Biblical issue, however, it is Abraham- Jacob's grandfather, who is the father of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

According to both the Quran and the Torah, Abraham sent out Ishmael, once Isaac was born. Ishmael, and his birth mother Hagar made it to Egypt. Both traditions state that Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, and Islam posits that Ishmael was also supposed to be the promised son of the Lord. Isaac, the father of the Jews  (through Jacob, later renamed Israel) and the Edomites (through Esau) is not a Muslim hero, whereas Ishmael is.


How do Unitarians explain Hebrews 1:10-12?

This is a reference to God who created all things aka Gen 1.
It is being re-applied to Jesus. Not to rewrite what was truth, but to add another dimension to it.
We see this pattern with an Immanuel in Is 7:14 and Matt 1:33. The two have no factual connection but the similarities are reapplied with a new focus on the Christ. Many OT passages had fulfilment in their day, but as God designed in to His plan, have much greater significance in Christ.
We can read on to Heb 2:5

5 For He did not subject to angels the world to come, about which we are speaking.

So the context is now evident. Quoting an OT passage and focussing on a new application of it on Christ. This does not undo what was true, but adds the depth God designed in to His word of promise.
Jesus as the firstborn of a new age (Col 1:15,18), which includes all men as brethren (Rom 8:29), is the one who may take the credit for what he accomplished on the cross when he declared, ‘it is finished!’
We can see the initial thread of the message from v1

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the ages. This last word (ages) is usually translated world or universe which is grossly incorrect. Heb 1:1-2

So Jesus is the figurehead of a new age, even the creator of it as the man given all authority by his Father - and duly deserved!
So the Heb reference in focus is a reiteration of an old glorification of God, now being shared with His triumphant son by the writer of Hebrews.
Jesus being made heir is an absurd concept if (as many presume) he made everything to begin with.
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/hebrews-1-10 For more info.


When we talk about the Bible from a Christian point of view (and especially as men preach about it), we cannot separate the Bible itself (a collection of words) from the power of the Holy Spirit who not only inspired its writing, but who also gives light to us as we read and hear the words.

We can live our whole lives reading the Bible, and the Holy Spirit can continue to shed increasing light on what we understand the Bible to say about who God is and the great works he has done.

Is the Bible a finite book with a finite number of words that have specific meanings?  Yes.
But we do not get wisdom from the Bible without the work of the Holy Spirit teaching us.  And the God that the Bible speaks of and the Holy Spirit shines light on is truly infinite.


Looking for an apologetic to the "Cosmic Child Abuse" objection

According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God means that He is fully God made manifest in human form (John 1:14). Jesus is simultaneously both fully God and fully man. As such, Jesus being crucified wasn't God sending someone else to be pusnished, but instead God taking the punishment Himself.

This, therefore, does not compromise God's love and justice, but instead is examplary of it. It is loving because God has saved us from punishment, and it is just because "as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousnessg leads to justification and life for all men." (Romans 5:18-21)


Where did Jesus stay during his 3.5 year ministry?

It's pretty clear from reading the Gospels that Jesus did not have a 'fixed abode' during his ministry. He moved around from place to place. He certainly stayed on some occasions with supporters. On other occasions it is probable he slept outside.

There are a number of occasions where Jesus is recorded as staying at the Mount of Olives, notably during visits to Jerusalem. It seems his preference was to come to Jerusalem only during the day, and to stay at the Mount of Olives (a short walk outside Jerusalem) for the night. The home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus was on the Mount of Olives, and he may have stayed there.


Is there a tradition of breaking pottery in the Paschal Liturgies of the Eastern Churches?

This custom occurs on a few of the Ionian islands such as Corfu (and Zakinthos). In Corfu it usually occurs on holy Saturday where they toss ceramic pots off their balconies into the streets.

As you know the video link is mistitled. This is not the holy Saturday night/Midnite Anastasis service, this is Great Friday evening of The Epitafios Lamentation service. Some say these traditions originated with the Venetian rule after the defeat of the Ottomon seige, others say they are of pagan origins.

Regardless this custom is meant to symbolize the Harrowing of Hades or more specifically the smashing of the Gates of Hades, where Christ burst through the gates and released the captive souls.  St Macarius gives a homily on the descent into Hades with a twist where one can make the connection of this event and the smashing of pottery. St Macarius states (source):

  When you hear that the Lord in the old days delivered the souls from hell, how He descended into hell performing that glorious deed, do not think that all these events are far from your soul. The same Lord comes into the souls that seek Him, into the depth of the heart’s hell, and there commands death, saying: ‘Release the imprisoned souls which have sought Me and which you hold by force’. And He shatters the heavy stones weighing on the soul, opens graves, raises the true dead from death, brings the imprisoned soul from the dark prison… Is it difficult for God to enter death and, even more, into the depth of the heart and to call out dead Adam from there?


At the risk of sounding sexist, a young person would probably have been quite happy to have multiple mothers (they dote on you, they feed you), but to replace your father would be to replace your own identity.

Having a new father means you are totally different person, and to include the father would be to confuse the point that Jesus is trying to make - namely that every thing that gives you comfort which you forsake is nothing in comparison to what you will receive in heaven as a reward.

As Paul would say in Romans 8: 18

  I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.


Who found whom? After Jesus FINDS Philip, why does Philip tell Nathanael "We have FOUND the One..."?

tl dr;

Q: Who found whom?

A: They both found each other - Jesus found a disciple and Philip found a Messiah.

Additional guff:

Overall, this question is essentially based on a translation issue - there is a tacit assumption that the meaning and grammar associated with the original word translated as "found" is essentially identical to how we understand this word in the context of the english language. While understandable, an assumption like this is not particularly helpful in general, and particularly so in this case. The actual word in question is:

  εὑρίσκω

  Greek transliteration: heuriskō

  Gloss:
  (act.) to find, discover, meet; (mid.) to obtain; (pass.) to be found

  Definition:
  to find, to meet with; to find out, to detect, discover; to acquire, obtain, win, gain; to find mentally, to comprehend, recognize; to find by experience, observe, gather; to devise as feasible (source)

In english, 'found' is nearly always used in a transitive sense with a well defined distinction between subject and object, eg: "I [subject] found it [object]". One of the alternative translation choices - 'meet' - is capable of being used intransitively however, eg: "we [subject/object - ie ill-defined object] met yesterday", and if it is used in a transitive construction grammatically, the semantics don't necessarily demand strict choices for subject and object - grammatically, there is a difference between "Harry met Sally" and "Sally met Harry", but as far as semantic distinctions go, you'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find one.

If you're a whiz with ancient/koine greek grammar, perhaps you could make more of this issue than I can, but to my mind, we should be wary of unnecessarily projecting a transitive sense into the grammar. Additionally, the alternate translation options, imply that even if the underlying grammar implies transitivity, there may be no particular semantic significance to that transitivity. In conclusion, don't read so much into it.

The short answer I've given above is based on understanding the overall context of the passage - it's relatively agnostic regarding the 'correct' translation choice of εὑρίσκω (just following the crowd) and how strictly transitive the grammar is, it merely relies on the fact that both εὑρίσκω and 'found' can be used with varying levels of significance.

Re the 'we' issue, a somewhat unlikely possibility is that Philip was the one unnamed disciple of the pair mentioned in vv35-40, and his 'we' just meant himself and Andrew. A more likely option, is that Andrew, the unnamed disciple, Peter, Philip and Nathaniel knew each other well enough to think of themselves as a group, and that by that stage, Philip had found out about the other interactions of the group members with Jesus, while Nathaniel had been off doing something else. According to this interpretation, 'we' refers to the rest of the group apart from Nathaniel.


According to those holding that Lazarus was literally raised from the dead, why did Matthew, Mark, and Luke not mention it?

Commentators give a number of explanations for the silence of the Synoptists on the raising of Lazarus:

To protect Lazarus from persecution
Differing source material
Distinct criteria for what to include

The Synoptics narrate other miracles, and saw no need to include this one as well
The geographical and narrative focus of the Synoptics differs from that of John

Protection from persecution

Perhaps the oldest and most common explanation (particularly prior to the 20th century) is that recording the story during Lazarus's life would have exposed him to persecution from the Jews.  The Gospel of John, being written later than the Synoptics, includes the story presumably because Lazarus by that time had already died. This approach is the primary one mentioned by Adam Clarke (following Hugo Grotius):

  [Grotius] thinks that the other three evangelists wrote their histories during the life of Lazarus; and that they did not mention him for fear of exciting the malice of the Jews against him. And indeed we find, from John 12:10, that they sought to put Lazarus to death also, that our Lord might not have one monument of his power and goodness remaining in the land. Probably both Lazarus and his sisters were dead before St. John wrote.

Different sources

For some, possible explanations of the silence of the Synoptics can be found in the source material for the gospels.  For example, a few have argued that the author of the gospel traditionally attributed to John is actually Lazarus himself.  Most conservative scholars reject this idea, and though it would explain the inclusion of the story in the fourth gospel, it does not directly address why the Synoptists failed to mention it.

Perhaps more plausible is that the story of Lazarus was excluded from Mark's gospel due to the absenteeism of his primary source.  If Peter, as tradition holds, assisted Mark in this way, then perhaps the sections in John (6:68–13:6) and other gospels in which Peter is not mentioned indicate that he was not then present.  Leon Morris explains:

  There is nothing in [the Gospel of Mark] against the view that Peter remained behind (in Galilee?) when the others went up to Jerusalem, and that he came up to the capital city only for the week prior to Passover.  If so, the reason he said nothing about the raising of Lazarus was that he did not see it.  It did not belong to his personal reminiscences.

Distinct criteria

Many commentators, particularly more recent ones, argue that the various Gospel writers had unique criteria for what would be included in their respective works.  Coffman presents a general argument:

  The inspired writers were not governed by ordinary rules and were unaffected by considerations which uninspired men would have honored; and this is nowhere more evident, than in the selection of materials for their writings. It is a marvel that the inspired men would have recorded the martyrdom of the apostle James with only seven words (in the Greek) and devoted nine verses to the undisturbed grave-clothes. The Gospels defy the arrogance of men who seek to understand them apart from their inspired origin.

The following are some of the significant attempts to identify these criteria.

Other miracles related instead

Though the raising of Lazarus is not mentioned in the Synoptics, other significant miracles are, including raisings from the dead.  Leon Morris writes:

  It must be borne in mind that the Synoptists do speak of Jesus as claiming to raise the dead (Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:22), and they give two specific examples, the daughter of Jairus (Matt. 9:18ff.; Mark 5:22ff.; Luke 8:41ff.) and the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:1ff.).  It is possible that they saw no need to add to these.

Daniel Whedon suggests that the Synoptists may not have seen the raising of Lazarus as spectacularly noteworthy as modern readers do:

  It does not, in fact, seem that the other Evangelists viewed the raising of the dead as so pre-eminent a miracle as it is esteemed by modern thinkers or by the Jewish populace. The raising of the widow’s son of Nain is narrated by Luke alone, and in as brief and ordinary a way as any other miracle. And pictorially as John spreads out this narrative, it fills no wider space than that of the restoration of the blind-born in chap. 9. The Evangelists, doubtless, presuppose that either of these miracles require a whole omnipotence, and neither requires more.

Different geographical and narrative focus

Commentators frequently note the distinct approach taken in John, compared to the Synoptics, with respect to geography.  Leon Morris explains:

  We must also remember that the miracles in Jerusalem form no part of the Synoptic tradition.  Not only this one, but those concerning the lame man at Bethesda and the blind man at Siloam are not mentioned in the Synoptists.  For whatever reason they deal only with the last week at Jerusalem and omit all that goes before.

Craig L. Blomberg argues that "a major emphasis for John is to present Jesus as the true fulfilment of the meaning of the major Jewish festivals and institutions," whereas Matthew and Mark "follow primarily topical outlines" prior to Christ's passion, and Luke uses a "geographical progression" to structure his gospel.  So, unlike the Synoptics, only John relates multiple trips to Jerusalem and the accompanying miracles:

  Thus the resurrection of Lazarus does not appear in the Synoptics because it takes place in Judea prior to the last of Christ's trips to Jerusalem, of which the Synoptics wish to record only one.

Conclusion

Commentators holding that a man named Lazarus was physically raised from the dead by Jesus have argued that Matthew, Mark, and Luke had good reason to not include it – to protect Lazarus; because they limited themselves to particular sources; or because it did not fit into their narratives for theological or literary reasons.  These arguments, alongside the internal evidence of the John narrative, defend its historicity.  But ultimately, as D. A. Carson summarizes, presuppositions will play a major role in the evaluation of the evidence:

  For those who think that supernatural intervention by a personal/transcendent God is impossible, profitable discussion must begin elsewhere than at this narrative.  Those (like the present writer) who believe in the incarnation (an invasion of the personal/transcendent Word into history) and resurrection of Jesus find it rather useless to swallow a camel and strain out a gnat.

References:

Barnes, Albert, Notes
Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel, 55.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John, III.A.
Clarke, Adam, Commentary
Coffman, James Burton. Commentary
Morris, Leon.  The Gospel According to John, III.R.
Whedon, Daniel. Commentary


What is the Anglican and Episcopalian basis for viewing the Trinity as a family that should contain a feminine element?

During the course of my research into this subject I found an article that presents some views of the Episcopalian Church with regard the feminine element within the Godhead:

The prayer book, first published in 1549 and now in its fourth edition, is the symbol of unity for the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian communion founded in 1867. While there is no clear timeline for the changes, religious leaders at the denomination’s recent triennial conference in Austin have agreed to a demand to replace the masculine terms for God such as “He” and “King” and “Father.”
In the oracles of the eighth century prophet Isaiah, God is described as a woman in labor and a mother comforting her children.  And the Book of Proverbs maintains that the feminine figure of Holy Wisdom, Sophia, assisted God during the creation of the world.  Indeed, The Church Fathers and Mothers understood Sophia to be the “Logos,” or Word of God. Additionally, Jewish rabbis equated the Torah, the law of God, with Sophia, which means that feminine wisdom was with God from the very beginning of time.

With regard to Exodus 3:14 where God reveals His name to Moses, they make this claim:

[Yahweh] is a remarkable combination of both female and male grammatical endings. The first part of God’s name in Hebrew, “Yah,” is feminine, and the last part, “weh,” is masculine. In light of Exodus 3, the feminist theologian Mary Daly asks, “Why must ‘God’ be a noun? Why not a verb, the most active and dynamic of all?”

They take Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:37 to infer that Jesus is presenting himself in feminine language when he says he has longed to gather the rebellious children of Jerusalem together “as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.”  The writer of this article goes on to claim that:

the author of Matthew equates Jesus with the feminine Sophia (wisdom), when he writes, “Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” In Matthew’s mind, it seems that Jesus is the feminine Wisdom of Proverbs, who was with God from the beginning of creation. In my opinion, I think it is very likely that Matthew is suggesting that there is a spark of the feminine in Jesus’ nature.  Additionally, in his letter to the Galatians, written around 54 or 55 A.D., Paul says that he will continue “in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you.”  Clearly, feminine imagery was acceptable among the first followers of Jesus.

The article goes on to quote from Clement, Augustine and Gregory in support of the argument.  Source: What the early church thought about God’s gender
Anglicans and Episcopalians have always worked and worshipped together across national borders to support each others' lives and ministry.  Source: What is the Anglican Communion?
I will continue to look into this subject in an attempt to find a definitive statement from the Anglican Church.  Meanwhile, I would be grateful for any other information that can shed light on why the Anglican Community and the Episcopalian Church believes that there is a feminine element within the Godhead.
Disclaimer: I neither support nor endorse the view of "the feminine" within the Godhead. My question is merely to ascertain the basis for this view within the Episcopalian and Anglican Churches.  This is a fact-finding mission.


What were the topics of discussion which Jesus had at the Temple? (Catholic perspective)

No.

Any list would be purely speculative, but boy-oh-boy does the mind and heart soar with the possibilities.  One imagines the boy Jesus getting in touch with his devine nature and the questions his man-nature would have formed.

I hope that heaven allows for exploring these questions.  One could imagine seeking out one of those temple teachers that were there and getting a first-hand account of that conversation.


Any Septuagint (LXX) audio book available online?

Audio CD is available here: The English Translation of the Septuagint Bible Online and here.
It also has The Translation of the Old Testament, Including the Apocrypha.
Compiled from the Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851.
Has History & Reference Books available also.


Before Christ, people were saved by believing in God's promise of the Messiah who was to come, as we are saved by believing in the Messiah who has come.

Hebrews 11:39-40 (ESV)

  And all these [Old Testament saints], though commended through their
  faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided
  something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made
  perfect.

There is some speculation that because Jesus is the only way to the Father, OT saints were kept in a comfortable "holding place" (cf. Abraham's bosom in the parable of the rich man), and that when Jesus died he joined them and brought them with him to heaven

Eph. 4:7-10 (ESV)

  But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of
  Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,    and he
  gave gifts to men."

  (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also
  descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the
  one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill
  all things.)


How do Christians reconcile God's omnipotence with his omniscience?

In historic theology, there are three primary attributes of God, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. (I have never heard of omnibenevolence until today, and while we surely could postulate many novel omni-x combinations, they would be just that novel).
Omnipotence is the lack of limitation to cause a desired effect. Omniscience is the lack of limitation on knowledge. Omnipresence is the lack of dimensional limitations.
Bear in mind that we are now dealing with infinite qualities, things which finite men cannot fully grasp - we can only meditate on them, ponder them and "see things dimly":

1 Cor 13:12
12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

A common thought-puzzle raised in objection to the omnipotence of God is the question, can God create a weight he cannot lift? However, this question actually postulates a logical contradiction. There are some things God cannot do because they are, to put it plainly, nonsense. For example: God cannot act contrary to his nature; this is not a limitation of his power but a simple fact of his being. It is simply a contradiction to postulate an infinite being acting contrary to his nature; he has no such limitation that would make it possible to do so.
On to the specific difficulty posed in the question. The question fails to recognize the third of God's primary attributes, omnipresence and also misrepresents the attribute of omniscience.
God's omnipresence applies not only to space but also to time. God created time at the same point that he created space (and science also concludes that time began with the material universe, FWIW). God is outside of time; he is not temporally limited in any way. For God, all time is present - he is the great I AM.
Furthermore God's omniscience is therefore not constrained to temporal thinking; he knows everything in the present. He has no conflict with what will happen in the future, and the future does not limit him, because for him there is no future - all of existence is now.
God's choices happen in the eternal-present and in no way limit him because they are made according to his perfect and infinite nature. Whatever God does he does in this capacity and doing something other than what he has done is not within his nature because what God wills simply is. "And God said, let their be light, and there was".
In essence, God quite literally defines all of reality.
Edit 2012-01-04: In response to Indigo's comment, which is a common misconception:

Obviously, if GOD is bound by the laws of logic, then one would have to explain how HE can be bound by something he HIMSELF created (or, if HE didn't, who did it then).

The mistake here is in assuming God created the "laws" of logic, instead of recognizing that logical coherence derives from God's nature as an inherent characteristic. In fact, our capacity for coherent logical reasoning reflects the image of God.
(Interestingly, but as something of an aside, the Bible calls the second person of the Trinity (Jesus) the "Word" of God, from the Greek logos, the same root as our word logic. The Word was not created, but rather "proceeds" from the essence of God by his nature. In other words (pun not intended) the person of Jesus is a natural consequence of the being of God, as are the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit.)
Edit 2012-01-06: In response to Indigo's subsequent comment:

Ahh, now you make a differnece between "created by God" and "derived from God". Yet this doesn't help with the dilemma, unless you define "almighty" by "bound by its natures inherent characteristics" or something like that. As soon as you do that, I am with you. [sic]

Any being is bound by their nature; God is by nature infinite, which is to say, unlimited. That does not mean he can act contrary to his nature; no being can - it means that anything contrary to his nature is by definition nonsensical, or as I put it in my answer, a logical contradiction. Not even God can make something be black and white at once, not because his power is "limited", but because that's a contradiction in the definitions of the terms. In other words the only way that something can be black and white simultaneously is to alter the definitions of the terms or use abstractions.


When did the practice of Confession in the Catholic Church begin?

The "ear confession" as we know it today is an invention of Irish monks (some 6th century? I'm not sure). Before that time, only heavy sins (especially renouncing Christ) were confessed in front of whole congregation. Private confession allowed to confess all sins.
This practice spread with Irish missionaries quickly. It was codified as mandatory (at least once a year) on IVth Lateran council (1215).

EDIT: wikipedia on the Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church) focuses on penance, so the beginning of the practice of confession is bit obscured, but it gives further details and approves the codification in 1215.

EDIT 2: wikipedia article on Celtic Christianity gives more details and cites Medieval Handbooks of Penance.


According to Roman Catholicism, in what way do wives need to submit to their husbands?

In the epistle of the Ephesians Paul starts out by setting an example which all things fallowing must embrace

  Ephesians 5:21  “Submit your yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ”.

This statement of mutual self offering reflects the love which is the Trinity.  The Fathers self gift to the Son and the Sons self gift to the father.

The Marriage of Christ to the Church is reflected in the marital union of a Man and his spouse.  One gives all to the other and each has a role.

Now, customs and language of the first century do not translate well to the modern western reader.  The driving factor behind Paul’s words are however still valid in any society even if modern culture seems to disagree with it.   Concerning the submissive nature or subjugation of the wife to the husband I offer the fallowing:

There is an encyclical from Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii

  This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

Children will learn to lead from their fathers but learn to submit by their mothers.

The role of the family of God (his Church) including the father is the role of Submission, the role of Mary “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord, Let it be done to me according to your word” This is an image of femininity and of being the bride of Christ.  And how the Church is submissive to Christ. In marriage as Pope Pius 11 writes about, in the family, the mother is the icon of this role.

Now the role of Christ, which the Husband represents in the family, is the image of Headship or or being first in the family.  As Christ says, let him who wishes to be first, be the servant of all.  “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Do not forget the Context mentioned in the beginning of the two being subject to one another.  The Man Being the Head, and the Women Being the heart, which is greater?  Neither, both are necessary and both have honor and dignity.

Gender roles are factor, who do the children go to when they need comfort, who rushes into a burning building to save the children, who teaches and who punishes.  It is important to understand that the two halves of a marriage are one and the same working together.


According to Evangelicals, before the Reformation, who were Christians if “Catholics are not Christians”?

Evangelicals would say that there were faithful churches who kept the gospel before the reformation. I think there are two historical factors involved:

Protestants recognise several movements of like-minded people before the reformation, such as the Lollards and Hussites. I think that Luther himself at one time admitted that his own beliefs essentially were Hussite. These movements did not have a strong lasting influence however. What gave Luther's movement longevity was a combination of the political situation and the printing press, which allowed his teachings to spread widely. It was not like all the precursors were condemned by the church either. Local disagreements and debates, especially by academics like Luther, were common. But printing took the debate to the continental level and demanded a response from the very top.
The Catholic Counter-reformation pinned down Catholic doctrine at the Council of Trent, removing a lot of flexibility from within the church. Several doctrines that would be denied at the council were permitted before, even if they would not have been explicitly endorsed. The Tridentine Catholic Church is different from the pre-reformation church, so that if Protestants say that the Catholic Church today is not truly Christian they are not implying that the pre-reformation Church was too.


Does modern protestantism have any deviations from sola fide?

Sola fide or faith alone is a key point within Reformed Protestantism.  Sola fide—the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works—teaches that righteous works are the result and evidence of a born-again person who has been justified by God and regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Sola fide is so important to a biblical understanding of salvation that Martin Luther described it as being “the article with and by which the church stands.”  The teaching that we are declared righteous by God (justified) on the basis of our faith alone and not by works is a key doctrine of Reformed Protestantism.
There are some modern Protestant denominations that insist works are necessary in addition to faith although you would be hard-pressed to find any overt declaration to that effect.  One clue is whether or not that denomination is “performance oriented.”  They may place great emphasis on performance-related works—attending every meeting; volunteering to help at local, regional, and national events; and devoting required minimum amounts of time to proselytizing.   Everyone must do more in the advancement of “God’s work.”  The dedication of each member is tracked and measured by the amount of time, effort, and money they give to the cause.  If an individual’s efforts begin to slip below expectations, it will be noticed, questions will be asked and privileges withheld.
To establish whether or not a Protestant denomination deviates from sola fide and proposes that justification can be achieved other than by faith alone, one would have to examine their doctrinal basis of belief with regard to their position on Calvinism and Arminianism.  It boils down to whether or not the denomination subscribes to Calvinistic soteriology or not, namely:

“that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen.” (J. I. Packer, “Introductory Essay,” p. 6)
“God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will...  God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected...  Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.” (The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing in 1963 – pages 16-17)
“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, is he pleased in his appointed and  accepted time, effectually to call by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Section 1)

In other words, we are justified not by anything we do, but entirely by what God has done, which includes giving us faith.  Some Protestant denominations have deviated from this original position but it is very difficult to pin down any declaration as to whether they are with Luther and Calvin or whether they are in the Arminian camp.
I have first-hand experience of one fairly new (out of the late 19th century revival) denomination that insists upon good works in addition to faith being necessary to salvation, yet their official web site would lead you to believe otherwise.  And no, I’m not about to name them because Christianity Stack Exchange is not in the business of calling out individual denominations.  The only way to establish what a church really thinks about the Reformed Protestant position on sola fide is to examine how they operate and whether they are “performance orientated” or not.
Edit: The article in this link (provided by One Face) may be relevant to the question being asked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification


Moral virtues can exist in the unbaptized.
The supernatural, theological virtue of faith is not necessary to have moral virtues. Moral virtues* can be acquired by purely natural means. Theological virtues must be infused by God; moral virtues are either acquired or infused.*The principal moral virtues are the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude
Moral virtues dispose oneself to receive the theological virtues.
Discussing the relation of faith with the other virtues, St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica II-II q. 4 a. 1 co.):

Faith, by its very nature (per se), precedes all other virtues.* […] On the other hand, some virtues can precede faith accidentally (per accidens). […] certain virtues may […] remove obstacles to belief. Thus fortitude removes the inordinate fear that hinders faith; humility removes pride, whereby a man refuses to submit himself to the truth of faith. The same may be said of some other virtues, although there are no real virtues, unless faith be presupposed, as Augustine† states (Contra Julian. iv, 3).

* ∵ "the end is the principle in matters of action" and "the last end [God] must of necessity be present to the intellect before it is present to the will" (faith resides in the intellect)† cf. II-II q. 23 a. 7 ("Whether any true virtue is possible without [the supernatural, theological virtue of] charity?"), which quotes from St. Augustine's Against Julian, a Pelagian. E.g., St. Augustine says: "virtues must be distinguished from vices, not by their functions, but by their ends". He argues that since God is our last end, only the virtues which help us attain God are truly virtues; "Christ died in vain if men without the faith of Christ through other means or power of reasoning may arrive at true faith, at true virtue, at true justice, at true wisdom."
Acquired vs. Infused Virtues
St. Thomas's question "Of the Connection of Virtues" (I-II q. 65), esp. a. 2 ("Whether moral virtues can be without charity?"), explains the acquired/infused virtue distinction and shows how the theological virtues (esp. the greatest, charity) elevate the other virtues:it is possible by means of human works to acquire moral virtues, in so far as they produce good works that are directed to an end not surpassing the natural power of man: and when they are acquired thus, they can be without charity [or the other theological virtues], even as they were in many of the Gentiles. But in so far as they produce good works in proportion to a supernatural last end, thus they have the character of virtue, truly and perfectly; and cannot be acquired by human acts, but are infused by God.
St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I-II q. 63 a. 4) gives the example of acquired temperance vs. infused temperance:

For instance, in the consumption of food, the mean fixed by human reason, is that food should not harm the health of the body, nor hinder the use of reason: whereas, according to the Divine rule, it behooves man to "chastise his body, and bring it into subjection" (1 Cor. 9:27), by abstinence in food, drink and the like. It is therefore evident that infused and acquired temperance differ in species (specie*); and the same applies to the other virtues.

*Virtues are habits, and habits are distinguished by their objects. In this example, the object of acquired temperance is bodily health; that of infused temperance is subjugating the body to the soul for God's sake.quoted on pp. 33-34 of Fr. Royo Marín, O.P.'s Theology of Christian Perfection
Interrelation among all the virtues
Explaining the interrelation and growth of the virtues in a single man, St. Thomas gives the analogy in Summa Theologica I-II q. 66 a. 2 ("Whether all the virtues that are together in one man, are equal?") co. that one's virtues grow together like the fingers in a hand:

all the virtues in one man are equal with an equality of proportion, in so far as their growth in man is equal: thus the fingers are unequal in size, but equal in proportion, since they grow in proportion to one another.

cf. also Theology of Christian Perfection by Fr. Royo Marín, O.P., which discusses the classification and interrelation of the virtues, and this classification of the virtues.
Baptism gives grace and virtues.
Summa Theologica III q. 69 a. 4 ("Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?") co.:

As Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i) "the effect of Baptism is that the baptized are incorporated in Christ as His members." Now the fulness of grace and virtues flows from Christ the Head to all His members, according to Jn. 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." Hence it is clear that man receives grace and virtues in Baptism.


According to Jesus in the New Testament, where by name are the three places one ought to worship God?

The reference is presumably to this passage in the Gospel of John:

Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you [plural—i.e., the Jews] say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.”
Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You [plural—i.e., the Samaritans] worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:20–24)

The two places mentioned here as places to worship God are:

Mt. Gerizim, which is near Sychar, the town in which Jesus had this conversation with a Samaritan woman (see John 4:4–7 and a map here). This is the most sacred mountain in Samaritan tradition, and the place where Samaritans were especially to worship God.

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In Jewish tradition, this is the mountain where God is to be worshiped with sacrifices and offerings.

Jesus does not mention any physical location where people will worship God in the Messianic Era. Rather, he says that true worshipers, in a coming hour (i.e., a time that had almost come), and even in the present (at the time he was speaking, and not only in some future Messianic Age), will worship the Father (God) "in spirit and truth."
In other words, the "place" that Jesus says true worshipers will worship God, and do worship God, is not a physical location, but an inner state of spirit and mind.


What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints view of historical-critical methods?

The official stance seems to be that it's a non-issue.

The official narrative is what it is.  It claims that Joseph Smith was singled out by God through the angel Moroni to receive the golden plates, and the means to translate them via God's supernatural fiat.  If true, one wouldn't need external validation. If it came directly from God through His supernatural power, well, God's word is all we need.   God doesn't need humans to verify His revelation, humans just need to have faith in it.

From FAIR wiki, an LDS site dedicated to LDS Apologetics:

  It is important to remember that what we do know for certain is that
  the translation of the Book of Mormon was carried out "by the gift and
  power of God." These are the only words that Joseph Smith himself used
  to describe the translation process.

  As Elder Russel M. Nelson stated in the July 1993 Ensign, the "details
  of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known."
  We do know, based upon witness accounts, that Joseph employed
  instruments designated for that purpose: The Nephite interpreters and
  his own seer stone. Many have offered their own opinions about how
  these devices "functioned" in the process, but it should be kept in
  mind that these opinions are given by people who never performed the
  translation process itself: They can only report on what they observed
  the Prophet doing at the time. We also know that at some later point
  in time, both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's seer stone were
  referred to using the term "Urim and Thummim." Whether Joseph used the
  "original" Urim and Thummim (i.e. Nephite interpreters or
  "spectacles") or his own seer stone to perform this sacred task is
  beside the point, and it does not diminish the power of the resulting
  work. One should read the Book of Mormon itself and evaluate its
  message rather than get wrapped up in the detail of its exact method
  of translation.

and further down...

  Church response

  In 1993, Elder Russell M. Nelson stated that "[t]he details of this
  miraculous method of translation are still not fully known." 1

  All that we know for certain is that Joseph translated the record "by
  the gift and power of God." (DC 135:3)


How do the proponents of the doctrine that salvation can't be lost usually explain Matthew 7:21-23?

There are several perceived difficulties with this passage.

Equating entering the kingdom with salvation.
Equating saying "Lord, Lord" with salvation.
Equating casting out devils as proof of salvation.

Let's address each one.

Paul wrote to the church saying that the immoral shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21. So it is possible that the church (composed of saved people), can be saved and miss out on receiving glory in the coming kingdom. They will be excluded from honor in the kingdom and will not reign with Christ in it. This part of salvation can be lost without losing other aspects of our salvation. For instance, Romans 8:32-39 is emphatic that those who live according to the Spirit will never be "separated from the love of God." They will be in the new heavens and new earth, but not in the kingdom with honor. For more on this, see Paul N. Benware, The Believer's Payday.
Just calling Jesus "Lord" does not mean that one actually lives with the sense of yielding to Christ's authority in life and conduct. "Lord" may be a title more than a position of honor for some people. This is just common sense.
Judas cast out devils and performed miracles with the other disciples when they went out two by two. Was he saved? Can one be used by God and still be a nominal Christian? Yes; God may use any instrument He wishes, even to borrow the tongue of a donkey as He did in the OT.


What is the origin of the interpretation of the Song of Solomon as a picture for Christ and the Church?

Origen indeed suggested this connection, in his Commentary on the Song of Songs (~AD 245):

  This book seems to me an epithalamium, that is, a wedding song, written by Solomon in the form of a play, which he recited in the character of a bride who was being married and who burned with a heavenly love for her bridegroom, who is the Word of God. And deeply indeed did she love Him, whether we take her as the soul made in His image, or as the Church. (Prologue)

However, Tertullian is probably earlier (~AD 210), as he quotes Song of Solomon 4:8 in connection with Christ and the Church in Against Marcion:

  This spouse Christ invites home to Himself also by Solomon from the call of the Gentiles, because you read: "Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse." [...] it was from idolatry that He betrothed Himself the church. (Book IV)

But the big winner is Ignatius (d. ~AD 100), as he quotes Song of Solomon 1:3–4 in the Epistle to the Ephesians:

  For this end did the Lord suffer the ointment to be poured upon His head, that His Church might breathe forth immortality. For saith [the Scripture], “Thy name is as ointment poured forth; therefore have the virgins loved Thee; they have drawn Thee; at the odour of Thine ointments we will run after Thee.” (Chapter XVII)


How many non-decalogue commandments from the Old Testament are still morally binding for Christians?

Jesus affirmed the two greatest commandments because "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:40). Paul says similarly in Romans 13:8, "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law".
The Law, especially the Decalogue, was given as an expression of the two greatest commandments - to love God and neighbour.
The other 613 laws are more complicated. It's common to speak of the tripartate division of the law - moral, civil, and ceremonial. As that link shows there are complexities. Some commands are specifically abrogated in the New Testament (e.g. Mark 7:19). Jesus fulfilled the need for sacrifices to be made (Hebrews 7:18-19).
I would suggest a more nuanced approach than seeing it as a binary thing (commands we either do or do not need to obey). I think the commands are there to teach us how to live, but not to be obeyed in the Old Testament sense. This is because in the New Testament we need to walk in step with the Spirit, who alone can give us a deeper obedience to the Law. Galatians 3:24, "So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith."
Jesus came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17). This means that the righteous demands of the law can only be fulfilled in us through him, through his death and resurrection. We cannot obey perfectly, yet through Christ and the Holy Spirit working in us we can begin to love as God wants us to love. Rather than being an external obedience, God writes his law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).
Therefore the law that needs to be obeyed is the law of love - the two greatest commandments. But the rest of the law we need to see through the lens of being fulfilled in Jesus Christ.


Why did Jesus use the expression, "very truly I tell you"?

It was likely a common expression in that day to emphasize the importance of what would be spoken immediately after that.

And, to tell you the truth, we have a similar phrase in English.  We don't mean that we weren't telling the truth before and are only now beginning to do so.

So, can I be honest with you?  I wasn't being dishonest with you before, but now my degree of openness is greater and I'm being more transparent than I would otherwise be in the course of conversations with acquaintances.


Does the triune God have will by nature, or by persons?

While I'm not 100% certain I understand your question. If you're asking what I think; Jesus implied that the will of the Father, Son, and Spirit are separate, as He spoke a lot about the Father's will.

John 6:40, NIV

  For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Luke 22:42, NIV

  "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

John 6:39

  And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

So I think Jesus clearly implied that He had the ability to disagree, but He chose to do the will of the Father.
I think the clearest statement of this is in John 8:27-29, NIV

  27They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”


Where in the Biblical narrative does God first reveal himself as the only living and true god?

I think you are missing something by eliminating verses that contain the qualifiers along the lines of "there are no gods like me." I think these are very strong statements for God being the only living god.

What you seem to be saying is that a statement like this is comparative in nature, i.e. "No god is like me in what I am able to do" or "No god is as great as I am." I would posit that God is actually talking about his nature in statements like these. So what God is saying is more along the lines of "No god is of the same nature as I am." In other words, no other gods exist.

That being said, to specifically answer your question, I would say Deuteronomy 6:4 is a strong statement for God being the one true god:

  Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
   (NIV)

The footnotes in multiple translations note that this could also be translated as

  The Lord is our God, the Lord alone


Was Christmas a replacement of the feast of Hanukkah or of the 'Invincible Sun'?

Why should Christmas be meant to replace anything?

The liturgical year is riddled with merriment, every other day is a feast or a solemnity or at least an observance of some pious memorial.

Other than to denounce Christ or the Churches that keep Christmas, there is no reason to conflate some pagan festivity no one cares about with Christmas.  If there was a conspiracy back in the fourth Century, then St. Augustine would have said something about it.  What he did say was that when the barbarians came to sack Rome, they left the churches alone, out of respect for traditions that were foreign to them, but which they could see were clearly holy.  They didn't see in them their own idolatry, they saw the city of God made manifest.

Hanukkah on the other hand, has never been as big a thing as Christmas.  Christmas has been an important marker in the eyes of the Catholic Church purely out of necessity.  Consider the lectionary and how the Bible itself was formed.  The books we use at Mass were the same books and letters mentioned by St. Justin Martyr when he wrote about what it is that Christians do during their get togethers. Naturally, a book can't go on ad infinitum so it makes sense that at some point you're going to finish the book and start over again.  So, it makes sense that you'd want to put the events leading up to Jesus' birth in the first part of the book and go on from there.

So, we know Jesus died around Passover, we posit that the two most important truths in history took place on the same day of the year (The Incarnation and The Resurrection) and we do a +=9 months to get a good approximation of where Christmas should be.

Pagans and Jews aside, the question to be asked is, is there really a better day for Christmas?


How is offering X Hail Marys not considered vain repetition?

According to this answer to a question I asked on the Biblical Hermeneutics SE, the original New Testament Greek does not have a phrase like "vain repetition"; instead, the word used, βαττολογησητε ("battologesete") simply means "to babble" or "to sound like one who is stammering". The word is onomatopoietic, and the sense seems to be "using words [not necessarily repeating words] without understanding what they mean", or "using lots of words, in the hope that more words will make the prayer more effective". The New American Bible (Revised Edition), which is the standard used in English-language Masses in Catholic churches in the United States, renders the passage

  In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.

The official Catholic position is that repetition is not done in the hope of making the prayer more effective. Typically, there are two circumstances under which saying of the Hail Mary (specifically, as opposed to other prayers which might be repeated) is encouraged:

In saying the prayer, or sequence of prayers, known as "the Rosary"
As part of a common form of penance after Confession (for example, "For your penance, say ten Hail Marys and five Our Fathers.")

Certainly in the first case, and apparently in the second, the repetition involved is intended to allow meditation (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2705–2708) on particular events: the events of the life of Jesus, or particular events in our own life which are not always in accord with the love and will of God.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has a web page entitled "How to Pray the Rosary", which comments, "The repetition in the Rosary is meant to lead one into restful and contemplative prayer related to each Mystery. The gentle repetition of the words helps us to enter into the silence of our hearts, where Christ's spirit dwells."

There is no similar teaching that I can find on the repetition of prayers as typically assigned for a penance. There is no particular specification about what penance must be offered for which sins; that's largely up to the confessor, and insofar as it is taught, it may vary from seminary to seminary, and thus from diocese to diocese. I can't find a discussion of how this practice arose; particular priests who assign this sort of penance may have different reasons for so doing.

In any case, however, the repetition is not "vain", that is, empty and without purpose. A Catholic does not say these prayers (or at any rate should not be saying these prayers) in an impatient attempt to get the ear of God. Instead, as mentioned in the bishops' web page, the intended purpose is to focus one's physical activity on the sacred, allowing one's mind, supported by the Divine, to focus on a particular subject, so as to allow us to "make our own in faith the subject considered, by confronting it with the reality of our own life." (Catechism, paragraph 2723)


Do cases of scientific foreknowledge in the Bible come from Exegesis or Eisegesis?

No. It's not science - go speak to a scientist to find out. Or better still, actually study some science.
If a text mentions a tree am I suddenly a botanist?
The Bible mentions what it does because it is also about the world. Because humans live in a world and its presenting a certain cosmogony about the relationship of humans to the world around them.
edit
@curiousdanii: Whilst God knows more about trees than we will ever do; reading the Bible doesn't make us into God - to think so is, in the Christian dispensation - blasphemy. Which is why we still have to study trees and much else to become a botanist. So what's your point?


According to Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelation?

Witness doctrine:
God's original plan was for humans to live forever in paradise conditions on Earth.
But
Then Adam and Eve rebelled and threw a spanner in the works.
God's purpose (ultimate goal) didn't change, but his plan (the way to get there) did. Now there had to be all that complicated business with sending his son down to Earth to die as a redeemer and suchlike. Still the end result will be the same: humans living forever in paradise conditions on Earth. Some will live through the Great Tribulation at the end of this system, others will be resurrected from the sleep of death after that Tribulation. They will live on Earth and be ruled from Heaven.
The government in Heaven will have Jesus as its head, but there are 144,000 "co-heirs with Christ", the "Kingdom of priests and a holy nation" who will rule alongside him. These are the few, the minority of humans who go to heaven to be rulers. (Obviously the majority of humans stay on the Earth, or there would be no one for them to rule over.)
The "anointed class", those selected to go to heaven when they die, are not particularly special. In fact, in the first century, all Christians were in that class. They died, and were "asleep in death" (unconscious, dead, door-nail) till 1914, when they were resurrected to heaven. But the number of 144,000 is not quite made up. There's still a few left here on Earth. (It is expected that now the numbers are mostly made up, only particularly experienced Witnesses will be picked to make up the remainder.)
How do you know whether you're one of them? The spirit will move you. So as you read the Bible and read the descriptions in Revelation of a cleaned up paradise Earth, does that move you? Or when you read the descriptions of being "caught away in the air" into the heavenly city, does that move you? Generally speaking, any Witness who claims to be of the anointed class is accepted as being so. And it makes no difference to your status in the congregation. The only noticeable difference is that (a) when the bread and wine are passed at the annual Memorial, you will "participate" by eating and drinking some, and (b) if for some unavoidable reason you miss the Memorial, provision will be made for you to celebrate it a month later, in accordance with Jewish practise of the Passover; such provision is not made for non-anointed Witnesses.
In actual practise, most anointed Witnesses are (a) elderly long-serving members, or (b) recent converts from other branches of Christianity which talk a lot about Heaven. Draw your own conclusions.
Memorial participants are counted and reported in the annual statistics. Non-Witnesses who attend the Memorial and participate of the emblems are not counted. (The bread and wine are called emblems because the Witnesses believe they are symbols only.)
The status of being "anointed" is not thought of as a fixed thing. An anointed person can lose that status, and even be expelled from the congregation (disfellowshipped). This does not necessarily mean that they were lying and never had that status to begin with. (It may mean that, but not necessarily.)
Both brothers and sisters may be of the anointed class.


Why is the Eucharist referred to as «ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν» in consideration of "transubstantiation"?

On the contrary, St John of Damascus himself says:

  since it is man's custom to eat and to drink water and wine, He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural. The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. [...] This surely is that pure and bloodless sacrifice which the Lord through the prophet said is offered to Him from the rising to the setting of the sun.

So his words can't be used to "supply an argument" against Transubstantiation. John couldn't be more clear in his confession that the wine becomes blood. We should guess that he means something else. And he does.

When Jesus said the Last Supper He wasn't "bloody", even though He had blood inside of Him. But on the Cross, He was bloody. Because we all bloodied Him. The chalice contains His Blood, but Catholics don't call it bloody. The chalice contains Jesus: His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. And Jesus is not bloody in the chalice.

The Catholic priest, in persona Christi, isn't offering up the sacrifice in that way. We stopped offering sacrifices in that way a long time ago, and Hebrews explains why. If a person wanted to make a bloody sacrifice, he would kill an animal, let the blood pour out, and then sprinkle the blood on the Mercy Seat while asking God for forgiveness. We confess that we don't do that anymore by calling the Eucharist an unbloody sacrifice. Because:

Jesus, the Blessed Eucharist, the Bread of Life, isn't bleeding
The people doing the offering aren't spilling blood in atonement

Exactly the same sacrifice, exactly the same Jesus, but the offering of that same eternal sacrifice doesn't involve the spilling of blood and death. "Unbloody".


Besides the writings of John, what is the biblical evidence Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God?

The term "only begotten" is a translation of the Greek word "monogenes".  "Mono" indicates one and "genes" indicates kind.  So, the very word itself indicates a meaning of "one of a kind".

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word was actually used of Isaac.  It should be noted that Isaac was not, in fact, the only son of Abraham.  He was neither the first nor the last, as Ishmael preceded him and the sons of Keturah came from Abraham's second marriage that followed the death of Sarah.  (Abraham did, indeed, "have many sons".)

Still, Isaac's "sonship" was wholly unlike all the others ("one of a kind") in that he was the son of the promise and came from a miraculous birth from a woman who was well past the age of childbearing.

As @Mike noted, followers of Jesus are called "sons and daughters of God".  However, this is quite different from the "sonship" of Jesus.  His "sonship" is wholly unlike any other, in that it is eternal.  Indeed, His birth into this world was miraculous as well.

So, Jesus is not the only "son" of God, but His "sonship" is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others who are called sons and daughters of God.  He is literally the Monogenes--the One-of-a Kind--eternal Son of God.


There are two matters wrapped up in this question.  Let me take them one at a time.
1.  How were the components ("books") of the NT Chosen?
The various books of the NT were chosen by the early church, essentially by consensus - they were clearly inspired and some published lists of these books.  Various church councils then put an official imprimatur on the final list.  The requirements for inclusion was always the same - a NT book had to have been written by a person who witnessed the events they recorded or at least spoke to the person who did.  All the current NT fit this criterion.
2.  Why were some writing excluded?
There are many writings that have been excluded and these fall into two broad categories:
(a) Writings of pious, Godly men who were not apostles or associates of Jesus such as, the writings of Clement, Polycarp, Hermas, etc.  These writing do not claim to be inspired and they might have been shocked to hear that their writings should be included in the Canon of Scripture
(b) Forgeries - writings of those who pretended to be someone else famous.  The Greek term for this is "pseudepigrapha" - a writing with a false title.  Nearly all in this category were written in the second century (or later) but masqueraded as though they are written by someone in the first century, an associate of Jesus.  These include: The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Barnabas, and many more.
I make no comment about who wrote Hebrews - that has a huge literature and I do not intend to extend it.  I refers the reader to some of that material elsewhere.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Mary and/or other saints are in heaven?

There are some confusion among Christians regarding Paradise, Heaven, Hell, lake of fire and Sheol. Already many questions are asked on these topics like; this, this,this and this.

I would like to explain what I understand about Heaven.

I believe that Paradise was a place where the Old Testament saints were waiting for Jesus to defeat Satan and bring them to Heaven. The first person to enter Paradise would be Abel and the last would possibly be the thief crucified at the right hand side of Jesus on the cross. Abraham was a notable figure there in paradise as we see in Luke 16:19-31. Now, all OT saints and anyone who believes in Jesus are now in Heaven with Jesus Christ as we can see in Rev 6:9-11, Rev 7:9-17 and more.

Heaven is not the permanent place where the believers will stay. God has a greater plan for all believers. God will create a New Earth for his holy people. Apostle John saw this future planet Earth in his vision.

Revelation 21:1-4 (NIV)

  1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven
  and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
  2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven
  from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3
  And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling
  place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will
  be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4
  ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more
  death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things
  has passed away.”

Thus, there are 3 places appointed for the saints.

Paradise (past)
Heaven (present)
New Earth (future)

Let's talk about Hell.

Paradise and Hell (Sheol) were very close to each other as we see in Luke 16:19-31. Any one who disobeys God in the OT times were in Hell. Now everyone who rejects Jesus Christ as their savior are in Hell. We don't know the first one to enter Hell but one of the first would be Cain. After the judgment day, all the people in Hell will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Revelation 20:11-15 (NIV)

  11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The
  earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place
  for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the
  throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the
  book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as
  recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it,
  and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each
  person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and
  Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the
  second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book
  of life was thrown into the lake of fire.


Is there a name for the belief that God is not omniscient, but rather is "learning" how to deal with humanity?

This sounds most like process theology, though open theism is similar on this point.  C. Robert Mesle explains the former simply:

In process theology, divine omniscience—God's perfect knowledge—means that God knows everything there is to know.  But the future does not exist yet, except as a range of possibilities that have not yet been chosen. (Process Theology, 37; emphasis in original)

Process theologian Bruce G. Epperly goes into more detail:

Divine perfection has been understood [traditionally] in terms of God's complete and unchanging awareness (omniscience) and absolute and unilateral power (omnipotence).  Process theology takes a very different approach, affirming the primacy of love, transformation, and growth as essential to understanding of God's nature. (Process Theology, 34)
Divine omniscience, according to process theologians, does not entail a timeless vision of the future in its actuality.  Rather, God knows the actual completely as actual, while embracing future possibilities as potentialities, not settled events.  New things happen to God; God has new experiences. (Process Theology, 50)

Open theism ultimately takes similar views, though rather than the idea of God learning or growing, it emphasizes libertarian freedom and a non-deterministic view of the future.  It therefore argues that God's foreknowledge is limited or "open" in some way.  There are a number of varieties (Wikipedia lists several), so generalizations are difficult, but Alan Rhoda writes that open theists by definition hold to the following two things:

Future Contingency:  The future is, as of now and in some respects, causally open, i.e., there are future contingents.
Divine Epistemic Openness: The Future is, as of now and in some respects, epistemically open for God. ("Generic Open Theism," 4)

More detail than that seems outside the scope of this question, but interested readers can take a look at Rhoda's article to follow his argument.


What are the different main views existent in Christianity on how 1 Peter 4:6 must be interpreted?

I see two main references to the "dead" in the Bible.  The first are the physically dead, King Solomon talks about them in Ecclesiastes 9:5.  In that verse he tells us that the "dead know nothing".  This confirms what we already know, that the physically dead cannot benefit from teaching or preaching.  They are dead.

The second are the spiritually dead.  But I believe this verse is talking about the physically dead.  Why physically dead?

If you go back to Chapter 3 verse 18, you see: "He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit."  The verse is talking about Christs sacrifice.  If you apply that to this verse you see that there are followers of Christ that will lose their life ("judged according to men in the flesh") but be alive in the spirit.  He goes on to talk about suffering for Christ, this would include being martyred as many early Christians were.

If you look at chapter 3 and 4 as a whole you see that he is talking about turning away from an old lifestyle, living for God, and preparing for the judgement of men that will come as a result of that.  This judgement could include the loss of your life, which is still true in some parts of the world today.


What distinctive kinds of Bible translations are there?

Great question!

Biblical translation is a difficult task because you're trying to get words and meaning out of 1900+ year old text and make it intelligible to people today in their own native language.

Because of this, translation kind of becomes a spectrum.  On one end, you have word-by-word translation while on the other end you have a paraphrase meant for everyone to understand.

Here are the three broad categories:

Word-for-Word translation

This type of bible takes the original language and (word for word) translates it into the target language (for lack of a better term).

This type of translation is willing to move words around slightly to make the meaning clear in the target language.  For example, adjectives in some languages (Spanish, Latin, etc.) come after the noun they modify instead of before (like in English, German, etc.).  So, when translating, they may move adjectives or other words around to make them conform to the target language.

Examples:  English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible
Thought-for-Thought translation

This type of translation tries to maintain the original intent of the text.  It takes a phrase or sentence or paragraph at a time and puts it into more modern terms.  Instead of translating each individual word, they translate larger chunks.

The idea behind this is that it allows the text to be more easily understood by modern languages while still retaining the original meaning.

Examples:  New Living Translation, New International Version
Paraphrase

This type of translation is at the farthest extent of the spectrum.  This translation takes the original text and translates it into words that is super easy to understand.  This type of translation is also called free-text translation because of the freedom that the translators have in converting the original manuscripts into modern language.

Examples:  The Message.

1. This is a link to the primary source article.  2. All links above go to the respective translations of John 3:16

That simply tells you the types of translations there are.  There are many different types of bibles, however, each of which may have multiple translations.

For example, the Life Application Bible (which I heartily recommend, by the way) can be found using the NIV, NKJV, or NLT translations.  While the translation of the sacred text is common among bibles, the extra notes regarding the text vary greatly.

There's one specific translation that I want to use as an example.  It's called the Apostolic Bible.  It's a type of "polyglot" bible (which literally means many tongues, or multiple languages) that contains both the original language and the English translation.  (It also contains the Strong's Concordance reference number for each word.)

It's a fantastic example of a word-for-word translation:


What can be deduced from the Gospel of John about prayer?

I found a few studies on Jesus's prayers in the Gospel of John, especially about the Farewell Discourse (John 14-17).

2020 Journal Paper by Scott Lewis Adams Prayer in Johannine perspective : an analysis of prayer in the Farewell Discourse and 1 John.
From the Abstract:

... This work seeks to analyse ... the prayer passages located within the Farewell Discourse (14:12–14; 15:7–8, 16; 16:23) and 1 John (3:21–22; 5:14–18). This article begins by exploring how the Farewell Discourse prescribes prayer as the means by which greater works will be performed and much fruit produced in Jesus’s physical absence. Then attention is given to demonstrating that the author of 1 John, dissatisfied with the prayer tradition in the Farewell Discourse, provides a nuanced account that focuses on how confidence in prayer relates to real-life, ethical scenarios within the community he addresses (3:11–24; 5:14–17). Finally, this article concludes by arguing that the discussion of prayer in 1 John 5:14–17 is more concerned with the preservation of the believing community than its numerical growth. Attention will be given to analysing the prerequisites, privileges and purposes of prayer in both documents in order to provide a more complete, nuanced profile of Johannine prayer. ...

From the Conclusion:

In this brief analysis, I have sought to compare select prayer passages in the FD with those in 1 John for the purpose of offering a more complete, nuanced profile of Johannine prayer. While the Fourth Gospel contains five instances of Jesus praying to the Father, I have narrowly focused on the prayer passages in John 14–16, discussing their relationship to prayer in 1 John 3 and 5. Following Von Wahlde, I have argued that it is possible that the author of 1 John was not satisfied with the prayer tradition of the FD and therefore sought to provide an expanded, nuanced account concerning the conditions and outcomes of prayer. Notwithstanding, both documents highlight the assurance one can have in prayer—whether one prays for the numerical growth of the community or its ethical and confessional fidelity—and they do so in a complementary but differently nuanced manner. Whereas John 14:1, 12–14 and 15:1–7 put forward belief in Jesus, the efficacy of his name and abiding in him as the grounds of one’s assurance in prayer, 1 John embeds the topic of prayer in real-life, ethical scenarios that illustrate how such existential confidence in prayer is achieved. Obedience is not the ground of one’s confidence in prayer, but is rather the fruit of one’s union with Jesus, which is made possible by his atoning sacrifice. But the one who abides in the sphere of love will bear the fruit of love as he imitates Jesus’s character. While confidence in prayer is implied in John 14:13–14 and 15:7, it is explicitly stated in 1 John 3:21–22 by the author’s usage of παρρησία. Hence, the FD and 1 John employ slightly different vocabulary, but envisage the same optimistic outcomes for prayer. As far as 1 John is concerned, one can pray confidently for a brother (or sister) who is committing a sin that does not lead to death. While the nature of such sinning is not specified, the author of 1 John clearly indicates that the believer’s prayer is the means by which a brother (or sister) is restored to life.

2020 Book by the same author, Scott Lewis Adams, Prayer in John's Farewell Discourse: An Exegetical Investigation.
From a review:

... Adams surveys the practice of prayer in Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Christian contexts before turning to the Gospel. His analysis of John 14-16 demonstrates the importance of locating prayer in a 'relational space, ' i.e., prayer in Jesus' name. Adams establishes connections between prayer and important Johannine themes, especially friendship, knowledge, fruit-bearing, and frankness, and shows how these themes are rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. ...

A 2018 Book by D.A. Carson: Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus: An Evangelical Exposition of John 14 - 17 (Excerpt containing TOC and Prologue here).  From the back cover:

What can we learn from Jesus's final teachings before he went to the cross?
In this illuminating study of John 14-17, D. A. Carson unpacks Jesus's message to his disciples after the Last Supper, in which Jesus proclaims the coming of the Holy Spirit. Carson explains Jesus's teaching on the coming and the work of the Holy Spirit, as well as his commandment to love one another. He also offers insight into the high priestly prayer, in which Jesus prays for himself, for his followers, and, ultimately, for us.

A 2004 paper by Dorothy Lee In the Spirit of Truth: Worship and Prayer in the Gospel of John and the Early Fathers.
From the Abstract:

The Gospel of John had a powerful impact on the early Church
not only in its theological understanding of God but in its conviction of the centrality of worship. In the Fourth Gospel, worship is made possible through the Spirit who gives birth to believers, making them children of God and participants in Jesus’ own filiation. The Johannine Jesus, through the Spirit, becomes both the locus and object of worship, the source of worship as well as the true worshipper. This understanding is the ultimate source of the Nicene Creed’s assertion that all three Persons of the Trinity are to be ‘worshipped and glorified’.

From the Conclusion:

It would be anachronistic to employ uncritically the language of later
centuries to describe John’s theological reflections on worship and prayer.
Yet from the second century onwards, the language of liturgy, apologetics
and credal formulation in the early Church upheld the biblical witness to
the oneness yet plurality of the God revealed in Jesus. These centuries owe
perhaps more to the Gospel of John than any other New Testament theologian
(with the possible exception of Paul). In a forum such as this, honouring
the scholarly work of Eric Osborn, it is permissible to move freely
across canonical boundaries to the biblical and theological reflection of the early Church. Professor Osborn’s work, spanning several decades, interprets the writers of the second century in particular within such a biblical and theological framework. In one sense, therefore, we are free to speak of the Fourth Gospel as trinitarian in its understanding of worship,⁷² a Gospel that in any case “stresses the unity of three persons”,⁷³ even if the distinctions are not as fine or lucid as they become at Nicæa. In different ways, John’s Gospel expresses the unity and reciprocity of Father and Son who are the object of the believing community’s worship.⁷⁴
Yet the Nicene Creed declares that the Church worships and glorifies
all three Persons of the Trinity. The mutuality within the Johannine Father-
Son relationship includes, by extension, the “Spirit of truth” who in the
absence of Jesus leads the believing community “into all truth” (16:13). It
is through the Spirit, êllon parãklhton (“another Paraclete”, 14:16), operative in the life and death of Jesus, that human beings are empowered
and directed to offer authentic worship to the Father. The Spirit shares
with Jesus the task of both convicting the world of sin and revealing the
truth, thus making present the indwelling of God. True worship is possible
only in the power of the Spirit who gives birth to believers, making
them children of God, participants in Jesus’ own filiation. As revealed to
the receptive Samaritan woman, Jesus is the locus and object of worship,
the source of worship and the true worshipper, the bridge between heaven
and earth,⁷⁵ the one whose search for true worshippers is the expression
of the Father’s love and longing. Worship and prayer are to be offered
through Jesus but also, since he is the visible manifestation of God, to him.⁷⁶ In his flesh the worship he embodies is the symbolic enactment of both self-offering and mutual glorification, the source—through the abiding presence of the Spirit-Paraclete—of the believing community’s life and worship.


What kind of Christianity supports Zionism?

Ellis Skolfield, a historicist (which is closer to Preterist than to Pre-Mil Dispensationalism) builds his entire framework for understanding Daniel and Revelation upon a timeline that has two of Daniel's prophesies pointing to the re-establishment of Israel in 1948 and the recapture of Jerusalem in 1967, respectively.

Skolfield's interpretation of the "two witnesses" of Revelation is that one witness is the Christian church and the second witness is the faithful among Israel.

Thus to Skolfield, himself a Christian of Jewish ancestry, the modern nation of Israel is a direct fulfillment of prophecy and true inheritor of the promises that God made to ancient Israel.

Skolfield believes that the millenium and the tribulation occur at the same time. He argues that chillioi is an indefinite plural, so the prophecies about the Millenial kingdom should apply to a period of time that is millenia (plural), not millenium (singular). Thus as soon as Jesus ascended into Heaven, his millenial kingdom began. Likewise, as soon as the Apostle's prophesied the first persecution, the Tribulation began, and continues until today. That also means that the unbinding of Satan has already occurred.

Given that Israel was reborn, Skolfield believes that all prophesies about the end times have been fulfilled, except Christ's return, which can therefore be at any time. He said that many scriptures refer to the "Last Trumpet". He believes that they all refer to the same event, so that the final end of the tribulation and Christ's return and the rapture and the Seventh Trumpet of Revelation all describe the same event. There will not be two big battles, one at the beginning of the millenium and one at the end. There will only be one. The misinterpretation that he claims to correct is that Revelation presents a repetitive, telescoping timeline, which keeps backing up and going over the same time period repeatedly, giving different details. The structure of Revelation has confused people into thinking that there are two battles and a longer period of time than his interpretation requires for the time of the end.