What is the meaning of 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice'?

Jesus was with little doubt alluding to the passage in Hosea.

See also Isaiah 1:11-17 (21st Century KJV)

  11: To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
  12: When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
  13: Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
  14: Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
  15: And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
  16: Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
  17: Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

What Jesus was saying was if the Pharisees knew God and understood what really mattered to Him, they would not put such overemphasis on rules about such things as ritual cleanliness and restrictive Sabbath observance.


How widely accepted is platonism in Christianity?

My limited understanding is that the early church fathers were as aware of platonic philosophy as Plato was of Jewish philosophy.

"The Fathers of the early Church sought to explain the striking resemblance between the doctrines of Plato and those of Christianity, principally by the acquaintance, which, as they supposed, that philosopher had with learned Jews and with the Jewish Scriptures during his sojourn in Egypt, but partly, also, by the universal light of a divine revelation through the "Logos," which, in and through human reason, "lighteth every man that cometh into the world," and which illumined especially such sincere and humble seekers after truth as Socrates and Plato before the incarnation of the Eternal Word in the person of Jesus Christ."

quoted from an article at the Christian Classical Ethereal Library.


Much to my surprise, when I keyed in the word ‘equilibrium’ into a Christian web site I frequently use, it came up with an article about ‘punctuated equilibrium’: https://www.gotquestions.org/punctuated-equilibrium.html

Another article I found was on DNA – not that you will find anything in the Bible specific to ‘deoxyribonucleic acid’.   The article presents a simple overview of the topic without delving into the complexities of the science:  https://www.gotquestions.org/DNA-Creator.html

The reason for my surprise in finding these articles is that this web site is dedicated to answering questions about Christianity and the Bible.  It is not intended as a scientific guide!  However, it also has links to a whole range of articles on scientific topics, some of which do quote relevant Bible verses.   Some of the topics discussed under the heading of Creation include abiogenesis, palingenesis, natural selection and evolution.  Below is a link to all the scientific topics this site covers:  https://www.gotquestions.org/questions_Creation.html

I am not trying to promote this particular Christian web site, but merely suggest it might be of some use to you.

P.S. These books may also be relevant but you would need a hard copy to find the Bible passages that are listed in the Chapter References and Notes section at the back:

Prof Edgar Andrews, BSc, PHD, DSc, FInstP, FIMMM, CEng, CPhys, is an expert in large molecules and Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London:

What is Man? Adam, Alien or Ape? - Edgar Andrews (Elm Hill 2018)

Who Made God? Searching for a theory of everything - Edgar Andrews (EP 2014)

Tom McLeish is Prof of Physics & pro-vice-chancellor for Research at Durham University.  He has awards for his research on the molecular theory of complex fluid flow. This book includes such knowledge when looking at biblical matters: Faith & Wisdom in Science - Tom McLeish (Oxford 2014)

Alister McGrath is a Prof of Science and Religion at Oxford University, qualified in the natural sciences and theology: Inventing the Universe – Why we can’t stop talking about Science, Faith and God - Alister McGrath pp 56, 58 (Hodder & Stoughton 2015)


Is Leviticus 18:22 condemnation of homosexuality only for idolatrous rituals?

There are argumentations that support the sense that this prohibition is to be seen in the context of Canaanite practice, probably first discussed by John E. Hartley.
An exhaustive discussion supporting this theses is published by Luis Quinones-Roman.
This interpretation is embedded into a higher sense (citation from above)

It  is  not  foreseeable  to  believe  that  YHWH  abominates
individuals  that  are  homosexuals.  I take the stand that
homosexuality is not an abomination because both heterosexuals and
homosexuals were created equal before God. Both deserve the natural
and divine right to love whoever they want.

The higher sense is actually the motivation for reviewing the interdiction of homosexuality in modern Jewish and Christian communities; it is not based on the re-interpretation of the law.
It is possible that the interdiction refers somehow to contrast to pagan practice of worship. The interpretation that the interdiction only applied to pagan practice of worship is however rather constructed and not supported by the majority of Christian and Jewish theologists.


What is Hippolytus’ difference between hearing the Word and hearing the Gospel?

To understand this nuance, we have to take a little trip down memory lane and try to understand what Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the life of the Catechumens meant in the Early Church?

The Mass in the Early Church as well as the modern Mass of the Ordinary Form are made of various parts.

The first part of the Mass was historically called the Mass of the Catechumensand is now simply called the Liturgy of the Word.

  The Mass (or Liturgy) of the Catechumens is an ancient title for the first half of the Catholic Mass or Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy. In the Mass of Paul VI of the Catholic Church, it is referred to as the Liturgy of the Word. It was originally called the Mass of the Catechumens, because the Catechumens, or candidates for Baptism, were required to leave the ceremony before the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, or Mass, proper.

  This exclusion was enforced on the grounds that until Baptism, persons were not fully members of the Church and should not participate in the communal sacrifice that symbolizes and embodies the spiritual union of the Faithful, according to Catholic belief.

  In the earliest liturgy there was a service consisting of readings, a homily (explanation of the readings and how to apply them to one's life) and petitionary prayers based on the readings and homily (bidding prayers or prayers of the faithful).

From the Wikipedia article we can understand that the Liturgy of the Word was in reality both the entire Sacred Texts as well as the Gospels. Since both were employed at Mass it would simply be referred to as the Word, in Hippolytus’ day.

Hearing the Word should be always understood as hearing the Gospel also. Although, the following article is unsure what Hippolytus meant by ”to hear the Gospel”? It would make sense that he was referring to certain mysteries of the faith that were taught by Christ in the Gospels and were thus explained towards the end of their probation as Catechumens, most notably the Eucharist.

  The Ancient Catechumenate

  The catechumenate was the ancient church’s process for Christian initiation, leading up to baptism and climaxing with first Eucharist. The earliest post-apostolic picture of the catechumenate comes from The Apostolic Tradition, written by Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235 AD). When newcomers came to the church, Hippolytus insisted that they be interviewed, along with those who brought them, later called sponsors. Sponsors would be questioned whether their guests were “capable of hearing the word” (Cuming 15). These questions were less about motive, and more about lifestyle: Did these inquirers have mistresses? If slaves, did they serve their masters faithfully? Were they gladiators, charioteers, idol-sculptors, actors, brothel-keepers, theatre producers, city magistrates or employed in some other immoral trade (Harmless 41)? If so, they would be required to make the costly choice to “cease or be rejected” (Cuming 15-16).

  Once admitted, catechumens would “hear the word” for three years of instruction, about which little is known. After this period, catechumens and their sponsors would be re-examined, again with attention primarily to lifestyle: “Have they honored the widows? Have they visited the sick? Have they done every good work?” (Cuming 17). If successful, they would be permitted to “hear the gospel,” again a phrase that raises uncertainties about its meaning. Presumably on the weekend leading up to Easter, catechumens would bath, fast and hold vigil in preparation for Baptism and the Eucharist. Following this ritual climax, Hippolytus prescribed further private instruction for the neophytes.

  The fourth century saw the golden age of the catechumenate as a flood of new converts streamed in as a result of Constantine’s endorsement of Christianity. Not surprisingly, this had a marked affect on the nature of the catechumenate. Whereas the few catechumens of the third century could be closely watched regarding attendance and their lifestyles carefully scrutinized, this was no longer feasible in the fourth century (Harmless 58). Moreover, examinations shifted to questions of motivation due to opportunists seeking political advantages (Harmless 58). Importantly, the doctrinal debates within the church and apologetic rhetoric directed at Gnosticism and Arianism resulted in shift to increased catechesis in doctrinal issues. Finally, three stages of the catechumenal process were distinguished: The catechumenate period, Lent and Mystagogy. By 400 AD, an additional stage, Evangelization was added to the beginning of this process indicating that some instruction was appropriate prior to enrollment.

  Ambrose of Milan, the fourth century bishop and catechist who oversaw Augustine’s initiation, described the purpose of the Lenten period as moral education. Ambrose believed that “in order to learn this way of life the competentes needed two things: (1) appropriate models to imitate, and (2) basic moral principles” (Harmless 95). For Ambrose, both of these needs were satisfied with Scripture: the Patriarchs were his chosen models, and the Proverbs were his source of principles. Later, as a catechist himself, Augustine conceived of Lent as a period of “boot camp or Olympic training” “to purge the poisons out of one’s system, to root out slovenly habits, and to sober up with other who sought recovery from an addiction to the world” (Harmless 380).

  Mystagogy was the period that followed baptism. While Cyril emphasized the liturgical significance of this period—the Eucharist was now open to the neophyte—Chrysostom stressed the moral nature of this stage. The “gleaming” baptismal robes were to image their “godly conduct and strict discipline” (Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction, 4.18 and 6.24). In a lament that resonates with the contemporary scene, Chrysostom wrote: “I see many after their baptism living more carelessly than the uninitiated, having nothing particular to distinguish them in their way of life” (Chrysostom, In s. Matthaie evanglium, 4.14). One suspects this sad and familiar state was the outcome of the fourth century prioritization of orthodoxy over orthopraxis.

  As this select review of features of the ancient catechumenate suggests, early Christian initiation gave significant, if not primary, attention to moral and behavioral formation. Thus, its success should be judged by its ability to produce people marked by a Christian way of life.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers a few insights into this subject matter as follows:

  The catechumens were divided into mere inquirers (audientes, akromeni) and catechumens properly so-called; and in each stage there was a three-fold preparation — **catechetical, ascetical, and liturgical **.

  (1) If a pagan wished to become a Christian he was given some elementary instruction in the fundamental doctrines and practices of the Church. He had to show by his conduct that he was in earnest about the step he was about to take. So far, he was only in the stage of inquiry, and was not counted as a Christian at all. He was allowed to be present at the first part of the Mass, but he was dismissed immediately after the sermon.

  (2) As soon as his instructors were satisfied that he was likely to persevere, the inquirer was promoted to the rank of catechumen. He was now entitled to be called a Christian, though he was not looked upon as one of the "faithful". "Ask a man, 'Are you a Christian?' He answers, 'No', if he is a pagan or a Jew. But if he says 'Yes', ask him again, 'Are you a catechumen or one of the faithful?'" (St. Augustine, Tractate 44 on the Gospel of John, no. 2).

  In the early ages the rites of admission to the catechumenate were quite simple, but in the course of time they became more elaborate. At first the candidates were merely signed on the forehead with the sign of the cross, or hands were imposed on them with suitable prayers; and sometimes both ceremonies were used. Thus St. Augustine in his model of an instruction to an inquirer says: "He should be asked whether he believes what he has heard, and is ready to observe it. If he answers in the affirmative he should be solemnly signed and treated according to the custom of the Church" (solemniter signandus est et ecclesiae more tractandus.-- De Cat. Rud., xxvi, P.L., XL, 344). Eusebius mentions the imposition of hands and prayer (Vita Constantini, iv. 61, P.G., XX, 1213). Among the Latins, and especially at Rome, breathing accompanied with a form of exorcism and placing in the mouth a little exorcised salt, was employed in addition to the signing with the cross and the imposition of hands. Other rites were the opening of the ears (Mark 7:34) and anointing. See Martène, "De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus" (Rouen, 1700), I, where several ordines ad fasciendum Christianum, or catechumenum, are given; Chardon, "Hist. des Sacrements", in Migne's "Theol. Cursus Completus", Paris, 1874, XX, 31 sqq., 149 sqq.

  Catechumens when present at Mass were not dismissed with the inquirers, but were detained while a special prayer was recited over them. They then also withdrew before the Mass of the Faithful began. The instruction which they received is described in the article Christian Doctrine. As to their standard of living they had to abstain from all immoral and pagan practices, and give proof by their virtue and works of penance that they were worthy to begin a more immediate preparation for baptism. The duration of this stage was not fixed. In general it lasted long enough to test the dispositions of the catechumen. The council of Elvira alludes to the custom of making it last two years and the civil law fixed it at this (Justinian, Novel. cxliv). But the causes which ultimately led to the abolition of the catechumenate (see above) tended also to shorten it. Thus the Council of Agde (506) allowed even Jews (with regard to whom special caution was required) to receive baptism after eight months preparation; and later on St. Gregory reduced the term to forty days. On the other hand the duration of the catechumenate might be extended, and the catechumen might be reduced to the rank of the audientes, if he was guilty of grave crimes (fifth canon of Neocæsarea, fourteenth canon of Nicaea). What seems extraordinary to our modern notions is that the catechumens themselves put off their baptisms for many years, sometimes even till their last illness. Constantine the Great is an example of this extreme delay. St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. John Chrysostom were not baptized till after their thirtieth year. A question much discussed was the fate of those who died in this stage. As we have seen, they were looked upon as Christians, but not as belonging to the "faithful", because the cleansing waters of baptism had not been poured over their souls. St. Gregory describes his terror during a storm at sea lest he might be taken away unbaptized (Carmen de Vita Sua, 324, sqq., P.G. XXXVII, 994). However, St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him ("De Obitu Valentini.", n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374). Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire. This was especially held with regard to those who were in the later stage of immediate preparation, to be described presently. On this whole question see Franzelin, "De Ecclesia" (Rome, 1887), 414 sqq.

  (3) When the catechumens had completed this stage of preparation and trial, their names were inscribed among the competentes; i.e. those seeking to be baptized. The Greeks called them photizomenoi. This might mean that they were being enlightened in the mysteries of the faith; or, more probably, that they were being baptized, for the Greeks commonly spoke of baptism as "light" (cf. Hebrews 6:4; 10:32). In this advanced stage they were sometimes called fideles by anticipation (e.g. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., I, 4; V, 1; P.G., XXXIII, 373, 505). Lent was the time when the three-fold preparation — instructive, ascetical, and liturgical — was carried on. The ascetical preparation was severe. Prayer and fasting naturally formed part of it; but the competentes were also exhorted to keep silence as far as possible and, if they were married, to observe continence. (St. Justin, "Apol.", lxi, P.G., VI, 420; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., I, sub fin., P.G., XXXIII, col. 376; St. August., "De Fide et Op.", ix, P.L. XL, 205). Confession was also enjoined (Tertullian, "De Bapt.", xx, P.L. I, 1222 where he quotes Matthew 3:6: "they were baptized, confessing their sins". See also St. Cyril, ib.; Eusebius, Life of Constantine IV.61). The instruction given at this time is described in the article [Christian Doctrine, where an account of St. Cyril's "catecheses" will be found.

Catechumens were allowed to be present at the first part of the Mass, but he was dismissed immediately after the sermon. And "Catechumen," in the early Church, was the name applied to one who had not yet been initiated into the sacred mysteries, meaning the mysteries of the Sacred Sacrifice of the Mass, but was undergoing a course of preparation for that purpose. The word occurs in Galatians 6:6: "Let him that is instructed in the word, [ho katechoumenos, is qui catechizatur] communicate to him that instructeth him [to katechounti, ei qui catechizat] in all good things." Other parts of the verb katicksein occur in 1 Corinthians 14:19; Luke 1:4; Acts 18:24. Thus it is not inconceivable that the phrase of hearing the Gospel may have been simply a way of meaning the Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus after their baptism the neophytes were in fullness and understanding of what the words of Jesus Christ meant in regards to the Sacred Mysteries of the faith.

  In the Early Church, catechumens were dismissed after the liturgy of the word because the sacraments, the Sacred “Mysteries,” were a carefully guarded secret open only to the initiated. - The Catechumenate and the Law: A Pastoral and Canonical Commentary

Thus it is more than obvious that St. Hippolytus of Rome was writing in a veiled manner in order to preserve the truths of our holy religion by explaining things in the Early Church thus and guarding the Sacred Mysteries as such. Only after baptism, would the neophytes understand the Gospels properly and without nuances.


What are the stipulations for a mixed marriage to be valid in the Catholic Church?

According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, mixed marriages (where one party is non-Catholic) require permission from the "local ordinary" or bishop (Can. 1124). The children must be baptized and raised Catholic, and the non-Catholic has to be okay with this (Can. 1125). They must have a Catholic wedding and cannot "have another religious celebration of the same marriage to give or renew matrimonial consent before or after the" Catholic wedding (Can. 1127 §3).

If a mixed marriage of doubtful validity already exists, you need to talk to a Catholic priest about convalidation or radical sanation.


How do Trinitarians explain the almost exclusive use of singular pronouns to refer to God in the Bible?

If I might put this in simple language, the Trinitarian position is that there is one God, and he exists in three persons.
It is entirely correct, grammatically and philosophically, to refer to God in the singular pronoun. He is One. This is true even if he consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It is worth pointing out that the English language (and any other human languages) were not designed to describe a being who is at the same time singular (one God) and also plural (three persons). Any choice of language or pronouns is going to be to some extent inaccurate.
Even if this were not the case, the singularity of the pronoun is not an indication against the Trinity. In English group nouns take the singular case: "There is a committee. It reviews applications." "It" is a singular pronoun, and while in English it is gender-neutral, that is not the case for all languages.  Similarly: "I joined the team. It plays football.". I believe Hebrew and Greek take the same approach.


Does original sin have an impact on Jesus?

Like any coin worth it weight in gold, this question has two sides of an equation, just like a coin of great value.

The question is both yes and no!

Let me try to explain this.

On one side of the coin, Jesus was conceived without original sin and as such was spared from all stain of sin inherited from Adam’s disobedience.

It is true that some denominations believe that Mary was conceived without original sin by a unique privilege bestowed onto her by Almighty God. Catholics call this the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that it was indeed possible for Our Lord Jesus Christ to have been born of sinful woman; Christ's glory would not have been diminished thereby. But, he states elsewhere, it would have been inappropriate:

  God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: "(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament." Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office. ... But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: "The glory of children are their fathers": and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the "Divine Wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."

  We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee," etc. - Was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception formulated in response to someone challenging Mary's ability to bear a perfect Son?

Also according to St. Thomas Aquinas only Adam was responsible for transmitting original sin to the human race and thus it follows that only the Holy Spirit was responsible for preserving Christ from original sin, not Mary.

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa clearly states that it was Adam and not Eve that was responsible for the transition of original sin. Now if Mary, the Mother of Jesus is the New Eve and Jesus Christ is the New Adam, it is obvious that the Immaculate Conception was not necessary for our salvation for the Holy Spirit can operate in that dwelling place He so chooses to. It the Holy Spirit that made it possible for Christ to be free of original sin and not Mary, the New Eve.

  The solution of this question is made clear by what has been said. For it has been stated that original sin is transmitted by the first parent in so far as he is the mover in the begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said that if anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it. - Whether if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin?

Just as St. Paul states, Jesus is without sin.

  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (KJV) - Hebrews 4:15

Now on the other side of the coin, all mankind was stained with both original sin and actual sin and this did have an impact Jesus because he died saving sinful mankind from their sins.

Jesus Our High Priest was born in order to save man from their sins. Jesus suffered his Passion and Death for our salvation.  Only in this sense did original sin have any impact on Jesus who is called the Christ.

Although he himself had never been stained with original sin; he did suffer his Passion and Death for mankind who truly did suffer for original and actual sin.


Are there any denominations that accept the gap theory?

There are quite a few denominations that believe that the literal 7 days of creation occurred only a few thousand years ago, while also believeing that the universe itself was created billions of years earlier.

Many of them have "Church of God" in their names, such as:

United Church of God,
Living Church of God,
Restored Church of God,
Philadelphia Church of God,
Church of God, International,

They publish various videos and booklets, such as:

Why Creationists Are Wrong,
Where Do the Dinosaurs Fit?.

  Advocates of the gap theory have based much of their argument on
  verses 1 and 2 of Genesis, because there was no light.

Do you have a reference to this argument about light?  I've never heard it before.

The usual description of the gap theory is that there is an unspecified amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  God created the universe billions of years ago (1:1), Lucifer was put in charge of the Earth and then later rebelled against God.  This resulted in the destruction of much of the Earth, including its plants and animals (e.g. dinosaurs).  Genesis 1:2 resumes the history with the creation week, God restoring the Earth and repopulating it.

I wrote an essay for a religion/science course twenty years ago.  Genesis 1: No Need For Metaphor  Here's an excerpt from it:

...
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

The word "heavens" is sometimes translated as the singular "heaven", but the original Hebrew word is "shamayim", and like "elohim", it too is a plural word. Depending upon context, there are three meanings to this word. The first heaven is simply the earth's air, the second is space beyond the atmosphere, and the third is the location of God's throne (2Corinthians 12:2 "up to the third heaven").

Before the physical creation, there were already created spirit beings known as Angels, and symbolically referred to as stars in Job 38:4,7 and elsewhere:

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? […]
 When the morning stars [(Lucifer?'s) Angels] sang together
 And all the sons of God [(the other) Angels] shouted for joy?"

Note that "sons of" is not meant literally (as a reference to Christ would be) but a Hebrew idiom indicating "those characterized by", as in "sons of disobedience".

These angels were lead by three archangels, Gabriel, Lucifer, and Michael.

3. Genesis 1:2
    "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

The earth was  Notice that even though the word "was" frequently appears in italics, to indicate that it was supplied by the translators, the first use in this verse isn't italicized since there is a Hebrew word from which it has been directly translated. In Hebrew, if a simple state of being is intended, the verb "to be" is omitted. But in this case, the word doesn't indicate a state of being, as it does in English, but also a change of state. The New International Version has a footnote indicating that it could have been translated as "became", and the same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 19:26: "[…] became a pillar of salt".

The earth was without form, and void
Many translations use "without form" and "void" or other similar expressions, but the translators may have been influenced by the Greek belief that the universe originated from chaos. The same Hebrew word for "void", "bohu", is translated in Isaiah 34:11 as "emptiness" in reference to a land that has been destroyed, while the word for "without form", "tohu", is translated in other verses, such as Deuteronomy 32:10, Job 12:24, Psalms 107:40, and Isaiah 24:10, and 41:29 as "ruin", "waste", "desert", "empty place", "confusion", and "wilderness". The Contemporary English Version renders this verse as:

"The earth was barren, with no form of life;"

More significantly, Isaiah 45:18 uses the same word "tohu":

"For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens […],
Who formed the earth and made it […],
Who did not create it in vain [tohu] […]"

providing further indication that this is not how God originally created the world, but how it later became. The RSV has "did not create it a chaos", while the NASB has "did not create it a waste place".

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.
Between verses 1 and 2 is a long period of time during which the earth must have teemed with life, as evidenced by the fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct creatures. But what was it that turned God's creation from perfection to darkness and desolation?

One thing God cannot create is character. Free will is something shared by both angels and man, who must freely choose to do God's will. Lucifer, and a third of the angels (Revelation 12:4), chose to rebel against God (Revelation 12:7-9):

  "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the
  dragon; and  the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not
  prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the
  great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and
  Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his
  angels were cast out with him."

It was the ensuing conflict and Lucifer's ejection from heaven that caused such massive damage to the earth.

Isaiah 14:12 refers to these events while comparing the king of Babylon to Lucifer:

"How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
*How* you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High."

and Ezekiel 28:12-15 compares (perhaps sorrowfully) the king of Tyre:

"[…] You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God; […]
You were the anointed cherub who covers; […]
You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you."

Jesus referred to this in Luke 10:18:

"I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven"

Peter in 2Peter 2:4:

"[…] God did not spare the angels who sinned,
but cast *them* down to [Tartarus]
and delivered *them* into chains of darkness […]"

and Jude in Jude 6:

"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain,
but left their own abode,
He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness
for the judgement of the great day;"

But even though rejected by God, Satan still remains in charge of the earth. John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11, 2Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 2:2 refer to him as "the ruler of this world", "the god of this age", etc. And in Luke 4:5-6 Satan claimed to have authority over all nations:

"Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain,
showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And the devil said to Him, 'All this authority I will give to You,
and their glory; for *this* has been delivered to me,
and I give it to whomever I wish.'"

Jesus's non-denial of Satan's claim confirms that Satan does hold such power.

4. Genesis 1:3-5

"Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it *was* good;
and God divided the light from the darkness.
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
So the evening and the morning were the first day."

Even though perfect character cannot be created, God can create beings capable of using their free will to develop such character in themselves. But unlike the angels, man would be a physical being, mortal instead of immortal, and subject to permanent termination should he choose to go against God's will. As Ezekiel 18:20 says "The soul who sins shall die […]".

But first God had to clean up the nuclear winter mess that the earth had been turned into. On this first day he allowed sunlight to once again begin warming up the earth.


Do Calvinists rejoice in the destruction of sinners?

My Thesis

While you won't find many modern Calvinists preaching firebrand sermons of this sort, that has more to do with the change in American culture than with a change in theology.  The point of the sermon is not to rejoice in the suffering of sinners, but to warn of the very real danger (under Calvin's theology) of falling into hell.  Edwards was warning against a false sense of security based on striving for holiness rather than relying on the grace of God.

The Great Awakening

It's hard to emphasize the difference between the way sermons from the First Awakening  are viewed now compared to the way they were viewed at the time.  For one thing, unlike later revival movements, the target of Edwards' and Whitefield's sermons were very devote, conservative, religious, churchgoing Christians.  In other words, when Edwards says, "he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire" we need to picture folks who resemble Westboro Baptist Church1, not the people they attack.

Edwards was actually addressing a church that fit into the stereotype of intolerant Puritanism:

  How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in the danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape.

The picture Edwards paints is not a crowd of Christians rejoicing over the destruction of evil, but a congregation that feels pretty self-righteous and confident that hell is the destination of other people.  The Great Awakening has sometimes been credited with breaking up the conservative hold on American and fueling (in part) the American Revolution.

The Danger of Hell

Calvinists tend to be more sympathetic to this sort of firebrand preaching since they believe a literal hell exists to punish sinners.  Warning people about the danger of hell is actually loving in this context.  If you happen to know that there's a speed trap ahead, it's a kindness to tell the driver that they might want to slow down.  At least part of the revulsion to hell-fire and damnation sermons comes from folks who don't believe hell exists or that sin carries any eternal consequences.2

Further, Calvinists are especially known for believing, along with Paul, that:

  For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,—Romans 3:22-23 (ESV)

and:

  But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.—Romans 2:5 (ESV)

A Gracious Solution

In our eagerness to read the shocking bits of sermons such as "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", we skip over or forget impassioned pleas for sinners to find salvation:

  And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?

The point wasn't to enjoy the suffering of others, but to wake people up to the problem and point them to the solution.  Whether or not we agree that the problem exists or agree with the proposed solution, we must not assume that Calvinists are pleased to see others suffer anymore than God is:

  But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.—Ezekiel 18:21-24 (ESV)

Conclusion

Frankly, the idea that Calvinists enjoy talking about the damnation of sinners or feel good about themselves for being better/chosen/more-worthy than others is an unwarranted stereotype.  While there are certainly folks who live into that ugly picture, I find most Calvinists to be about the same as other folks in terms of pride, humility, kindness, and cruelty.  If anything, Calvinist theology should lead people to be more humble and kind than normal, though evaluating that statement is beyond our scope.

Footnotes:

These jerks are by no means the only group giving Calvinism a bad name.  They are, however the most "successful" at leading a compliant media to a juicy, but empty, story.
I was surprised to learn that the doctrine of universal salvation is among the beliefs circulating in Edwards' time.


What is the basis for the idea of 7,000 years of human history, expressed by Larkin and others?

Since you don't have any other answers at this point, I'll go ahead and throw out the ideas that I'm seeing play into this graph:

Young Earth Creationism

It would be hard to look at this chart written in 1919 and not start out with the realization that the author undeniably believes in Young Earth Creationism.

Young Earth Creationism is (essentially) the doctrine that states that the earth was (a) created and that it is (b) quite a young Earth (6,000 years old, or so).

See also: What is Young-Earth Creationism?
Anagogical interpretation of Genesis 1

This is a clearly less mainstream viewpoint.  The idea with anagogical interpretation is that we take events in the Bible and apply them towards eternity.

See also: What is anagogical interpretation and when should it be considered?

In this graph, Genesis 1 (the creation of the world in seven days) is being interpreted anagogically.  This interpretation is applying these seven days to seven millennia in human history.  (The six thousand years that Young Earth Creationism says the Earth has already seen and the millennium found in Revelations 21.)
Millennialism (compared to amillennialism)

This doctrine states that the one thousand years in Revelations 20 is a literal millennia (1,000 earthly years), rather than a metaphor or allusion to a time.
Dispensational Premillennialism

This is the idea that (1) Christians will be raptured (2) a seven year tribulation will occur (3) Jesus and the saints will return to Earth after the tribulation and (4) the literal one thousand year reign of Jesus on Earth will begin.  In that order and with those exact lengths of time.

Well, there are definitely many, many more doctrines at play in this.  For example:

Bible is the word of God and should be taken literally
Revelations should be taken literally and all timeframes found in it are actual, earthly timeframes
Jesus was resurrected
Jesus ascended into heaven

et cetera.

However, those above are the "big ticket" items that are not necessarily common or are potentially debatable.

Closing thoughts

Many of these doctrines were popular at the turn of the 20th century and many are popular now as well. The one that stood out to me as somewhat surprising was the anagogical interpretation of Genesis 1.  Outside of that, this really seems to be a pretty straight-forward conglomeration of many prominent doctrines.


Are there any Christian congregations that follow the example of 1 Cor 14:24-25 to win unbelievers for Christ?

This is going to be a partial answer, but probably as good as you are going to get.
There are certainly congregations that practice prophecy in their open worship services. Many Pentecostals do. There is at least the possibility that a member of the congregation will prophecy aloud something that "discloses the secrets of the heart" of an outsider present.
Whether this happens often is an excellent question. Churches do not plan for particular kinds of prophecy. A true prophetic message is always initiated by God. A church cannot say "let us now prophecy things that will disclose the secrets of someone's heart" without running the risk of attempting to control God and hence blasphemy. A much more appropriate attitude is to be ready for whatever prophetic message God wishes to send.
It is also not guaranteed that anyone affected in such a way will choose to make their experience public. It may remain private to them, or private to them and the church.
There are examples of such things occurring. You might start by reading the books of John Wimber. This article by John Piper, identified by GratefulDisciple, also gives some specific examples.


What is the Bible's oldest Messianic prophecy?

The first Messianic prophecy occurs in the first book of the Bible, Genesis 3:15., probably written in the 15th century BC. We can't readily distinguish the chronology between the 5 books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), but they were among the first books of the OT to be written. Job is actually normally considered the earliest written book of the Bible, with an unknown date but with a proposed Messianic prophecy in Job 19:25 "I know that my Redeemer lives", described in this article. Besides Job, Genesis is seemingly the first to be penned.

  Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity
      between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring and hers;
  he will crush your head,
      and you will strike his heel.”"

The significance of the verse (explained by Blue Letter Bible and Ligonier Ministries) is that the He is referring to Jesus and we know this because "he" is singular in Hebrew, even though the previous statement refers to the plural "offspring." A "surprisingly" similar verse in the New Testament is

  Romans 16:20 "And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly."

It is likely that the "striking his heel" refers to Jesus' crucifixion, and the final crushing will occur at His Second Coming when He, holding the keys of death and Hades, will lock up and deal with Satan completely. The onset of the Kingdom of God also relates to Jesus "binding the strong man" (Mark 3:27).

So the prophecy is that a single, particular offspring (Jesus) will crush Satan, and Satan will strike his heel, corresponding to Jesus' crucifixion and 2nd Coming. This prophecy was likely recorded in written form (though passed down for generations accurately through oral transmission in an oral culture) around 1445-1405 BC. (The link is not an academic source; I have just seen that date range for the Pentateuch from multiple sources repeatedly).

Again, Job is proposed to be written earlier (unknown date) with a prophecy in Job 19:25 "I know my Redeemer lives." See this article.


What is the argument that smoking is sin? / What Bible verses are used to infer that smoking is sin?

There are multiple reasons why smoking can be seen as a sin. And some of the reasons appeared because we only started to learn some things about smoking in the last hundred years.

Smoking is proven to be unhealthy, thus when smoking you are willingly destroying your body
Nicotine and the habit of smoking is addicting just like gambling or alcohol. And addiction can be seen as a devil you need to resist or a temptation to be avoiding. Also an addiction overpowers you and becomes your master.
Some people are trying to look cool and conform to their smoking environment.

But the first point is the most suggested when talking about smoking being a sin.

Is smoking a sin just because it is injurious to health? If so, it would be a sin to keep on eating fats when the doctor says not to and you can't resist it.

This actually a general social issue which is invisibly linked to it being a sin or not.

People say to each other all the time, even to strangers: "Smoking is bad for you!, Stop smoking!"

This is social acceptable, but ask yourself if you see a fat man it is social acceptable to say to him:

"Stop eating, so much, it's unhealthy!"

Well, no. Not yet.

The same reason why it's social acceptable to call someone out on their smoking, is the reason we can call someone out using the bible as a weapon against an unhealthy habit smoking which can be seen a sin.

Because many Christian parent's don't want their kids to smoke it's easy to grab the bible and call it a sin. because it's unhealthy. But it wouldn't be very social acceptable to grab the same bible and call someone out because he's fat.

The spirit of time changes a lot, the German's have a word for this zeitgeist.

Somewhere in the future you will probably see this happening.


Acts 6:8 - Stephen is described as "full of grace" (πλήρης χάριτος)

In case of Mary, the angel refers to her, as you have said, as one who has been filled with grace, and the church teaches that she received a special grace at her conception which allowed her to be born free of the effects of original sin. This grace did not preserve her from sin, per se, but this grace made it possible and so she continued in her cooperation with the will of God throughout her life. The infusion of grace she received was an application of the grace won by Christ on the cross, as Christ's merits are eternal and are not restricted only to points in time after his crucifixion and resurrection.

In the case of Stephen, the church does not claim that he was sinless in its doctrine. You are correct, however, that the phrase is referring to the same phenomenon: a radical infilling of grace. Because Stephen was a deacon, we can be sure that he would have been a baptized member of he church, as Christ commanded in Matthew 28:19 and was full of the Holy Spirit. Being full of the Holy Spirit is one of the apostles' criteria for selecting deacons (Acts 6:3). Catholics attribute Stephen's having been filled with grace to his baptism, since baptism confers grace, remits all past sin, regenerates us, cleanses us from original sin, and causes us to be born again of water and the Spirit.

So while Mary was free from the effects of original sin at every point in her life, tephen, unlike Mary, was not free from the effects of original sin prior to his baptism. In other words, there was no point in Mary's life where her ability to remain obedient to God was impaired by the effects of original sin. Moreover, Mary was sinless because she continued to say yes to the will of God throughout her life, and her unswerving obedience gave her the freedom and ability to obey.

Likewise, the baptized person today is freed from sin and put into a new relationship with God through the grace of baptism, as Romans 6:4:7 states:

  Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so
  that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the
  Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become
  united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also
  be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old
  self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be
  done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he
  who has died is freed from sin.

... And verse 14 states:

  For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but
  under grace.

In conclusion, Stephen's being full of grace (πλήρης χάριτος, which literally means “full of grace”) was not the same as Mary's being full of grace (κεχαριτωμήνη--kecharitomene, which means “she who has been graced”). This slight difference in the two expressions indicates that Mary never sinned but that Stephen, unlike Mary, was not free from sin.


How did the Council of Nicea get such a bad rap?

The council has a bad rap because a lot of people think the Bishops bowed to the secular power of Constantine whose judgement and wisdom is always likened to the secular authority of the day.  So when Trump was president, it seems like Constantine is just making baseless decisions on no facts, now that Biden is president people will view Constantine as evolving Catholic doctrine.
However, this is what happened:

The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established. He had opened the session as honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope's legates, Victor and Vincentius.

St. Athanasius assures us that the activities of the Council were nowise hampered by Constantine's presence.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

The purpose of the Council of Nicea was to ensure that the Two Natures of Christ, fully God and fully man would be enshrined in Catholic doctrine and Arius would be anathematized.  It's no surprise then that groups who think that this is not correct doctrine (Jehovah's Witness and Islamic doctrine is closely linked to Arianism) would be more than willing to criticize the council and a favorite whipping boy of those who criticize the council is Constantine.  It's hard to criticize Athanasius, except for being a little blunt, but his writings are so like Luther's that I don't think Protestants bother to come down too hard on him.
But the council didn't ban any books, except the musings of Arius, I believe that was the Council of Rome in 382, and banning the parts of the Gospel talking about Mohammed would need more details to understand, I'm guessing someone says there is some sort of prophecy that Jesus laid out that there would be yet another prophet?   I'd never heard of that before and it certainly has nothing to do with the Council of Nicea.


Were there women leaders in the early church?

The role of deaconess was provided in the early Church.  There is a discussion of this in the answer to:

How were women to serve the church according to the Apostolic Fathers?

The Apostolic Constitutions declare:

  Ordain also a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the
  ministrations towards women. For sometimes he cannot send a deacon,
  who is a man, to the women, on account of unbelievers. Thou shalt
  therefore send a woman, a deaconess, on account of the imaginations of
  the bad. For we stand in need of a woman, a deaconess, for many
  necessities; and first in the baptism of women, the deacon shall
  anoint only their forehead with the holy oil, and after him the
  deaconess shall anoint them.

But this was not a leadership role, as you suggest.  From Apostolic times, women were specifically excluded from assuming any sort of leadership role in the Church.  This is obvious from Paul's admonition that women should not even speak in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:34).  The only possible exception might be the role of abbess, which developed in the 3rd century as monasticism took hold in Egypt and elsewhere.  Even here, though, a women's monastery (or "convent") required the occasional service of a (male) priest to administer the sacraments.


Is the betterment of the world impossible?

Christians believe that mankind is inherently sinful (original sin) and that the world suffers from the curse of sin in mankind as well.

It is true the evil will increase, but "where sin increases, graces increases much more."  (Romans 5:20)  The Bible informs us that before the end of the world there will be people from every tribe, nation, and language who will name Jesus as Lord (Revelation 7:9).  So, even though things do get worse, at the same time the Gospel continues to spread to more and more people, and they experience the the forgiveness, joy, peace, and fulfillment that is only found in Christ.

Christians are absolutely genuine in their attempts to make the world a better place.  It is instructive to see in John chapter 5 that Jesus heals a man who was an invalid for 38 years, and when people ask him who healed him, the man didn't even bother to get Jesus' name.  Jesus healed the man not to get something out of him, but simply because He delighted in doing good.

As Jesus said elsewhere, it is better to give than to receive.  Giving is its own reward, as is serving.  There is true joy in giving to others and helping them in their times of need.

I would also say it most certainly is possible to make the world a better place.  Jesus actually tells us that we are the "salt of the earth" (Matthew 5:13).  Salt is a preservative.  Christianity ought to hold up a very high standard of moral excellence to which unbelievers can aspire.  Without that standard of morality, the bar is set much lower.

Also, historically speaking, as Christianity has spread, the world has indeed gotten better.  Only when it decreases does the world get worse.  Europe was full of barbaric people prior to Christianity.  The gospel transformed it.  Orphanages, hospitals, saving girls from forced prostitution, the feeding of the poor, the digging of wells... all this comes from Christian organizations all over the world today.  In fact, it is a sobering thing to think of how dark the world would be without Christianity.


How do the Assemblies of God interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2–6?

As far as I am aware, the Assemblies of God does not have an official stance on physical head covering. The woman is free to decide.

At my church, Findlay First Assembly of God (the oldest AG Church), it was interpreted as a spiritual or metaphorical covering, refering to women in leadership positions over men within the church.

  The women in Corinth, by prophesying without a head covering, were sending a signal that they were no longer submitting to male authority. Paul sees this problem as severe because the arrogation of male leadership roles by women ultimately dissolves the distinction between men and women.
  - Thomas R. Schreiner

What Paul Really Says About Women in Ministry


According to baptist belief what do you do to be saved?

That's sort of like asking, "What color is a horse?"  There are horses of many colors, and many answers to the question. Still there is pretty general agreement among all 'anabaptists' (That's the name that baptists get their name from.  It just means that they believe that water baptism does not save one, and must be done after one is 'saved.')

The common Baptist doctrine is that you do nothing in the way of good works or religious works, or works of any sort to be saved.  The one essential requirement is that one puts his trust in what Jesus has done. That's called "faith" or "believing" in the New Testament ('pistiuo' in New Testament Greek). "By grace are ye saved through faith...." Having by faith in Christ placed yourself before God, He imparts His Spirit to you, and your life begins to be different, so that you can (and will) begin to honestly 'confess Christ' because you are saved.


What is the meaning of "Advocata Nostra" according to Catholic Tradition & Teaching?

This site has some insightful comments about this. Notice Mary as our Advocate has not yet being declared as a dogma, but as you indicated, it is stated in the Salve Regina, a one thousand year old prayer. First, notice that Jesus is the mediator between God the Father and Us:

  God the Father dwells in unapproachable light. No human being has, or can see, the face of God (Jn 1:18) because of our impurity and sin. Nothing flawed could stand in the presence of God. Therefore, the Father, sent Jesus, to become a man and by His act of redemption, He reconciled man with God but also continually mediates between the people He has won and the Father.

We know this from Jesus himself (John 14:6):

  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

But to go to Jesus, the Church and NT show us that we can also have some "advocated" that pray for us, or through which we can be the object of prayer. The article above states:

  It would certainly be more humble for us to have someone go to the Lord on our behalf. In fact, we do this all the time when we ask others to pray for us. Often, our prayers are answered more effectively this way because God desires for us to be humble and to depend on one another in prayer. This not only helps in our need but also builds up the body of Christ, the Church.

Who is best at this task than the Blessed Virgin Mary. From the very fact of her "Yes" to the angel, which enabled our salvation, to Jesus' own commandment to take St. Mary to "our home" (John 19:27), evidence of this is abundant (see the article for some).

It is important however to differentiate Mary as "official" mediator of graces and as advocate. The former is the belief of Mary Mediatrix, which also is not (yet?) a dogma. Here we are dealing with the latter. I quote the article above, in extenso:

  However, at this point I had better make a distinction between the teaching of Mary being mediatrix of all graces and the devotion of choosing to go through her to Jesus and to the Father. Mary as Mediatrix or Dispensatrix of All Grace is something we believe and, as defined above, needs to be acknowledged as a truth and as such is a contemplative act, while the devotion to Mary as our mediator is an active practice of our spiritual life. This latter devotion to Mary as our mediator with the one Mediator, Jesus, comes under the title of Mary as Advocate. This word gives a further dimension to Mary as our mediator. She is not just interceding for us she is advocating, actively championing our cause. This process of Mary mediating and advocating for us is completely and correctly explained in St. Louis Marie De Montfort's treatise, "True Devotion to Mary" and is too large a topic to be dealt with in this short work. Nevertheless, for those who would know more about this practice, I recommend St. De Montfort's book which is reported to have transformed the life of the man who was to become Pope John Paul II.


Do all churches celebrate communion in the same order (bread-first, wine-second)?

It appear that you have technically answered your own question by reminiscing to your Baptist days when you received wine first and then bread, so no, not all churches celebrate communion in the same order.

I think a deeper question would be whether any churches establish as doctrine the order of the elements. I am not aware of any that do, but there is always a chance that a group on the fringes has elevated this issue above others.

I think more likely if any churches have an official position on the order of the element it's most likely to establish consistency in the order of liturgy, rather than for some doctrinal reason. In general, most churches receive either the elements simultaneously or bread first, wine second to follow the order of 1 Cor 11. Since it is most natural to read this passage during liturgy, it is most natural to receive the elements in this order.


How is Jesus God's final word? (Catholic Perspective)

That section of the Youth Catechism for the Catholic Church explains itself quite clearly.
The quote you reference is the first line of the answer to the question:

With Jesus Christ, has everything been said, or does revelation continue even after him?

Including your quote, the answer continues on:

In Jesus Christ, God himself came to earth. He is God's last Word. By listening to him, all men of all times can know who God is and what is necessary for their salvation.
With the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Revelation of God is perfect and complete. To make it comprehensible to us, the Holy Spirit leads us ever deeper into the truth. God's light breaks so forcefully into the lives of many individuals that they "see the heavens opened" (Acts 7:56). That is how the great place of pilgrimage such as Guadalupe in Mexico or Lourdes in France came about. The "private revelations" of visionaries cannot improve on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No one is obliged to believe in them. But they can help us understand the Gospel better. Their authenticity is tested by the Church.

So it says, in the first paragraph, that the Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ is Universal in scope - valid for "all men of all times" and Ultimate in purpose - they "can know who God is and what is necessary for their salvation."  It goes on to imply, in the second paragraph, that it is possible to receive additional "private revelations", but they will only be judged authentic if they are consistent (and don't go 'beyond') the 'final' (in terms of completeness or what is required - "perfect and complete" - not final in a temporal sense) revelation that God has given us in Christ. It is the Church that can make the determination of whether "private revelations" are in accord or contradictory to the 'final word'.
It then further explains the important concept of:

Incarnation - from the latin caro, carnis=flesh, "becoming flesh". God's act of becoming man in Jesus Christ. This is the foundation of Christian faith and of hope for the redemption of mankind (emphasis added)

i.e. God speaks to us most clearly (and 'finally' in the sense given before) by becoming one of us, and yet showing his Holy nature within the context of human flesh - "God himself came to earth".
It further references (part of) the scripture that most clearly delineates this doctrine:

1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son - Hebrews 1:1-2a RSV

The quote stops there, but it is well worth examining the complete discourse on the topic at the beginning of the epistle to the Hebrews which actually continues well into the third chapter: Heb 1:1-3:6 RSV,  with further illumination on the superiority of Christ over all servants of God later in the epistle as well.
Finally, it includes illuminating quotes from the Catholic luminaries Blaise Pascal:

Apart from Jesus Christ, we do not know what God, life, death, and we ourselves are

and Mother Teresa of Calcutta:

I have no imagination. I cannot picture God the Father. All that I can see is Jesus.

These quotes are in line with the Bible's teaching from 1 John 4:12-15 & 20 RSV:

12 No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God...    20 If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Additionally, not mentioned in that particular section, is the concept of Jesus as the 'logos' i.e. the eternal word of God (cf. John 1).  In this sense, Jesus is the first and last word of God and every word in between! For example:

10 The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; 11 they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory. - 1 Peter 1:10-11 RSV (emphasis added)

Summary: Jesus is God's 'last word' in the sense that through Him and only Him can we truly know God - any others that have or teach a contradictory revelation are respectively deceived or deceivers.


What is the evidence that the bones found under St. Peter's Basilica are actually St. Peter's bones?

A lot of the evidence is circumstantial, so it's probably a matter of opinion whether it's convincing or not:

The bones that are thought to be St. Peter's were found near a grave under the current high alter of the Basilica - a location that's long been considered St. Peter's grave.
There are written records that indicate that ~160 AD there was a shrine erected in the Vatican area over Peter's grave.
Excavations below the current high altar revealed the remains of the ~160 AD shrine and some evidence of an even earlier one (~70 AD).
Constantine was certainly convinced of the location of the grave when he built the first St. Peter's.  In order to position the centre of the apse in the right place, a large area of the Vatican hill had to be flattened.
It's been quite a while since I've read any of the books about this... the bones thought to be St. Peter's weren't found in the grave, they were found in a niche in a wall next to the grave, a wall that has ancient graffiti carved into it that says something like "Peter is here."
The bones that were found in the grave were identified as being from an elderly man, heavily built.  There was dirt on the bones that matched the dirt in the grave and the theory is that the bones were moved to protect them since drainage and flooding of the lower levels of the Basilica was a concern.

Unfortunately, I think the details that would make this closer to the "perfect answer" you asked for run afoul of one of the StackExchange guidelines for what not to ask:

  "Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much."

Among the books that cover this are:

http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Peter-John-Evangelist-Walsh/dp/1933184752
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2438024.The_Tomb_of_St_Peter
http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Peters-James-Lees-Milne/dp/1199553344

The texts of (and some pictures from) these 3 books can be found on this site.


How far are priests and other religious allowed to go in terms of political endorsements (or non-endorsements)?

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in a preliminary draft of the law in July 1954.
The Internal Revenue Code prohibition against political campaign intervention applies to religious organizations as tax-exempt organizations and to the actions of clergy or other religious leaders acting as representatives of their religious organizations. The prohibition does not apply to the political activities of clergy or other religious leaders undertaken in their individual capacities. Thus, clergy or other religious leaders, in their individual capacities and outside the context of any religious
organization-sponsored function or publication, may endorse or oppose candidates and otherwise participate in election campaigns. When engaging in personal political activities, however, clergy and religious leaders should take steps to ensure that their actions are not imputed to their religious organizations.
While the amendment states that the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes, only churches are automatically considered exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS, although religious organizations are not treated more harshly than schools, hospitals, social services agencies, colleges and universities, scientific organizations, museums or other charitable organizations exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the code.4 None of these organizations may intervene in political campaigns.
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...” Although the Internal Revenue Code prohibition against political campaign intervention may burden the exercise of religion to the extent that a religious organization must choose between the receipt of the benefits of tax exemption and intervention in a political campaign, not every burden on religious exercise is constitutionally prohibited.
To date, courts have been unsympathetic to First Amendment challenges to the political campaign intervention prohibition. In the most prominent ruling on this prohibition, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld in 2000 the constitutionality of the political campaign intervention prohibition as applied to a church, concluding that the prohibition did not violate either the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
This prohibition encompasses a wide array of activities. It precludes direct
political campaign intervention, including the making of statements, whether oral, written or in an electronic medium, supporting or opposing any candidate, political party or political action committee (“PAC”); creating a PAC;8 rating candidates;9 and providing or soliciting financial support (including loans10 or loan guarantees) or in-kind support for any candidate, political party or PAC. It also precludes indirect political campaign intervention of a sort that reflects bias for or against any candidate, political party or PAC, such as distributing biased voter education materials or conducting a biased candidate forum or voter registration drive.
The political campaign intervention prohibition does not restrict discussions of issues that are not linked to support for or opposition to candidates. The fact that candidates may align themselves on one side or another of an issue does not restrict the ability of religious organizations to engage in discussions of that issue. That said, a religious organization may nonetheless violate the political campaign intervention prohibition if it communicates preferences for or against particular candidates as part of its issue discussions.
For a more exhaustive document on all aspects of politics and religion, see this Pew research paper.


When the child shall play at the hole of the asp, will it be newly created or re-created?

I think that this short explanation puts things in a whole new perspective: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/earth-destroyed/

It also answers the question "Doesn't the Bible teach that the earth will be burned in fire?"

The explanation does take some terms figuratively, so how can that be justified? Sometimes the context will show that a literal meaning doesn't fit. For example, where Noah by his faith "condemned the world" (Hebrews 11:7) and everyone who "wants to be a friend of the world is making himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).  Sometimes, the Bible gives a literal explanation. In Daniel 2:35,44-45 God's Kingdom is represented by a mountain. Therefore, you can take that sometimes, a "mountain" can mean "God's Kingdom", which is a specially arranged government as you'll see in those verses, that is in opposition to governments of this world, as explained through the dream.

It seems sensible, then, to conclude that the animals we know now will be there, because the destruction of the earth as Peter mentions it, is not aimed at the animals, but at the worldwide human society (see article). There may be a re-creation of animals that have gone extinct due to mankind's mismanagement of the earth, but the details will probably reveal themselves as and when that time comes.


The bronze snake in numbers and the serpent Lucifer

Dr. Michael Heiser, a scholar in Old Testament and the Ancient Near East, wrote this article Why Would Jesus Compare Himself to a Snake? explaining how the serpent reference in Genesis 3 is NOT the same as the serpent reference in Numbers 21:

We might incorrectly link the serpent on the pole (Num 21) and the serpent in the garden (Gen 3), but the only similarity between these two passages is the word “serpent” (נחש, nachash). The nachash of Genesis 3 is a figure acting independently of—and in opposition to—the will of God. In Numbers 21 the biting serpents are God’s instrument of judgment for sin, and the nachash on the pole is God’s instrument of healing for those punished for sin.

Then he explored 3 possible explanations why God used the serpent symbolism in Numbers 21:

Magic

Regenerative healing power, common in ancient Near East

Egyptian symbol of protection

He concluded with Jesus's use of this passage:

Some of these messages are conveyed in both Numbers 21 and John 3:14–15. First, Yahweh was not a God with which to trifle. He could punish faithlessness by commanding the forces of nature—sending venomous serpents against the Israelites. But He also had the power to reverse the effects, offering His divine healing through a bronze serpent. Healing came with one condition: The Israelites had to exercise faith in the offer.
Jesus’ use of this test of the “obedience of faith” creates a fitting analogy to His own destiny. Death, the natural world’s most consuming force, would be reversed for all who looked to Jesus, raised up on the pole of the cross—if only the afflicted would believe.


Do any non-Swedenborgian Christian denominations have a smaller biblical canon than Protestantism?

I strongly doubt there's been any of them around for >1500 years, but the 2nd century Marcionites fit the bill (source for quotation):

[Marcion's] canon consisted of two divisions: the Gospel, containing an abbreviated copy of Luke, and the Apostolicon, containing ten Epistles of Paul

As to the justification:

The main points of Marcion's teaching were the rejection of the Old Testament and a distinction between the Supreme God of goodness and an inferior God of justice, who was the Creator and God of the Jews. He regarded Christ as the messenger of the Supreme God.


What record is there of a canon of Scripture having been set at the First Ecumenical Council?

tl;dr: There is no record of the Council of Nicaea defining the Canon of Scripture. It is not clear what Jerome meant.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry for the Book of Judith summarizes what we know, stating

  St. Jerome, while rejecting in theory those books which he did not find in his Hebrew manuscript, yet consented to translate Judith because "the Synod of Nicaea is said to have accounted it as Sacred Scripture" (Praef. in Lib.). It is true that no such declaration is to be found in the Canons of Nicaea, and it is uncertain whether St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council, or whether he was misled by some spurious canons attributed to that council.

This confirms as you well-observed that the 20 Canons of Nicaea(20 by some countings) do not define the extents of Scripture. Likewise, it is not contained in the Symbol. The Synodal Letter summarizing the acts of the council to the bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Cyrenaica does not mention it either. Together, these seem to indicate that the Council of Nicaea did not consider the matter.

We are left to speculate why Jerome stated that the Council accounted Judith as Scripute. One possiblity is that Jerome simply made it up. This is perhaps the least satisfying and does not seem to fit the evidence. Consider what he wrote in his preface to Judith:

  Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean [Old Aramaic] language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your  request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work , translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

It seems that Jerome was neither fond of the book nor keen on translating it. Inventing a canon to create more work for himself sounds unlikely. It is also possible, as the CE points out, that Jerome was mistaken about the canons of Nicaea. While not impossible, there is no record of such a false canon. Others have suggested (an unfortunately I cant't remember where I first heard it) that Jerome was speaking of the fifty copyies of the Bible that Constantine ordered to be made. But this theory runs into two significant challenges. Constantine's commision is dated to 331, serveral years after the Council. Second, it is not clear if the Sacred Scriptures ordered by Constantine contained the entire Bible (including the Deuterocanon) or a subset, perhaps the New Testament or Gospels alone. As with the spurious canon, this suggestion is possible but not well supported by evidence.

The CE suggest one other possibility:

  and it is uncertain whether St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council

To me, this seems the most likely -- that one or more of the Nicaea Fathers used quotations from Judith to support an argument. To see my reasoning, consider what Jerome wrote in his Preface to Tobit.

  I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.

As with Judith, Jerome does not seem overly thrilled with translating Tobit. Unlike Judith, he agrees to do it because he finds it better to submit to bishops than Pharisees rather than pointing to a canon from Nicaea. While it is possible that a Nicaea set a canon including Judith but excluding Tobit, but that seems unlikely. More likely, some argument during the council used Judith, but Tobit was not relevent at any point. If I might be allowed to continue to speculate, note that the subject of clerical celibacy was discussed. (See also Canon III). Given what Jerome wrote about Judith:

  Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

Perhaps the Book of Judith came up in this matter.


What does the Lutheran Church teach about Justification by Faith and is the sacrament of Baptism essential to salvation?

Having been raised in the Lutheran church, and being born again as an adult, I spent a lot of time trying to understand this question, because It never made sense to me.

It's the type of question that requires a lot of context. The first thing is to understand that Lutheranism is NOT the same as reformed, calvnist, or baptist theologies.

They have a lot of common elements, and intersections, but these old ideas about baptism point more towards Catholicism than what other reformers would teach after Luther.

Here is an excerpt from the LCMS frequently asked questions page which explains quite frankly, that while they do indeed teach baptismal regeneration, they stop short of saying that baptism is REQUIRED for salvation.

  Lutherans do not believe that only those baptized as infants receive faith. Faith can also be created in a person's heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's (written or spoken) Word.
  Baptism should then soon follow conversion (cf. Acts 8:26-40) for the purpose of confirming and strengthening faith in accordance with God's command and promise. Depending on the situation, therefore, Lutherans baptize people of all ages from infancy to adulthood.
  The LCMS does not believe that Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. All true believers in the Old Testament era were saved without baptism. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of Baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God).

Heres the link to the whole FAQ. https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine#baptism
This link is from the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod). In my experience, this is about the best straight forward answers you can find. They have a bunch of stuff on baptism, and salvation in general. I think this will answer your question nicely.

With that being said,and the request for an official source being satisfied, I will give some brief points to help you contextualize the situation.

Lutherans believe human beings are saved by grace alone, through faith. They however differ from other protestants in that they believe that the sacrament of baptism, is an actually effectual means of grace, which benefits the baptized person. They talk about baptism as being "Water and the Word". So by baptism, the infant receives the word with faith.

They also teach that one can lose their salvation. Admittedly this is not brought up very much. But Lutheranism does not teach that an unbeliever, tho baptized as a child is any more saved than an unbaptized unbeliever.

By this they maintain that it is grace through faith that saves. They just do some "hand waving" and equate infant baptism with faith and grace.

As mentioned in the above quote, they do not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

This can all be somewhat confusing if you are coming from a Baptist/reformed understanding of things. I hope this helps!


How to answer: "If God is omnipotent, can he create an object he cannot move?"

The question is based on a false premise, that omnipotence means the ability to do anything.  Rather omnipotence means posessing infinite power:

  almighty or infinite in power, as God.
  having very great or unlimited authority or power.
  source

Having infinite power does not give one the ability to do anything. It only gives them the ability to do anything which is possible by force.  No amount of power allows one to do the logically impossible: Draw a spherical square, or create an object so large it cannot be moved, sing the color purple, or any other logical impossibility.

See my answer on Philosophy.SE to a simliar question (which was originally here, but migrated).


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Michael is not Jesus?

The "archangel" Michael is named in only three books in the Bible: in Daniel, Revelation, and Jude. While what Daniel and Revelation say about Michael is compatible with the idea that Michael is another name for Jesus, I cannot see how this can be the case for Jude:

Jude 8-9 (NIV): In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings.
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

I read these verses as indicating that there were some people in the church whose sins included a faulty self-exaltation over these "celestial beings" and abuse towards the same. Jude contrasts these people with the archangel Michael who evidently did not have authority over the devil, nor did he even think it appropriate to condemn or rebuke the devil in his own name, but only in the name of the Lord. Christians have many different ideas about Satan, and the Bible is thin on details, but it's possible that Satan in his role as The Accuser truly did outrank the other angels, or was at least of the same rank.
But Jesus, the Son of God, has never been in any way subservient to the devil. Satan has never had authority over the Son of God, and Jesus does not need to invoke his Father to rebuke Satan. And when Jesus did directly engage with Satan, seen most clearly in his tempting, I think it shows a very different attitude to that of Michael, with Jesus being willing to directly correct and rebuke Satan.

Matthew 4:9-10 (NIV): Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”


What are the reasons for calling oneself a "follower of Jesus" rather than a Christian?

Not really sure it is enough for an answer, but feels too long for a comment; as with here, it primarily seems to be people who feel that the label "Christian", regardless of it's origin and literal meaning, has too many associations (perhaps more in the people they interact with than themselves).

As an example, there are phrases often used in media and politics such as "Christian values", "the Christian thing to do", "the Christian view", etc. As is demonstrated daily on this site, there is no such thing as a single definition of "Christian values", or "the Christian thing to do" - it is a huuuuuuuuuge spectrum.

Hence my interpretation of this is that these people are believers who are very happy to follow the teachings of Christ, but for whom the term "Christian" has become loaded; while it represents positive things, the same term is also used on their behalf, and without their consent to (mis?)represent them, or to form assumptions about their view on things simply from the label "Christian", when simply asking them could be more helpful to all parties.

An interesting feature of this, for example, is in politics - where "Lobbyist X" who happens to be Christian, cites some Christian head-count number, and uses that argument to support their case. However, it is not true to say that just because someone is Christian means that they agree with the view being presented by the lobbyist - it is false representation. Without trying to walk head-first into another label, lobbyists using such tactics tend to be trying to push through Christian-right/conservative perspectives. As a current example, some Christian-right folks are currently getting very worked up about the thought of proposed US laws relating to contraception and employer obligations - somewhat ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Christian women have used contraception (this is meant as an example only, so let's not get overly distracted on that).

Labels aside, I doubt you (as someone who is happy to identify as "Christian") would have any important belief differences. In terms of opinion differences - that is entirely the point: you'd need to ask them, as forming an opinion (of either party) merely from the label "Christian" can be very very misleading. As such, though, it seems a little bit implicit that a "follower of Jesus" / "follower of Christ" is probably not overly conservative in their views. The irony here is that avoiding one label ("Christian") seems to imply another ("liberal") - but that might just be me.


Why are psalms in the bible printed with funny spacing?

What is the significance of the awkward spacing (on the right below) when songs are printed in the bible?

First, to state the obvious: the translators have determined that this represents poetry. Within the domain of poetry, the "awkward spacing" you ask about has a technical name: stichometric division. Unfortunately, neither what constitutes poetry nor how the lines ("stiches") should be divided are necessarily straightforward decisions.

Manuscript evidence

As noted in another answer, the oldest manuscripts available to us make no indication of the boundary between prose and poetry. The oldest available manuscript widely regarded as containing poetic elements is the famous Great Isaiah Scroll from among the Qumran documents (a.k.a. Dead Sea Scrolls), dated to the 2nd - 4th C. BCE. At the link, start at the right and hover over the lines for information about correspondence to modern versification. Then open any modern translation and note that the boundaries between poetry and prose (e.g. 1:1-2; 3:17-18; 3:26-4:1, etc.) are not marked in the Scroll.

Is it poetry?

The fact that the line between poetry and prose is not always obvious is evidenced in many places in translations of the Hebrew Bible. For instance, compare Isaiah 4:2-6 is viewed in some translations as poetry and in others as prose, as seen at the link.

Some characteristics are shared between English and Hebrew poetry and thus may seem intuitive to the English reader. These include:

terse expression
freedom of word order, and
the absence of typical prose particles.1

On the other hand, rhyme, a typical feature of English poetry, is rarely present in Hebrew poetry. Finally, two features of Hebrew poetry have been the source of much debate: parallelism and meter. More on these below.

How to divide the lines?

This is also frequently less-than-obvious. Compare Isaiah 5:7 in the NRSV, GNB, and NAB:

  For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts
       is the house of Israel.

  Israel is the vineyard of the
       LORD Almighty.

  The vineyard of the LORD of
       hosts is the house of Israel.

This is an unusual degree of disagreement among translations. Still, the criteria for dividing the line are surprisingly indistinct. One feature that may be taken into consideration is meter. However, for many years there has been a debate about whether syllables or accents ought to be counted when discerning rhythm and meter. Furthermore, many now agree that meter in the sense it is known in Greek, Latin, and English poetry, is simply not a characteristic of Hebrew poetry.2

On the other hand, various forms of rhythmic regularity continue to be identified, and these often contribute to stichometry. If you open a scholarly commentary on a poetic book, you may see designations like these (Isa. 5:3): 3+2, 3+2. Here the commentator has counted primary accents:

  wĕʿattā yôšēb yĕrûšālayim (3)
  And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem

       wĕʾı̂š yĕhûdāh (2)
       and men of Judah

  šiptû-nāʾ bênı̂ (3)
  judge between me

       ûbên karmı̂ (2)
       and my vineyard

3+2 is sort of a "normal" pattern, so this may be used to justify such line divisions, although whether one counts accents or syllables can alter the conclusions, secondary accents are of indeterminate import, and the whole thing turns out to be very slippery. (Peterson and Richards demonstrate that several other conclusions about the accent structure of this verse are possible. In their opinion, "there are no regular and predictable patterns of rhythm.") Thus, this can only be one factor of several to be considered.

The task is made easier when the proposed metrical scheme lines up with the semantic parallelism. This brings us to another feature that figures into stichometry: parallel relationships. Take a look at Psalm 19:1:

  The heavens declare the glory of God,
               and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

This verse includes parallelism at both the level of syntax (i.e. grammatical form) and semantics (i.e. meaning). The Hebrew goes subject-verb-object / object-verb-subject, a syntactic chiasm. Semantically, this is a nice example of the first of the three main types of parallelism:

synonymous (second part provides a sort of restatement of the first),
antithetical (second part is the obverse of the first), and
synthetic (a relationship where neither of the above holds).

Whether or not parallelism is a defining feature of Hebrew poetry, and whether meter should be discerned at all continue to be debated among scholars. Regardless, various expressions of parallelism and rhythm (if not strictly meter, see note 2) are important considerations for translators (and, indeed, modern printers of the Hebrew text) when deciding how to divide the lines ("stiches") to aid the reader in understanding the structure of poetry.

Notes

1. The most obvious here is the so-called definite direct object marker, the absence of which has an effect similar to the freedom of word-order: loosening up the syntax.

2. This is the view of Peterson and Richards (below). These authors define rhythm: "a cadence, contour, a figure of periodicity, and sequence perceptible as a distinct pattern capable of repetition and variation". Meter: "more or less regular poetic rhythm..."

References

David L. Petersen and Kent Harold Richards. Interpreting Hebrew Poetry (Fortress Press, 1992). Most of the factual statements regarding scholarly consensus are based on statements in this text, and the Biblical examples given here arise from discussions in that book, except as below.

David J. Reimer, Introduction to the Poetic and Wisdom Literature  in ESV Study Bible, Ed. Wayne Grudem and Lane T. Dennis. (Crossway, 2001): 865-868. The parallelism example and discussion as well as the general features of Hebrew poetry are based on this helpful introduction.


Why (and when) did the Apostles stop requiring exactly twelve apostles? Why was James not replaced?

The Twelve Apostles elected by Jesus were not meant to live forever and rule the earth. They represented the fathers of Christianity and the church.

Judas was a betrayer. He betrayed his master Jesus, which is the same as betraying the whole group of twelve, and it implies that he is no longer a part of the group of the Twelve Apostles. Judas deserted the company of Twelve. It was now necessary to replace the office of Judas, possibly because they believed that 12 was the divinely appointed number by Jesus Christ and it should be maintained. The number twelve might also represent the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus, it seems like it was necessary to continue the tradition of the number Twelve.

The death of James did not end his position in the Twelve as he was not a betrayer like Judas. In fact, all the apostles (according to tradition) were martyred. They are now all dead and probably are now in Heaven, occupying the Twelve Thrones reserved for them in Heaven (my speculation).

And, Jesus did not elect Twelve Popes, rather Twelve Apostles.