What are the differences between most Christian Bibles and Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible?

The main difference between the New World Translation (NWT) and other Bibles is that the NWT has attempted to eliminate almost all references to the divinity of Jesus in the New Testament.  Another obvious difference is the introduction of the name ‘Jehovah’ into the New Testament.  This is also an attempt to deny that Jesus is God.
The King James Version text is based on the ‘Textus Receptus’ which is not used by the New World Translation, the New International Version, the New Living Translation or the English Standard Version.  The NWT Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) is mainly taken from the Westcott and Hort translation, but has been altered and changed to support the views of Jehovah's Witnesses that the pre-mortal Jesus was created by Jehovah and that Jesus is not part of the One Being of God.
It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God.  See Section IV, V, and VI in the following article by Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, who was professor of New Testament at Princeton University.  The article also looks into the history and background of the New World Translation:   http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html
Here is a partial quote from an article that examines the background to the translators and the editing of the New World Translation and provides examples of the NWT anti-Trinitarian bias:

“New Testament, 1950. Frederick W. Franz, ed., New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Rendered from the Original Language by the New World Translation Committee. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1950.
Bible, 1961. Frederick W. Franz, ed., The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, rendered from the Original Languages by the New World Bible Translation Committee. Revised A.D. 1961. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1961. The Old Testament was originally published in parts from 1953 to 1960. The whole was revised for the one-volume edition in 1961, and subsequently revised in 1970 and 1984.
The publisher of this version has never made public the names of the translators. But former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization have identified the members of the committee as Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz (Vice-President), George D. Gangas, and Albert D. Schroeder. According to Raymond V. Franz, the "principal translator of the Society's New World Translation" was Frederick W. Franz. (1) According to M. James Penton, "to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz." (2) Franz afterwards became the President of the organization, from 1977 to 1992, and was responsible for the revisions.
The Forward to the first edition of the New Testament (1950) explained the need for the version, and also indicated the reason for its name: "It befits the significant time of transition from the old world to the righteous new world that translations of the Scriptures today should as far as possible eliminate the misleading influence of religious traditions which have their roots in paganism." (p.7, emphasis added.)
The New Testament adheres to the text of Westcott & Hort. It is a fairly literal translation, for the most part, but it does have some peculiar non-literal renderings. These are the result of the committee's efforts to conform the version to the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses. "Jehovah" is given as a translation for kurios (Lord) in the New Testament whenever the Father is meant, but not when it refers to Christ, the Son. "Torture stake" is put instead of "cross" because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the cross is an idolatrous symbol introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. And because this sect teaches that Jesus Christ was merely an angel, the version shows an anti-trinitarian bias in several places.”

Examples of Anti-Trinitarian bias then follow.   http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html
Here is a short extract from the article ‘The New World Translation - What the Scholars Really Said’:

“The Watchtower and Jehovah's Witness apologists have often cited scholars in support of the New World Translation in general, and particularly its rendering of John 1:1c ("and the Word was a god").  Scholarly citation is a form of an "argument from authority."  Such an argument cannot establish the truth or falsity of a given assertion; it can merely lend credence or cast doubt.  Sound arguments from authority will consist of an accurate quotation from the scholar in question, which entails insuring that the context of the authority's statements are consistent with the argument being presented, and that contrary statements in the same passage are not removed with creative use of ellipses ("...").  Further, the scholar must be a recognized authority in a field that pertains directly to the assertion being made.
When Jehovah's Witnesses produce scholars that support the NWT, we must first establish that the scholar is, indeed, a recognized expert in the field of Biblical Languages, and that he or she has been quoted accurately.  When given careful consideration, many of the scholars used by Jehovah's Witnesses do not actually constitute a sound argument from authority.  I'm not suggesting that no scholars may be found in support of the NWT or its translation of John 1:1, but these are in the minority and often are not as qualified in their field as the scores of scholars who advocate the traditional translation.”

The chart that follows examines how some scholars have been used in defense of the NWT and whether they actually support the Watchtower translation as claimed: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm
Readers are at liberty to study the articles referenced and to draw their own conclusions.


St. Thomas defines charity--supernatural love--as a love of friendship.  In Deus Caritas Est Pope Benedict XVI was careful to note that all three loves, including eros, are included in the Christian's relationship to God.  He begins the first part of the encyclical:

  PART I

  THE UNITY OF LOVE IN CREATION AND IN SALVATION HISTORY

  A problem of language

  God's love for us is fundamental for our lives, and it raises important questions about who God is and who we are. In considering
  this, we immediately find ourselves hampered by a problem of language.
  Today, the term “love” has become one of the most frequently used and
  misused of words, a word to which we attach quite different meanings.
  Even though this Encyclical will deal primarily with the understanding
  and practice of love in sacred Scripture and in the Church's
  Tradition, we cannot simply prescind from the meaning of the word in
  the different cultures and in present-day usage...

Part I extends from paragraphs 2-18, and all of it applies to your question.  Here is an excerpt particularly relevant:

  That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks. Let us note straight away that the Greek Old Testament uses the word eros only twice, while the New Testament does not use it at all: of the three Greek words for love, eros, philia (the love of friendship) and agape, New Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek usage. As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added depth of meaning in Saint John's Gospel in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples...

(Note that storge is affection, and some theologians like C.S. Lewis classify it as a love whereas others such as Ratzinger do not)


Who do mainline Protestants believe an "archangel" (such as Michael) to be?

There is some debate over how many archangels there are.  Gabriel is referred to as an archangel by Catholic tradition, but there is no scripture supporting that.  The apocryphal 'Book of Enoch' as well as Ephesians 1:21 and Colossians 1:16 was used by Thomas Aquinas and others preceding him, to develop the 'Angelic Hierarchy', but scripture is very vague when it comes to this.

The word "archangel" comes from the Greek αρχάγγελος (archaggělǒs), meaning chief angel, a translation of the Hebrew רב־מלאך (rav-mal'ákh).  There are only 2 verses in the NT that say "Archangel", 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 1:9.  They both refer to Michael as the archangel (singular), though Michael is also referred to in the OT, Daniel 10:13-21, as "one of the chief princes" (vs 13) (also translated as chief angels in some translations).  So scripture isn't clear as to whether he is one of several/many archangels, or the only one.

It is important to note that Michael is AN angel, and therefore not accorded the same favors that are afforded to Christ (Hebrews 1:5, 2:5), as the author of Hebrews shows how unique the Son of God is, even above the angels, nor will the world be subject to them, unlike Christ, who will reign (Revelation 19:16; Matthew 2:1, 2; 9:35).  Also, Jude 1:9 presents Michael as not even have the power to rebuke Satan alone, as he stated "the Lord rebuke you", whereas Christ had the power to rebuke Satan and demons on his own authority (Matthew 4:10, 16:23, 17:18; Mark 8:33; Luke 4:35).


A question about Faith and Law before Sinai

"saints who died before the law was laid down" is the key issue with this question.  Does "laid down" mean first created, or formalized in writing.

I know you asked for a Protestant position, but it's good to know what people believed before that too.

In particular, Commandments/Laws followed by Avraham - Mi Yodeya, in the Judaism SE site indicates that Jews believe the Law existed in oral form long before it was put into writing by Moses.  This possibly includes even the holy days and feasts such as Passover (long before the actual Passover event).

Chabad.org, How Did the Torah Exist Before it Happened? - Questions & Answers, says:

  This is discussed in many places in Talmud and Midrash. Not only Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but also Noah and even Adam knew the Torah. Concerning Noah, the Torah itself writes clearly that G‑d told him to take onto his ark "of the animal which is ritually pure (tahor), seven, seven." Apparently, he was expected to know for himself that pigs are not ritually pure and cows are.

  What was the Torah before it was given to us? The Torah is G‑d's wisdom, as He considers Himself, as He considers us and as He considers His world. It contains the wisdom with which He creates the world and manages it. Think of a concept paper that a producer might write before developing a video game or some other such product. The Torah contains exactly that (and much more1). Each of the lofty souls we mentioned was able to attain insight into this wisdom and thereby know the hiddenmost secrets of the universe.

As for "Protestants" that's a large category, with many conflicting beliefs.

Some definitely go along with the Jewish teaching, believing that God's Law was in effect before Moses wrote it down, with only the ceremonial and civil laws being created specifically for Israel following the Exodus as part of the "old" Covenant.

Here are a few examples:

Were the Ten Commandments in Force Before Moses? gives examples of each of the Ten Commandments being obeyed before Moses recorded them.

Did Abraham Keep the Same Commandments God Gave to Moses? | United Church of God

10 Commandments Moses - Life, Hope & Truth


Nowhere in the Bible is a Christian demon possessed.

I heard someone say that a Christian cannot be demon possessed because they are possessed (filled) with The Holy Spirit.

Since we don't appear to have any Biblical reference, I think that's that best answer we can give (unless anyone had a clear counter example).


What is the role of "Sign of the cross" gesture in Catholicism?

The gesture you describe is indeed the Sign of the Cross. Making that gesture is called "crossing oneself".

The Sign of the Cross is called a sacramental. These are "sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church." [CCC 1667]

When crossing oneself, one is blessing (or, strictly, invoking God's blessing) on oneself. A blessing is not reserved to clergy, laypeople can bless; and particularly can bless themselves.

  Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings...

CCC 1671 deals specifically with the Sign of the Cross.

  Among sacramentals, blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first. Every blessing praises God and prays for his gifts. In Christ, Christians are blessed by God the Father "with every spiritual blessing."175 This is why the Church imparts blessings by invoking the name of Jesus, usually while making the holy sign of the cross of Christ.

The sign is not representative of the Trinity per se, even though it normally accompanies the Trinitarian formula "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (with each of the capitalised words of the Persons coinciding with the ends of the arms of the cross in the gesture). It represents the Cross, the symbol of Christ's triumph over death.

CCC 617 says

  His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us.450

and thus we use that symbol of his passion as the symbol of justification and the sign of blessing.

175: Cf Ephesians 1:3
450: Council of Trent: DS 1529.


Is there an established concensus meaning of Vicarious Atonement?

The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement does indeed rely heavily on the idea that Christ's death was vicarious, and thus sometimes vicarious atonement is closely associated with penal substitution.  However, the adjective vicarious is applied to other theories as well, by both advocates and detractors of penal substitution.  Thus, without context, the phrase vicarious atonement is ambiguous because it is frequently used to refer to several distinct theories of atonement.
Vicarious according to proponents of penal substitution
Proponents of penal substitution argue that Christ's death was vicarious, but recognize that they must narrowly define the sense in which the word is used.  Charles Hodge first provides a broad definition:

[Vicarious], according to its signification and usage, includes the idea of substitution. Vicarious suffering is suffering endured by one person in the stead of another, i.e., in his place. (ST, v2, 3.6.3)

He then proceeds to argue that Christ's sufferings are vicarious in a particular sense, recognizing that others use the term differently.  Louis Berkhof does the same thing:

The Bible certainly teaches that the sufferings and death of Christ were vicarious, and vicarious in the strict sense of the word that He took the place of sinners, and that their guilt was imputed, and their punishment transferred, to Him. (ST, 3.3.4.A; bold added)

Vicarious in other theories of atonement
Berkhof provides two examples of theologians who oppose penal substitution but employ the word "vicarious" in their definitions.  He disapprovingly quotes Horace Bushnell, a 19th century liberal theologian, who rejects penal substitution in his book entitled Vicarious Sacrifice:

Here then we have the true law of interpretation, when the vicarious relation of Christ to our sins comes into view. It does not mean that he takes them literally upon him, as some of the old theologians and a very few moderns appear to believe; it does not mean that he took their ill desert upon him by some mysterious act of imputation, or had their punishment transferred.  [...] No, but the bearing of our sins does mean, that Christ bore them on his feeling, became inserted into their bad lot by his sympathy as a friend, yielded up himself and his life, even, to an effort of restoring mercy; in a word that he bore our sins in just the same sense that he bore our sicknesses. Understand that love itself is an essentially vicarious principle, and the solution is no longer difficult. [bold added]

The other theory of vicarious atonement that Berkhof mentions is that of "vicarious repentance," of John McLeod Campbell.  Berkhof contrasts it with penal substitution:

This theory, while recognizing the retributive justice of God and the demerit of sin, denies the necessity and possibility of penal substitution, and asserts that the work of Christ in behalf of sinners consisted, not in His suffering for them, but in the vicarious confession of their sins.

Finally, the word vicarious is also sometimes applied to substitutionary atonement more generally.  Reformed theologian Robert Reymond describes Anselm's view this way:

[Anselm] interpreted Christ's death [...] as a vicarious satisfaction (satis, "enough"; facio, "to do") offered to God the Father as the legal representative of the Trinity for the sins of the world. (ST, Appendix D, emphasis in original)

Summary
We have seen that both proponents and opponents of penal substitution apply the word "vicarious" to other theories of atonement than penal substitution:

Bushnell: Christ suffered sympathetically
Campbell: Christ vicariously confessed sin
Anselm: Christ vicariously satisfied God's honor

Thus, it's perhaps best to understand vicarious atonement as a hypernym of penal substitution and these other theories.  Vicarious is a useful adjective, and perhaps most commonly associated with penal substitution, but without context it is insufficient to specify a particular atonement theory.


Was there any significance for the make of the tomb which was used to lay the body of Jesus?

I hope that this was written to indicate that Jesus had, in his burial, fulfilled the prophecy   of Isaiah at 53:9 (RSVCE)

" And they made his grave with the wicked
    and with a rich man in his death..."

Clearly, only a rich man could afford to construct a grave hewn in rock. And, Matthew 27:57 in deed depicts Joseph of Arimathe'a as a rich man !


What is the earliest historical testimony of the celebration of the nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Attitudes on birthdays
In the early church, birthdays (in general) were not seen as something to celebrate.  For example, in Origen's 8th homily on Leviticus he writes:

But the saints not only do not celebrate a festival on their birth days, but, filled with the Holy Spirit, they curse that day.

According to an article by Andrew McGowan (Bible Review, December 2002; republished by the Biblical Archaeology Society), this is  "a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time [early third century]."
Interest in the date of Jesus' birth & Epiphany
There was, however, some interest in the date of Jesus' birth, even though it was not yet a feast date.  Around the year 200, Clement of Alexander wrote

And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day (Stromata Book I, Chapter 21)

Clement then offers a couple different calculations as to the date - the 25th of  Pachon [May 20] or the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi [April 20 or 21].  Perhaps more notably for purposes of this answer, he also writes:

And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings.  And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi [January 10]; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month [January 6].

The Basilidians were a Gnostic group that taught Jesus became God at His baptism.  Their celebration of the Epiphany on January 6/10, which was originally focused on Jesus' baptism in mainstream Christianity as well, provides the first evidence for the feast.  In Eternity Today (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006), Martin Connell explains how this evidence coincides well with what is known about the rise of Christianity in Egypt.
Shortly after Clement's Stromata, Hippolytus wrote his Commentary on Daniel.  The work, although not extant in the original Greek, has been recovered from a combination of Patristic quotes (primarily catenas - collected verse-by-verse commentaries) and a Syriac translation.  In one passage he writes:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [=December 25th], the 4th day of the week, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years.

The "eight days ... the week" clause has generally been thought to be an interpolation.  However, Tom Schmidt has recently provided detailed analysis that suggests the date is original.  His peer reviewed paper "Calculating December 25 as the Birth of Jesus in Hippolytus’ Canon and Chronicon" (Vigiliae Christianae, Volume 69, Issue 5, October 2015) provides further evidence that Hippolytus' writings support a December 25 date for Jesus' birth.
Origin of the Christmas feast
According to McGowan, the earliest celebrations of Christmas most likely occurred sometime between 250 and 300.  Evidence for this comes from the Donatist Christians.  In 411, Augustine of Hippo chides the Donatists for refusing to acknowledge the feast of Epiphany, but does not similarly chide them for not celebrating Christmas.  This implies it was not a point of dispute between the mainstream Christians and the Donatists, suggesting the Donatists also celebrated the feast.  Since this group came into existence no later than 312 and were known to strictly adhere to the then-existent customs, this evidence suggests the Christmas feast likely predates the group.
The first explicit mention of a Christmas feast celebrated on December 25 comes from Roman almanac, dated to 354, that records a Christmas feast on December 25, 336. (Dan Graves, "The 1st Recorded Celebration of Christmas" at Christianity.com)
Although it is a popularly asserted that Christmas was borrowed from pagan culture, that idea does not coincide well with what we know about third century Christianity.  (Many of the modern customs of Christmas were, no doubt, borrowed from the culture at various points, but the date itself does not appear to have been borrowed.)  Instead, the date for Christmas likely stems from the date for Jesus' crucifixion, as strange as that may seem.  This is due to an early tradition that Jesus was conceived on the say day he was crucified, which ultimately stems from a combination Jewish tradition about Biblical figures living exactly the number of years stated in the Bible, combined with philosophical ideas about completeness.
Jesus' birth date, then, was set nine months after His crucifixion/conception date.  In the west, where it was thought Jesus was crucified on Nissan 14 (March 25), Christmas became December 25.  In the east, they used the 14th day of the Greek calendar instead of the Hebrew, putting the dates at April 6 and January 6 respectively.  (See McGowan's article and the numerous sources he cites for additional information.)
Summary
If you are looking for the first unambiguous evidence of a Christmas feast, it comes from a 354 almanac documenting the feast back to 336.  If you are looking for what the evidence says about the actual origin of the feast, the answer is late third century.  If evidence for the Epiphany feast counts, the date can be pushed back to back to the year 200, although that feast was originally primarily about Jesus' baptism (philosophical ideas of the time would say He was most likely baptized exactly 30 years after His birth, so there is some connection regardless).  The earliest evidence for interest in determining Jesus' birthday also dates to around the year 200.


The term "Jew" is an Anglicization of "Judean" which comes from the Greek Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaios). Technically, it can simply be a regional distinction, that is someone who is from Judea. But it can of course represent one's ethnicity. Greek who happened to grow up in Judea would not have identified himself as a Judean.

In the book of Esther, the Hebrew "Yĕhuwdiy" (יְהוּדִי) is translated Jew, but in this case the Hebrew is etymologically connected to Judah (Judahite, or Jehudite). Though not all the Israelites in Esther are Judahite, this term is used to encompass all of them, showing that it has become, even at the time of Esther's writing, a universal term.

In the Israelite's return from Babylonian exile in around 500 BC, only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi (who had been in the southern kingdom of Judah when taken captive by Babylon) returned as representative tribes. While remnants of other tribes did exist, only these three return in large numbers and with intact genealogies.

The name Judah, as before in the kingdom of Judah, continued to dominate. In Greek it became Judea, and thus we have Judeans.

So while it can be technically taken as "Judahite", the term "Jew" was expanded to refer to all of the Israelites of Judea.

Therefore, Paul is a Jew, of the Tribe of Benjamin. Both statements are correct and consistent.


Who is being referred to in Isaiah 42:6?

First, a bit of context. Isaiah 40-55 was written during the Exile in Babylon, when the nation of Israel was in captivity. It was a period of profound re-imagination of God and of Israel's character and purpose. There are four purple passages in this portion of the book of Isaiah (often called Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah):

Isaiah 42.1-7
Isaiah 49.1-6
Isaiah 50.4-9
Isaiah 52.13-53

They build up a picture of the servant, who suffers, is a light to the Gentiles, establishes justice, is a king, sustains the weary, trusts God, etc.

Precisely who this refers to is unclear. Does it refer to a specific king? (Some have suggested that it might refer to Zedekiah, or rather implausibly Uzziah.) Does it refer to the whole nation of Israel? Does it refer to a Messiah? Does it refer to a particular future king? Could it refer to King Cyrus of Persia, elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah known as God's "anointed"?

It is impossible to know for certain, and in fact it isn't terribly important to know exactly what the author(s) of the text intended. The more important thing is that the prophecy of Deutero-Isaiah has been understood throughout the Christian tradition as prophetically pointing to Jesus.

For instance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes the precise verse you mention in saying:

  In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but "upon the heart" of the Servant who becomes "a covenant to the people", because he will "faithfully bring forth justice".(CCC, §580)

The other servant songs are also cited:

  The Messiah's characteristics are revealed above all in the "Servant songs." These songs proclaim the meaning of Jesus' Passion and show how he will pour out the Holy Spirit to give life to the many: not as an outsider, but by embracing our "form as slave." Taking our death upon himself, he can communicate to us his own Spirit of life.(CCC, §713)

As to why it is the OT reading for today, the feast of the Baptism of the Lord... Well, you are quite right to pick up on the allusion to the verse in the Gospel passage. The words from Heaven are a combination of Psalm 2.7 and Isaiah 42.1 (especially clear when looking at the Septuagint version of these passages). It has traditionally been understood as demonstrating Jesus' identity as both King and Servant.


Who are the missionaries and godly men who were helped by Keswick Theology for a fuller Christ like life and ministry?

Some people I came to know are Hudson Taylor, Amy Carmichael, Oswald Chambers & Billy Graham.

Source: What is the Keswick movement, and is it biblical?

This letter of Hudson Taylor tells us how he experienced the second blessing.


What does the Bible say about "bad" words?

Ephesians 4:29 says:

  Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

Ephesians 5:4 says:

  Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Language is a collective memory or cultural history. In other words, the meaning of words are defined by society. Per Ephesians 5:4, there could be no obscenity, foolishness or joking apart from an audience to interpret the message. Just as words in English have no meaning to people that don't speak English, the words can have certain meanings in certain sub-cultures or circles.

If certain words are not interpreted as obscene in a given circle, then the use of these words do not violate the command in Ephesians 5:4 and they will not have the appearance of evil per 1 Thessalonians 5:22. Same thing with Ephesians 4:29. The words are not sinful in themselves.

That said, in my experience it will be very tough for someone that incorporates this kind of language into their regular routine to refrain from using it around people that might not interpret it the same way. One way or another it always slips out. Furthermore, one has to be discerning enough not to cause another Christian to stumble by using this language improperly. It's probably safest not to use it and not flirt with violating these commands.


How is new humanism different from the catholic teaching?

Fr. Hardon, S.J.'s definition of "humanism" distinguishes "pagan humanism" and "Christian humanism":

  Name originally given to the intellectual, literary, and scientific movements of the fourteenth century through the early sixteenth. Their aim was to base every branch of learning on the culture of classical Greek and Roman antiquity. On its pagan side, it extolled the early non-Christian writers who stressed the full development of human nature, only vaguely interested in life after death. On its Christian side, believing humanists encouraged the free use of the treasures of antiquity without compromising the truths of the Gospel. Christian humanism began with Dante (1265-1321), while pagan humanism reached its peak in Petrarch (1304-74). Popes Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Leo X favored Christian humanism and did much to promote it. St. Thomas More (1478-1535) typified its best spirit in England. After the French Revolution the extreme humanistic spirit rebelled against Christian revelation and the Church.

"Pagan humanism," since it denies or neglects the supernatural order, is naturalism, which Pope Pius IX condemned in his Syllabus of Errors and Pope Leo XIII condemned in his encyclical Humanum Genus.


Baptism was not practiced in the same way in the OT as it is in the NT. There were some other ritual washings in use before the time of Christ, but they had different meanings.

What did exist was circumcision. Most Christians believe in one way or another that the sacrament of baptism took the place of circumcision. How exactly they see that transition happening varies widely by tradition. Some see very close parallels and a continuity between the two, others think one was eradicated and the other inaugurated and that they only bear cursory similarity.


In Catholicism, how is the practice of infant communion reconciled with the rule that first reconciliation must precede first communion?

What you quote from the CCC makes reference to 1988 Canon 914, which does make the qualification that only children who have reached the age of reason are bound to make a sacramental confession before First Communion (my emphases):

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


The New Testament teaches that Christ was baptized to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:14–15)--what does this mean?

After thinking about this for some time, and pondering on people's answers/comments, I think the answer is more simple--in my opinion.

If Jesus Christ, being holy, has need of baptism, then we definitely need it.

He set the ultimate example, and if we are to follow Him we should also be baptized. Jesus Christ's example was one of never varying from the strait and narrow path--being obedient to His Father's commands in ALL things. Thus, He showed his humility and obedience to the Father by being baptized to "fulfil all righteousness"

In Matthew 4:19, it says,

  And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

The Apostle Peter taught that baptism was a commandment in Acts 2:28.

  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
  the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
  receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

How can we follow the example of Jesus, save we are willing to keep the commandments of the Father?


Are the Ten Commandments a perfect summary of all the commandments found in the Bible?

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself'.
On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
— Matthew 22

That was a two-part summary of the Ten Commandments (which are actually 10 freedoms for those that follow them):
The first four about loving God:

Paganism — Free of fear other gods.
Idolatry — Free of fear of any physical object.
Blasphemy — Free of fear that God will ignore you.
Disrespect — Free of mundane labour.

And the last six about loving man:

Dishonour — Free of fear of dishonouring one's family.
Murder — Free of mental poisons such as hatred and vengeance.
Adultery — Free of fear of temptation to be unfaithful.
Theft — Free of desire for what is not rightfully yours.
Perjury — Free of desire to use words to hurt others.
Extortion — Free of resentment of others for what they have.

Many commandments were for specific purposes, such as defining the infrastructure for running the country or organizing the religious hierarchy.
But all the other general commandments tend to fit into one of these ten categories.
Even the rules for how to have a healthy lifestyle could be considered as part of the commandment against (self-)murder.

Under the old covenant, the laws were considered in a strictly physical, letter-of-the-law manner.
Thoughts are not significant, it is one's actions that count.
(e.g. homosexual desire is not condemned (even today in modern Judaism); but acting on that desire is.)
Under the new covenant, the laws take on a spiritual meaning.
Physical actions are still significant, but so is mental attitude.
It's not only physically killing someone that is a sin, it is also simply hating them.
It's not only physical adultery that is a sin, it is also simply lusting in one's mind.


How do NON soul sleep adherents interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18?

Essentially, the passage is simply seen as an euphemism for death — and quite a common one, given that a dead person often looks like they are sleeping: the Greek personification of sleep, Hypnos, was said to the twin brother of Death (Thanatos) by both Homer in the Illiad and Hesiod in the Theogony. The other common metaphor for death is "departing" or "passing on", essentially going on a journey.

We have other passages to argue the opposite position, which is that Soul Sleep does not occur, like the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–31), though I'm not sure it is in scope of the question. At any rate, weighing in for and against, we non-mortalists hold that the position that the soul is unconscious before the Resurrection cannot be considered orthodox.


Who oversaw the 9th, 10th, and 11th sessions of the Council of Trent?

Session 8 voted to move the council to Bologna, due to the political situation of Germany / Emperor Charles V.

Celebrated on the eleventh day of March, 1547
DECREE CONCERNING THE TRANSLATION OF THE COUNCIL
Does it please you to decree and declare that from the foregoing and other reports regarding that disease, it is so clearly and manifestly certain that the prelates cannot without danger to their lives remain in this city, and that therefore they cannot and ought not to be detained in it against their will? And considering, moreover, the withdrawal of many prelates since the last session, and the protests made in the general congregations by many other prelates wishing by all means to depart from here through fear of the disease, who cannot justly be detained and by whose departure the council would either be dissolved or, from the small number of prelates, its beneficial progress hindered; and considering also the imminent danger to life and the other manifestly true and legitimate reasons alleged in the congregations by some of the Fathers, does it please you likewise to decree and declare that for the preservation and prosecution of the council, and for the safety of the lives of the prelates, this council be transferred for a time to the city of Bologna as a place more suitable, more healthy and better adapted, and that the translation have effect from this day forth, that the session already announced for the twenty-first of April ought to be celebrated and be celebrated there on the day appointed; and that further matters be proceeded with in succession, till it shall seem expedient to our most holy Lord and to the holy council, with the advice of the most invincible Emperor, the most Christian King, and with the other Christian kings and princes, that this council may and ought to be brought back to this or to some other place?
They answered: It pleases us.

Sessions 9 and 10 were

Celebrated at Bologna on the twenty-first day of April, 1547;
Celebrated at Bologna on the second day of June, 1547,

respectively.
Julius III issued a bull on 14 December 1550 to reconvene the Council at Trent:

In order to put an end to the religious dissensions which for a long time have prevailed in Germany to the disturbance and scandal of the entire Christian world, it appears good, opportune and expedient to us, as also to our most dearly beloved son in Christ, Charles, ever august Emperor of the Romans, who has made this known to us by his letters and ambassadors, to bring back to the city of Trent the holy ecumenical and general council convoked by our predecessor, Pope Paul III, of happy memory, and begun, conducted and continued by us, who then enjoyed the honor of the cardinalate and, conjointly with two other cardinals of the holy Roman Church, presided in the name of our predecessor in the council, in which several public and solemn sessions were held and several decrees promulgated on the subjects of faith and reform, and also many other things relating to both subjects were examined and discussed. We, therefore, to whom, as reigning sovereign pontiff, it belongs to convoke and direct general councils, that we may, to the praise and glory of Almighty God, procure the peace of the Church and the increase of the Christian faith and of the orthodox religion, and may, as far as we are able, consider with paternal solicitude the tranquillity of Germany, a province which in times past was second to none in Christendom in cultivating true religion and the teaching of the holy councils and the holy Fathers, and in exhibiting due obedience and reverence to the supreme pontiffs, the vicars on earth of Christ our Redeemer, hoping that by the grace and bounty of God it will come about that all Christian kings and princes will approve, favor and aid our just and pious wishes in this matter, by the bowels of the mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, exhort, command and admonish our venerable brethren the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, our beloved sons the abbots and each and all of the others who by right, custom or privilege ought to be present at general councils, and whom our predecessor in his letters of convocation and in any others made and published with regard to this matter wished to be present at the council, to convene and assemble in the same city of Trent, since the lawful impediment no longer exists, and to apply themselves without delay to the continuation and prosecution of the council on the next first of May, which day we, after mature deliberation, of our own certain knowledge, with the plenitude of Apostolic authority, and with the advice and consent of our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, appoint and set aside for the resumption and continuation of the council in the state in which it now is. We shall make it our special care that our legates will be in the city at the same time, through whom, if on account of our age, state of health and the demands of the Apostolic See we shall be unable to be present personally, we shall under the guidance of the Holy Ghost preside over the council; any translation and suspension of the council and any other things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding, and especially those things which it was the will of our predecessor should not create any obstacles, as expressed in his letters aforesaid, which, with each and all of restrictions and decrees therein contained, we wish and decree to remain in force, and so far as there is need we hereby renew them; declaring, moreover, null and void whatever may be attempted knowingly or unknowingly by any person or by any authority to the contrary. Let no one, therefore, infringe this our letter of exhortation, summons, monition, ordinance, declaration, renewal, will and decrees, or with foolhardy boldness go contrary to it. But if anyone shall presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of Almighty God and of His blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. Given at Rome at St. Peter’s in the year 1550 of Our Lord’s incarnation, on the fourteenth of December, in the first year of our pontificate.

Session

celebrated under the Supreme Pontiff, Julius III, on the first day of May, 1551

Quotes from: Schroeder, O.P.'s Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
Period at Bologna
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Council of Trent:

Before this session [the 8th] was held the question of the prorogation of the council or its transfer to another city had been discussed. The relations between pope and emperor had grown even more strained; the Smalkaldic War had begun in Germany; and now an infectious disease broke out in Trent, carrying off the general of the Franciscans and others.

and

The majority of the fathers of the council went with the cardinal legates from Trent to Bologna; but fourteen bishops who belonged to the party of Charles V remained at Trent and would not recognize the transfer. The sudden change of place without any special consultation beforehand with the pope did not please Paul III, who probably foresaw that this would lead to further severe difficulties between himself and the emperor. As a matter of fact Charles V was very indignant at the change, and through his ambassador Vaga protested against it, vigorously urging a return to Trent. The emperor's defeat of the Smalkaldic League increased his power. Influential cardinals sought to mediate between the emperor and the pope, but the negotiations failed. The emperor protested formally against the transfer to Bologna, and, refusing to permit the Spanish bishops who had remained at Trent to leave that city, began negotiations again with the German Protestants on his own responsibility. Consequently at the ninth session of the council held at Bologna on 21 April, 1547, the only decree issued was one proroguing the session. The same action was all that was taken in the tenth session on 2 June, 1547, although there had been exhaustive debates on various subjects in congregations. The tension between the emperor and the pope had increased despite the efforts of Cardinals Sfondrato and Madruzzo. All negotiations were fruitless. The bishops who had remained at Trent had held no sessions, but when the pope called to Rome four of the bishops at Bologna and four of those at Trent, the latter said in excuse that they could not obey the call. Paul III had now to expect extreme opposition from the emperor. Therefore, on 13 September, he proclaimed the suspension of the council and commanded the cardinal legate del Monte to dismiss the members of the council assembled at Bologna; this was done on 17 September. The bishops were called to Rome, where they were to prepare decrees for disciplinary reforms. This closed the first period of the council. On 10 Nov., 1549, the pope died.


Are There Names for the Sundays in Eastertide?
The short answer is yes. But it will depend on the denomination and century involved as the Catholic Church has actually adapted a new Liturgical Calendar in 1969.

Eastertide or Paschaltide is a festal season in the liturgical year of Christianity that focuses on celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It begins on Easter Sunday, which initiates Easter Week in Western Christianity, and Bright Week in Eastern Christianity. There are several Eastertide customs across the Christian world, including sunrise services, exclaiming the Paschal greeting, clipping the church, and decorating Easter eggs, a symbol of the empty tomb. The Easter lily, a symbol of the resurrection, traditionally serve as the chancel flowers that decorate the chancel area of churches throughout Eastertide. Other Eastertide customs include egg hunting, eating special Easter foods and watching Easter parades.
The first eight days constitute the Octave of Easter and are celebrated as solemnities of the Lord.

First Sunday of Easter

Easter Sunday
Sunday of the Resurrection of Out Lord Jesus Christ

Second Sunday of Easter

Divine Mercy Sunday
Quasimodo Sunday
Bright Sunday
Low Sunday
Sunday in Albis
Antipascha (Eastern Christianity)
New Sunday
Renewal Sunday
Thomas Sunday

Third Sunday of Easter

Misericordia Sunday
Good Shepherd Sunday (Extraordinary Form of the Mass)
Sunday of the Myrrh-bearers (Greek Orthodox Church)

Fourth Sunday of Easter

Jubilate Sunday
Good Shepherd Sunday
Vocations Sunday
Sunday of the Paralytic (Greek Orthodoxy)

Fifth Sunday of Easter

Cantate Sunday (Extraordinary Form of the Mass of the Catholic Church)
Sunday of the Samaritan Woman (Greek Orthodox)
Fifth Sunday of Holy Pascha [Greek Orthodox)

Sixth Sunday of Easter

Sunday of the Man Born Blind (Oriental Churches)
Ascension of Our Lord Sunday (when transferred as a feast in the Ordinary Form of the Catholic Church)
Rogation Sunday

Seventh Sunday of Easter

“Exaudi” Sunday (Extraordinary Form)
Sunday of the Roses
“Second feast of the flowers" (Armenian)

Eighth Sunday of Easter

Pentecost
Whit Sunday


You have to start by remembering that in the society of 50AD, slavery was considered an absolutely normal and proper part of society. To suggest in those days that slavery should be abolished would be the equivalent of proposing today that money and wealth should be abolished, or that eating meat was immoral. So your claim that "Onesimus broke a unjust law of humankind" would simply not have been understood by those of the time - certainly by non-Christians.

Secondly it has always been a principle that Christians should obey, except in exceptional circumstances, the law of the land. If the government says they should pay taxes, they should pay taxes. If the government says they should keep off the roads at night, they should keep off the roads at night. So in essence Onesimus has an obligation under the law to return to Philemon, and Paul sends him back to fulfil that obligation. 'Escaping' doesn't free him from that obligation, any more than getting away with a robbery entitles someone to keep the proceeds. Moreover, because Philemon is also a Christian, Onesimus is in effect stealing from a fellow-Christian if he doesn't return.

However there is much more to the book of Philemon than that. Paul makes a great deal of pointing out to Philemon the new relationship between him and Onesimus: as you put it, there being in Christ "no difference between human master and human slave". He strongly hints without ever expressly commanding it, that Philemon should free Onesimus because of this. He hints rather than commands because he realizes that Philemon is fully entitled to keep and punish Onesimus, and he wants Philemon to not do this of his own free will, not because he has been told to.

We will never of course be sure that Philemon followed through with this, but I personally like to think so.


Sex outside of marriage is a sin. But what about "less than sex"?

This is a very difficult issue.  And for someone trapped in the chains of sexual sin, there is no easy answer - but there is the stunning grace of God for freedom.

I would answer this question by starting with another question: Do you want to live your life seeing how close you can get to sin without actually crossing the line?  Are you motivated to be the most Godly person you can be (growing daily in Christ-likeness), or are you motivated to "get away with" as much as possible without actually going to hell?

When Jesus said, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" in Mat 5:28 he was addressing the inclination of the heart.

In my opinion, when you indulge in sexual lust you are sinning.

We then have to define "sexual lust".  Generally, lust is any desire which elevates your needs over another's.  A good working definition for sexual lust might then be, any thought or action that seeks to use another human for your personal gratification without love or respect for their person.

So if you apply the spirit of this to your treatment of your girlfriend/boyfriend, it becomes "is doing X with this person bringing both of us closer to God, respecting them as a person and expressing pure Godly love?"  If not, I think you have your answer.


What is the traditional view of Divine Command Theory in accordance to the Reformed tradition?

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines it slightly differently: "Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands."

Martin Luther said in On the Bondage of the Will:

  God is that Being, for whose will no cause or reason is to be
  assigned, as a rule or standard by which it acts; seeing that, nothing
  is superior or equal to it, but it is itself the rule of all things.
  For if it acted by any rule or standard, or from any cause or reason,
  it would be no longer the will of GOD. Wherefore, what God wills, is
  not therefore right, because He ought or ever was bound so to will;
  but on the contrary, what takes place is therefore right, because He
  so wills.

John Calvin, usually considered the father of reformed theology, said much the same in Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.23.2):

  For God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that
  whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be
  considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done,
  we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to
  ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher
  than God’s will, which cannot be found.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, the classic statement of reformed theology, says in chapter 2:

  God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and
  is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient.

In chapter 16 it says:

  Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word.

So it seems clear that reformed theology supports divine command theory. However, your understanding of it is not one shared by reformed theology. Things are good because God commands them, but he commands them because they accord with his character. "God has all ... goodness... in and of Himself," after all.


For Biblical Unitarians, are there divine attributes that the Father has but the Son doesn't?

Divine attributes that only the Father has but Jesus doesn't.
That might take a lot of space to answer. Equally relevant is, what 'divine attributes' does Jesus have.
Jesus has been clear on numerous occasions to state the relationship he has with God and his Father.
Several NT writers have also shown the differences between God and Jesus. It seems necessary to state the obvious; Jesus has a God (Note 1). God does not have a God. From that basis it would seem ridiculous to think Jesus is somehow God too. Based on the numerous texts we have, this is not a logical or well-founded construct.
If we refer to extra-biblical creeds to understand the nature of God then we are ignoring the bible's clear revelations because the two do not agree.
The definition of divine I'm using is as an adjective. Being divine doesn't make one God, but simply has some of the characteristics of God. Specifically, Jesus was divine because he was holy and without sin. This makes him like God or Godlike, but by no means God. We will also share in God's divine nature.

Through these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world on account of lust. 2 Pet 1:4

Attributes of Jesus v/s God
Jesus is holy and without sin. That's just like God - but doesn't make him God.
Jesus on earth in the flesh was the 'image of God' and had the 'form of God' - neither make him God, but make him like God.
Jesus could be tempted - that's not like God. God cannot be tempted. James 1:13
Jesus could die - that's not like God, He is immortal.
Jesus could sin - that's not like God, He cannot sin. Heb 5:7
Jesus doesn't know everything - God does. Matt 24:36
Jesus said he is not a spirit - God is Spirit. Luke 24:39 John 4:24
Jesus said he was a man (still is) - God is not a man. Num 23:19 Hos 11:9 John 8:40
Jesus had a beginning ~4BC - God has no beginning.
Jesus was made Lord - no one makes God anything! Acts 2:36
Jesus was sanctified by God - God does not need to be sanctified.  John 10:36
We only need Jesus to fall short by ONE divine attribute that God the Father has to show Jesus is not God.
Either Jesus is God or he is not, He cannot be God for some things and not God for other.
How can he be God (because some say he has to be God to pay for all sin) and still die? Oh, only the humanity of Jesus died apparently, while God the Son lives on. This two-faced nature of Jesus/the Son is not found in scripture.
He cannot be immortal and mortal. We know he was mortal in the flesh until he was raised in the spirit. 1 Pet 3:18, Rom 6:9 He is mortal no longer. So by those texts, he was not God.
If the bible was supposed to explain who God is and who Jesus is and they are both God - it is doing a really lousy job. So to make Jesus God is to ignore all the verses that say he isn't.
It is pointless to grasp at the few 'proof-texts' like John 20:28, 10:30 or Is 9:6 etc. When read incorrectly or out of context they may seem useful to the 'Jesus is God' set. But even then, they are still insufficient to alter the substantial, consistent body of evidence for a human Jesus who is not God, but the son of God who gave his life in humble sacrifice for his Father's creation. Having accomplished this momentous task, he is rightly made heir to this creation. And now rules with his Father and God and is mediator between God and men.
Even Satan knew who Jesus was - he knew he wasn't God, but the son of God.
When the biblical evidence is understood and accepted, these 'proof-texts' regain their true meaning highlighting the magnificent plan God put in place in ages past.
This summary answer has been drawn from one main source and assoc. pages - https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses
Note 1 https://onegodworship.com/jesus-has-a-god/ - sample of verses where Jesus has a God


Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords?

In the following verse Jesus mentions another prophecy to be fulfilled:

  Luke 22:37: For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

A transgressor is, by definition:

  One who transgresses; one who breaks a law, or violates a command; one who violates any known rule or principle of rectitude; a sinner

Now here is where it becomes more a matter of opinion:

It is clear that, at least in our current day case, that interfering with the law is in fact a crime. Here we have two illustrations of that - first, the Apostles with Jesus are not yet saved since Jesus had not yet been crucified, so they were still sinners - and transgressors of the Law passed down by Moses from God. Second, they were interfering in Jesus' arrest and Peter attacked a guard. So that makes then transgressors of the law as by man.

So we see here a fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus mentioned in verse 37, as both spiritually and man-made sense the Apostles would be transgressors.


How did the Gift of the Holy Ghost operate before Christ came?

The Holy Ghost has many duties.  Some are available to people before the ordinances of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost (in other words: they are alwyas available), others are only available after both those ordinances are performed.  Others still are unique (such as His involvement with the conception of Jesus).

His duties before the ordinances

The Gifts of the Spirit (healing, tongues, etc.).  1 Cor. 12:7
The Holy Ghost testifies...

of Jesus Christ. John 15:26-27
that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Moroni 10:3-4
and all other truth. Moroni 10:5

He brings things to rememberance and teaches. John 14:26
See God before death. D&C 76:118
To comfort us. Alma 17:10, Acts 9:31, Moroni 8:26

His duties after the ordinances

The ministering of angels by the power of the Holy Ghost.1 2 Nephi 32:3
Gives us authority to speak of Christ. D&C 63:61-64 (example: Acts 18:5-6)
The Holy Spirit of Promise (Eph 4:30; D&C 124:124).  It is by this duty that the Sealing power is made active and people are able to have their calling and election made sure.  Before the covenant of Baptism there are no covenants to seal, it being the first personal covenant and therefore required to eventually have your calling and election made sure.  Becoming "born again" (Moses 6:58-60; John 3:1-7) or receiving the "mighty change of heart" described by Alma is being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  See JST 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:1,4,18; Mosiah 27:25-28; Alma 5:11-16.

What is the gift (not the Gift) of the Holy Ghost?

Consider these words from the prophet Alma.  He was talking to the people of Ammonihah about the nature of the Nephite people (before their descent into wickedness).

  Having been visited by the Spirit of God; having conversed with angels, and having been spoken unto by the voice of the Lord; and having the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and also many gifts, the gift of speaking with tongues, and the gift of preaching, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the gift of translation;  (Alma 9:21, emphasis mine)

Here the "gift of the Holy Ghost" is lumped in with the other gifts of the Spirit.  That almost seems counter-intuitive until you realize that the power and manifestation of the Holy Ghost is something anyone can receive (remember that list of pre-ordinance duties).  The Holy Ghost's influence on our lives is truly a gift, a gift that can be lost through iniquity, withdrawn to teach humility, or is sometimes simply withdrawn, perhaps to see how we will act of our own free will.  An example of this last condition is the withdrawl of the Holy Ghost from Jesus Christ as He hung on the cross, because the choice to die a sacrifice for us all had to be His, and His alone.

This function, those duties, this gift, has existed from the days of Adam until now.  And it was bestowed upon Adam before his baptism, and the official "Gift of the Holy Ghost".  (Which means that the Gift of the Holy Ghost was available from Adam to his decendants until the general loss of the Melchizedek Priesthood during Moses' time.  I'll get to that in a moment.)

And the Gift of the Holy Ghost is...

The "Gift of the Holy Ghost" is an ordinance, not a condition or state of being.  The words of the ordinance, "receive the Holy Ghost" do not convey universal access to the Holy Ghost.  Indeed, because the influence (or gift, as Alma put it) of the Holy Ghost can and will be withdrawn for many reasons (mostly iniquity), the ordinance cannot and does not create a special relationship with the Holy Ghost.

But it does mean two things can now happen that couldn't happen before: the ability to authoritatively testify of Christ and the sealing blessing of the Holy Spirit of Promise.  It is these we are invited to receive by ordinance, this ultimate Gift through the power of the Holy Ghost.

TL;DR - So what does this mean for Mosaic Israel?

As a people, ancient Israel lost access to the blessings of the Melchizedek Priesthood.  They had the authority to baptize, but generally did not have the authority to perform the ordinance of giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  Moses had that authority (as all the OT prophets did, having the Melchizedek Priesthood) but general access to that privilege was withdrawn.

Which means Mosaic Israel had (and has) access to all the functions of the Holy Ghost save two: they may not yet testify with authority about Jesus Christ or be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  Access to this gift through the ordinance of giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost must now be done vicariously as must the act of sealing their marriages, etc.

Please note that I felt this answer was plenty long, so I didn't go into detail as to when the blessings of the Melchizedek Priesthood were accessible but unavailable due to apostasy (such as just before the Flood), etc.

1  Moroni 7:25-32 teaches us about the duties and affiliations of ministering angels.  I'm studying this now.  One of the duties is to fulfil and to do the work of the covenants of the Father, which I currently believe would be outside the authority or duties of the Holy Ghost.  Another is to prepare the way among the children of men, by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord.  That is within the authority or duties of the Holy Ghost.  Verse 7 teaches they are subject unto Christ, but 2 Nephi 32:3 teaches they speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.  My heart tells me there isn't a discrepency here despite not having yet tracked down all the details.  I do know from scriptural examples that ministering angels often serve in roles that are traditionally given to the Holy Ghost.  Thus, my current conclusion that before the ordinance only angels serving in the first duty mentioned (doing the work ... of the Father) may be seen by people (example: Cornelius, Acts 10) but after the ordinance the righteous may call on angels to minister to them through the power of the Holy Ghost (which is further supported by the Aaronic Priesthood Key to the Ministering of Angels, consider especially the Key to the Gospel of Repentance).  It's a work in progress...*


What is the biblical basis for the belief that God loves individuals?

First, does God love any individuals particularly?

Job believed that he would stand face to face with God, who would hear his complaint and grant him justice. God appeared and spoke to him, and vindicated him before his friends, and blessed him with an abundant life.

God promised Abram a son, a nation, and influence throughout the whole world. He gave him a new name, Abraham. God guided him from his old home to a new one, and showed him respect by letting him know about his plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

God had mercy on Leah and opened her womb, because Jacob loved Rachel more than her.

God appeared to Moses, granted him kingly authority, displayed his glory to him and spoke to him like a man speaks to his friend.

God granted Hannah a son, Samuel, in response to her urgent prayers.

God provided food miraculously to Elijah, sent angels to assist him, and spoke to him from a mountain top.

Jesus wept when he saw how grieved Mary and Martha were over the death of their brother, Lazarus.

God's history with man shows that he grants particular mercies much prized by those who received them. He granted the desires of their hearts. He often deals with them as individuals, not as a collective. Patient, kind, gentle, humble - just as He has defined true love in 1 Corinthians 13, so He has expressed this love to individuals.

"Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." God is very particular.

Revelation 3:19-22 says:

  Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.
  Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and
  opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with
  me.

  To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on
  my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his
  throne. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the
  churches.”

This is the end of the letter to the church at Laodicea. You can interpret it as only being directed to a group, but some believe that it is both directed to the church and to individuals. While some preterists might say that this was completely fulfilled among the believers of that church many years ago, historicists and others believe that the church of Laodicea stands for the end-times church, in apostasy. A disordered and disfunctional church can no longer be relied upon to faithfully deliver God's message to his people, so he must speak to individual Christians directly. This is God's message to all the faithful who persevere, directed to each personally, not just the church corporately.

Yes, if you overcome in faith, God loves you. God spoke his love directly to people of faith long ago. He will speak to you as well.


What does the chaining and locking of Satan in the bottomless pit for the millennial reign accomplish?

Perhaps the simplest--yet most profound--reason for Satan's being chained for a thousand years is because God desires to prove to humanity once and for all that even with Satan out of the way, human beings will still reject the Lordship of Jesus Christ, thinking they are better off being masters of their own fate instead of subjects of the King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 17:14; 19:16).

In other words, at the end of the thousand years, no one can any longer legitimately blame only Satan for something that is deep within the heart of all of us; namely, our sin nature.

To be sure, Jesus entered time and space as the God-Man to destroy through his death and resurrection the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), but he did not enter time and space to destroy the sin nature of the creatures he created in His image. That is something each true believer needs to do of his or her volition as they put to death the works of their sinful nature (see, for example, Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5).

What the 10 servants of the nobleman in Jesus' parable said of their master in Luke 19 will also be on the lips of those who refuse to bow the knee to the reign and rule of Jesus on earth during the Millennium:

  "'We will not have this man to reign over us'" (vv.19 and 27).

When Satan is finally loosed from his captivity, he will have little trouble, then, in rallying troops around him in his ultimately futile attempt to depose by force the King of kings and the Lord of lords, Jesus Christ. King Jesus, in turn, will have no difficulty in defeating the prince of darkness and the father of lies, as well as all those who align themselves with him and with the beast and the false prophet. After their defeat, the unholy trinity will be cast into the lake of fire forever (see Revelation 19:20; 20:10; 20:14-15).

Only then will

  "'The kingdoms of this world . . . become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever' (Revelation 11:15 KJV).


What does it mean to be clean in the context of the Old Law?

My understanding of cleanliness vs uncleanliness had to do with ability to participate in Jewish religious ceremonies.  They were things which were not sinful, however when made unclean, would make one ineligible to participate in Holy ceremonies.  The level of purification needed also scaled with the closeness to God, with a very large amount of purification prior to a high priest entering the Holy of Hollies.  It is my understanding that this view does not differ greatly from traditional Jewish views of Levitical cleanliness.


Why is it not a sin when God asked Moses to lie to Pharaoh?

God didn't lie

God knew that Pharaoh would say "no" to this request, and since we know the outcome of the story we can think that God intended for Israel to stay put all along and never intended them to journey into the wilderness. But the simple fact of the matter is we cannot assume that. We can assume that God did intend for the Israelites to go into the wilderness to worship him and there's nothing in the text that contradicts that.

Then what about this portion?

  Exodus 3:17,19 ESV "...I promise that I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, ... , a land flowing with milk and honey. ... But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go”

Wouldn't He be deceptive by asking the elders to request leave from Pharaoh for reasons other than the one's he's stated here?

All God is doing is proving his omniscience. He is declaring that He knows what the final result of all this will be. He knows he will lead them out and he knows Pharaoh will resist, but this doesn't change the requests he has for the Israelites or the expectations he has for Pharaoh. One way to look at it is God is giving an opportunity to Pharaoh to say yes and save Egypt a whole lot of trouble (and death). God even gives Pharaoh 9 more opportunities to let them go. God is merciful.

It's best to interpret passages like this with the question "In what reasonable way could I interpret this to be true?"


What is the biblical basis for defining 'atonement’ as 'at-one-ment with Christ'?

I first came across the idea of “at-one-ment” with Christ after I become a Christian (as a mature adult).  It seemed a simple explanation but later I came to see it more as a ‘dumbed-down sound-bite’.  It conveyed the notion that, because Christ had done something, people could then become ‘one with Christ’.  Oh, but what danger lurked behind that view!  Christians are people who have died WITH Christ, for if that never happens, they can never be at one with him. 2 Timothy 2:11 says:

For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him. If we suffer, we shall also reign with him.

According to the ‘at-one-ment’ pseudo-explanation of the word ‘atonement’ the impression is given that because Christ has done something, we are sorted.  Jesus has done it all.  Well, so he has – he has achieved a finished work via the cross and we can do nothing to add to that completed salvation. But the danger lies in then thinking we can just verbally agree with the wonder of what Christ has done for us, thank God for it, and that’s us united with Christ.  Is it really such a passive matter for believers?  Is this not the sort of shallow thinking behind the notorious “Sinner’s Prayer”?
Over the five years I spent in a U.K. Baptist church I learned much more, and the depth of meaning behind the enormity of what is involved in reconciling sinners to God began to dawn.  That, however, did not nullify the fact that I had become a Christian at the outset.  It just took a while for me to appreciate the significance of what being crucified prior to being raised with Christ, meant. But the way some believers used dumbed-down sound-bite explanations really hindered my grasp of matters.
It took me a while to understand the significance of Romans 6 but a key point came from verses 8 to 12:

Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him…  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Let no sin therefore reign in your moral body. (NIV)

Jesus explained what is required of all Christians in Matthew 16:24-25:

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

That was my ‘lightbulb moment’.  Verbally agreeing with the wonder of what Jesus did by dying on the cross was not my dying to sin.  That was not me disowning myself, picking up my cross daily, and losing my life for Christ’s sake in the process.  It had to get personal, not just be something done in the past by Christ which, two thousand years later, moved me intellectually or emotionally into a statement of verbal agreement.
My answer is that claiming biblical atonement means “at-one-ment with Christ” explains nothing and may even prevent sincere people grasping the enormity of what it means to enter into the death of Christ, which has to happen before we can be raised with Christ.


Does Romans 7:20 contradict Genesis 4:7?

There is no contradiction, however it should be noted that in Genesis 4:7 that is an intentional sin, and in Romans 7:20 it concerns unintentional sin.

The difference between the two is whether or not the perpetrator knows that it is a sin and commits it anyway, or does so out of ignorance or deception as in the case of Eve who was beguiled.


According to Mormonism, is the Black race cursed and if so what does that imply?

I will restate that the book Mormon Doctrine, written by Bruce R. McConkie, is not Mormon doctrine, nor ever has been.

  We [the First Presidency of the church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, 'Mormon Doctrine' recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition1

Mormon doctrine on blacks and the priesthood can be found in Official Declaration 2, which in summary says:

  The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

See also this article on Race and the Priesthood

On Mormon doctrine, mormonnewsroom says:

  Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

--EDIT--

You mention Mormon prophets are infallible but James E Faust puts what mormonnewsroom (above) said clearer:

  We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators

Also, a bit of the history, of blacks and the priesthood, is found in the introductory paragraph of Official Declaration above (now in bold). I have heard this referred to as cultural doctrine. Because of racism during early church history, some of that bled into church practice and teachings but without any doctrinal foundation (remember church leaders are not infallible). Official Declaration 2 is the LDS church's official stance on blacks and the priesthood and was meant as a clarification for the church that had gone astray in this teaching.

1 https://books.google.com/books?id=xAm4qGyN2OYC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false


What is the origin of the Good Friday tradition?

The idea that Jesus died on a Wednesday is a fabrication. It is nothing more than an attempt to force a modernistic interpretation onto Matthew 12:40. In the early church the common understanding of "three days and three nights" did not require "three full days and also three full nights".
Fourth century scholar/priest St. Jerome explains in his Commentary on Jonah:

But we ask ourselves this: how was he three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. Some scholars take the view according to paraskeuen, because of the solar eclipse from the sixth to the ninth hour when night followed day, this would be two days and nights, and adding the Sabbath, believe that we should count this as three days and three nights. But I prefer to understand this by reason of synecdoche, seeing the whole as a part: where he is dead in paraskeuen, let us count one day and one night; two with the Sabbath; the third night which arises from the day of the Lord, let us take that as the beginning of the next day, for, in Genesis the night is not of the preceding day, but of the following day, that is to say the beginning of the next day, not the end of the previous. To understand this better I will say it more simply: if a man leaves his house at nine and the next day he arrives at his other house at three. And if I say that he has been two days in travelling, I will not be reprimanded as a liar, because he has not used all the hours of two days, but only a part for his journey. Nonetheless this seems to me to be the interpretation.

Sixteenth century reformer Martin Luther agrees in a sermon on the resurrection:

The question now arises: How can we say that he rose on the third day, since he lay in the grave only one day and two nights? According to the Jewish calculation it was only a day and a half; how shall we then persist in believing there were three days? To this we reply that be was in the state of death for at least a part of all three days. For he died at about two o'clock on Friday and consequently was dead for about two hours on the first day. After that night he lay in the grave all day, which is the true Sabbath. On the third day, which we commemorate now, he rose from the dead and so remained in the state of death a part of this day, just as if we say that something occurred on Easter-day, although it happens in the evening, only a portion of the day. In this sense Paul and the Evangelists say that he rose on the third day.

Furthermore, this view ignores the testimony of the rest of the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark, in fact, describes Jesus' activities every day of the week leading up to his arrest and crucifixion.

Day 1 (Mark 10:32) "They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem..."
Day 2 (Mark 11:12) "On the following day..."
Day 3 (Mark 11:20) "The next morning as they passed by the fig tree..."
Day 4 (Mark 14:1) "Two days before the Passover..."
Day 5 (Mark 14:12) "On the first day of Unleavened Bread..."
Day 6 (Mark 15:1) "As soon as it was morning..." >>This is the day of the crucifixion
Day 7 (not mentioned) >>This is the sabbath
Day 8 (Mark 16:1) "When the sabbath was over..."

Jesus was active on each day up to and including the day of the crucifixion. Jesus fulfilled the law; he did not violate the sabbath rest except to follow a higher law such as healing the blind, so none of these six days could have been a weekly sabbath. There is simply no way to squeeze six consecutive non-sabbath days into the calendar without the final one being a Friday, so that puts Palm Sunday on a Sunday, the crucifixion on a Friday, and the resurrection on the next Sunday.
Christian Tradition, going back to New Testament times, consistently testifies that Jesus would be raised, not "after three days", but "on the third day". Here are some examples from the New Testament:

Matthew 16:21 ...and on the third day be raised.
Matthew 17:32 ...and on the third day he will be raised.
Luke 9:22 ...and on the third day be raised.
Luke 18:33 ...and on the third day he will rise again.
Acts 10:40 ...but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear
1 Corinthians 15:4 ...and that he was raised on the third day

If the gospel consisted of nothing but Matthew 12:40, we might be able to interpret the "three days and three nights" differently, but against the weight of the rest of the New Testament and the history of Christianity, it's hard to argue for a Wednesday crucifixion.


Does Acts 15:21 assume new believers would learn and follow the law from synagogues on sabbath?

I don't think this is saying the Gentiles should have to learn the law of Moses.  Quite the contrary, I believe it is saying they should not have to be burdened with the law of Moses.

Earlier in Acts 15 Peter asks why should the Gentiles be required to follow the law the Jews have.

  Acts 15:10-11 NIV
  10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of
  Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to
  bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that
  we are saved, just as they are.

When contrasted with this, I would understand James response in verses 19-21 to be saying most of the law of Moses would be an extreme burden on the Gentiles, considering even the Jews who heard the law weekly were not able to uphold it.


When was papal supremacy accepted by the entirety of the Catholic Church?

INTRODUCTION

The history of the Roman Catholic Papacy of course is long and convoluted, but we can briefly touch on various events, time markers, and players on the stage during the first 500 years of Christianity that help shape and define the idea.

Let’s start with a definition of Papacy.  The Papacy is the office of Pope of the Roman Catholic Church extending from the apostle Peter to the present Pope.  As such, the Pope is the supreme head of the whole Church with complete authority over matters of doctrine and practice (faith and morals).  The Papacy relies on the ideas of Peter as “rock”, a unique power to “bind and loose”, and possession of the “keys to the kingdom”.

Was there a time when most of Christianity recognized this supreme authority?  Kind of, but not really.  Sources follow comments.

HINTS

As mentioned, the Papacy took time to fully develop, but hints of it surfaced within the first generation.  Clement of Rome wrote an epistle circa 95 CE that suggests that one "tribe" will have a priestly authority, as Levi did over the other 11 tribes.  The power to forgive sins, of course, is the whole point of authority.

In 155 CE, Anicetus of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna argued over the observance of Passover (aka Easter).  In 175 CE, Victor of Rome attempted to excommunicate all of Asia Minor led by Polycrates over the same issue.  It was not until the Council of Nicea ruled with Constantine as its guarantee in 325 CE that the Roman view of Easter prevailed.  It took the State’s authority to force a certain spiritual authority at this early stage.

Tertullian circa 195 CE follows in the footsteps of those who disagreed with Rome’s budding authority.  He first mentions how Rome was usurping the authority given to Peter alone.  Cyprian circa 220 CE will quickly follow, but in a positive note of Rome’s authority; that is, it is necessary as a visible unity of the Church.  In the next breath, however, Cyprian will maintain the right of the bishops to disagree with heresy wherever it arises, as they did over the validity of heretical baptism.

AGREEMENT

Evidently it was in Leo the Great, however, when the full Papacy idea had completely blossomed.  This was circa 450 CE.  This is the time when even Alexandria will fully comply and acknowledge the Easter times of Rome.  The argument used was how could Mark, Peter’s successor, teach something in Alexandria that was not taught in Rome?  Disagree and there goes one’s claim to being an apostolic church.

Besides, Pope Leo successfully persuaded Attila the Hun from invading.  Who could argue God wasn’t on his side?

CONCLUSION

The doctrine or more loosely the idea of “papal supremacy” residing in Rome predates Nicea.  We clearly see Pope Victor of Rome exercising this supremacy, although the rest of the Church disagreed with him.  We also understand Tertullian and Cyprian seeing Rome claiming this authority.  Again though, while Rome may claim it, the rest of the Church does not completely agree with it.  One may claim supreme authority, but that doesn’t mean one checks their brain at the door against heresy.

Yet in Leo the Great, the Papacy is fully known and exercised with at least all of the Church submitting.  No doubt individuals would disagree, but the patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Antioch would evidently all submit.  Even still there was one exception to this authority who came to be the Oriental Orthodoxy.  This was “sub groups” within a couple of the patriarchs.  Of course, 500 years later, the Eastern Orthodox will also disagree.  500 years after that, the Protestants also disagree.

Rome clearly believes in its Papacy.  It has done so for some 2,000 years as the idea of an “authority” over the whole with binding and loosing powers and the keys to the kingdom surfaces within the first generations after the final apostle’s death and carries through today.  The rest of Christendom, however, never really agreed with the view from Rome.

SOURCES

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11451b.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_papacy
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xliii.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.x.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxiv.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xvi.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy


What writing materials did the writers of the Gospels use?

Echoing @djclayworth:

  We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the scriptures, nor any other evidence of what kind of materials were used. Presumably it would be the usual materials.

Looking at other documents from around the same time period we can assume papyri and/or parchment (Dead Sea Scrolls).

2 John 1:12-3 or 3 John 1: 13 mentions that paper and ink were used during the time period by at least one of the apostles.

  Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.


Just because it was already prophesied, does not mean that Judas did not make a conscious choice. A man can most definitely choose to be used by Satan or by the Holy Spirit. Judas, by his actions, was already choosing, as he was choosing to steal from the purse.(John 12:6) This showed that even though he was with Jesus, the Holy Spirit was not working within him. He made a series of bad decisions and the devil took the opportunity.

God is blamed for many things, but just because He allows it to happen, does not mean He causes it to happen. Many times we put ourselves in this position. Isaiah 59:1-2 says:

Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save,
    nor his ear too dull to hear.
But your iniquities have separated
    you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
    so that he will not hear.

Judas put himself in this position. In a position where God allowed Satan use Judas.


What is significant about shaking dust from your feet?

In short, shaking the dust of your feet is way of indicating uncleanliness.
From the Believers Bible Commentary:

R. Guelich suggests that shaking off dust from the feet, the symbolic act that Jesus’ disciples were to carry out when leaving a rejecting village (6:11), has a threefold meaning (322–3):
•  It announces the inevitability of judgment (since further contact and opportunity for repentance is symbolically cut off).
•  It declares that the missionaries have done their job and are washing their hands of further responsibility (Ezek. 3:21; 33:1–9).
•  It labels that village as pagan.
Of these three, the third is the most provocative. Jews would shake off “pagan” dust before entering the “holy land” (Str.-B, 1:115). Likewise, Jesus’ emissaries demonstrate that villages rejecting them and the one who sent them have lost their inheritance in the people of God.
A similar message is conveyed via John’s symbolic act of baptizing Jews (1:5), an act normally reserved for converts to Judaism. John is thereby symbolically reinstating Jews into the people of God, implying that without his baptism, they are outsiders to Israel. The present text about shaking off “pagan dust,” however, takes this a step further. People are invited to reinstate their membership in the people of God; those who reject God’s messengers are symbolically excluded.
Other NT references to shaking off dust include all three of the meanings suggested above, though sometimes one of them is more prominent than the others (Matt. 10:14; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51; 18:6). Acts 18:6 in particular seems to highlight all three aspects. As he leaves the Corinthian synagogue, Paul shakes the dust off his clothing and says, “Your blood be on your own heads [meaning 1]. I am clear of my responsibility [meaning 2]. From now on I will go to the Gentiles [meaning 3]” (NIV). With his final line, Paul reverses the usual Jewish practice of cleansing their feet before moving from Gentile to Jewish territory. Paul is moving from Jewish territory (the synagogue) to Gentile territory (the house of Titius Justus) and shaking off the dust before doing so. Believing Jews join him as he moves toward a more fruitful mission field.

And from "The New Manners and Customs of the Bible:"

For Jews to shake dust off their feet was a sign that Gentile territory was unclean. In the New Testament this action indicates that those who have rejected the gospel have made themselves as Gentiles and must face the judgment of God. (See also Acts 13:51) To sprinkle dust on the head was a sign of mourning (Joshua 7:6), and to sit in dust denotes extreme affliction (Isaiah 47:1). “Dust” is used to denote the grave (Job 7:21). To lick the dust is a sign of abject submission (Psalms 72:9); and to throw dust at someone is a sign of abhorrence (2 Samuel 16:13; Acts 22:23). To bite the dust is to suffer a defeat. It became a common expression through its use in American movies about the early west.

In particular, I find the linkage between "shaking the dust off your feet" and "biting the dust" to be interesting.


Are there any archaeological evidences suggesting the existence of the Book of Mormon?

To answer your question, I would challenge you to learn as much about the American continent as you can for the date that the Book of Mormon was compiled (~400AD). You will quickly discover that there are no other surviving records from that time period at all.1 In fact, the oldest manuscript written in the Americas known by historians–the Dresden Codex–was written half a millennia after Mormon compiled the Book of Mormon, and is one of only 15 ancient Mesoamerican records left in existence.

The Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica erased most of the history there. Temples were torn down and Cathedrals were built upon their foundations. The vast majority of what we know about those cultures was written by their conquerers.

If there were any codecies that supported the existence of the Book of Mormon, they would have likely been destroyed around the same time all of the Christians in Mormon's time were slaughtered, or during one of Bishop Diego de Landa's purges, and had the Gold Plates or any other plates made of gold been discovered, they would have been melted down into ingots, just like Atahualpa's ransom, and sent back to Spain.

So no, there are no evidences comparable to the Dead Sea Scrolls, or Codex Sinaiticus that serve as evidence of the Book of Mormon's existence. It is unknown exactly how the scriptures were even shared with the people other than by the kings and prophets preaching to them. Mormon states in his book–The Words of Mormon–that the plate records he used to compile the Book of Mormon, which are briefly explained here, were handed down by the kings until they were delivered to him, who then spent a large portion of his life compiling them into the book which he delivered to his son Moroni, who finished the book, buried it, and 1400 years later revealed to Joseph Smith in resurrected form.

1 List of Existing Codecies of Mesoamerican Literature.


Is John the Baptist the same John who wrote the Book of John in the New Testament?

You are correct in that the author of the Gospel of John was definitely not St. John the Baptist, but called himself the "Beloved Disciple", who testified to the truthfulness of the eyewitness account about Jesus and his ministry on earth (John 21:24).

The identity of the Beloved Disciple has been associated with St. John, son of Zebedee, one of the 12 apostles called by Jesus Himself (Mark 3:13-19).  For more on the identity of the "Beloved Disciple", you can read Who Wrote the Gospel of John? written by Dr. Gary M. Burge for the blog of the publisher Zondervan, which is academically responsible, or the wikipedia article.


Does the right side have a higher status than the left?

I think the "right" side have a higher status simply because the most people are right-handed.

We read some passages where lefties have an advantage in surprising the enemy, as in Ehud's history

  15 But when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord
  raised them up a deliverer, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man
  lefthanded: and by him the children of Israel sent a present unto
  Eglon the king of Moab.

  16 But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length;
  and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh.

  17 And he brought the present unto Eglon king of Moab: and Eglon was a
  very fat man.

  18 And when he had made an end to offer the present, he sent away the
  people that bare the present.

  19 But he himself turned again from the quarries that were by Gilgal,
  and said, I have a secret errand unto thee, O king: who said, Keep
  silence. And all that stood by him went out from him.

  20 And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting in a summer parlour,
  which he had for himself alone. And Ehud said, I have a message from
  God unto thee. And he arose out of his seat.

  21 And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his
  right thigh, and thrust it into his belly

  Judges 3:15-21

also in the case of Benjamin's Tribe

  "Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men lefthanded;
  every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss." Judges
  20:16

Perhaps you are wondering about the tortures of the Middle Ages:

One of the most accepted theories to justify the preference for the right side of things says that came with the primitive inhabitants of the northern hemisphere. For the sun worshipers the northern hemisphere, the sun appears to move clockwise to the right. Following in this vein, Buddhists make their treks to meditate; pilgrims who go to Mecca to pray Allah surround the estluertici right the Kaaba, where the construction is the sacred stone of Mohammed's followers. Muslims, in fact, go so far as to state that God has two right hands.

Also in the Middle Ages left hand happens to be related to the dirt. The explanation for this until we have some logic: a period when washing up was a rare habit, cleanliness was due to the left hand, including personal hygiene . Afraid to get dirty, people just shook hands with the right hand, the same used for eating or combing hair .

At the time of giving his word , the Greek was the one who was in favor of the left: "aristera", the Greek term for the left hand , has the meaning of "best" and the same origin of the word aristocracy. Latin, at first, agreed with this positive image : sinister , whatever "left" say , meant "Lucky" , the word comes from "sinus", the pocket of the Roman toga which was, of course, that side .

But this was the era in which the statues of the Roman gods had to face south and look directed to the left , to the east , where they came from , with the sun , the signs of good fortune . Do not know why, but images of deities, approximately the second century, were directed to the north. Hence the east was right. From "Lucky" the word "sinister" came to be "unlucky" and the Romans began to sew your pockets on the right side.