Will there be "new people" or reproduction in heaven or "the next life?"

First off, eschatology (the study of last things) is rarely subject to a definitive answer, because there is simply a wide range of opinion on how to interpret these things.  The best that I can do is repeat theories I have seen before.  The answer below presumes a pre-milennial dispensationalist reading, meaning that the timeline is what Tim LaHaye popularized in the Left Behind series / the dispensationalist view promulgated by Charles Ryrie / Darby / Chafee / etc.  I'm going to restrict myself to the biblical references, however, so bear in mind this isn't the answer, but rather an answer.

Revelation 20

In Revelation 20, the devil is cast into a pit for 1000 years.  At the end of that time, he and cohorts are released to see whom they can deceive - and the speculation is that those who were born during this milennium will compose a portion of that deceived cohort.  The idea that there would be new people who could be believed presupposes then, that new people are someone born in the milennium. This isn't heaven, but being a different "dispensation," it is nonetheless suggestive that reproduction continues.

The theory would then be extended to suggest that if in this age there are new people, then there would be nothing to suggest that heaven would be different.

Genesis 1:22 / Genesis 9:7

In the beginning of creation, the first injuction was that man should continue God's creative work by "be[ing] fruitful and multiply[ing]". After the Flood - the end of the first "dispensation" and the beginning of the second, this injunction is repeated.  Clearly in the remaining periods ("dispensations") the injunction continues, so the proof of "procreation stops in heaven" would be on the one making the claim.

Isaiah 65:20

Speaking of the end times,

  Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

and continuing into verse 24

  They will not labor in vain,
     nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;
  for they will be a people blessed by the LORD

This seems to suggest that these blessed people who's children live a very, very long time will be having children.  One could question if this is heaven, but again, some people will apply it that way.

Here the implication is that (a) there are infants and even (b) death.

1 Corinthians 13:11-12

What we can say with a little more assurance (and here I'm leaving dispensationalism behind) is that in heaven, "We shall know fully, even as I am fully known."  In other words, the closeness reserved for earthly marriage (which as you pointed out doesn't exist in heaven) is the level of intimacy we all will have in heaven*.  As a present progressive, there seems to be an implication that we will be continually knowing and growing, which to me would imply new people to be known by. And, in the absence of sin, we would be able to know people much more fully than now

*(One could ask, does that mean you can have sex with anyone you want in heaven, and since there is no shame in it, you could at least make a case. I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out how speculative eschatology gets!).

So, is this a definitive "Yes?" No. It is a speculative theology hopefully just extending existing theology.  In the end, my only guess is that all of heaven is "exceedingly, abundantly, more than we could ever ask or imagine." (Eph 3:20.)  That's theology I can support!


Are sermons from The Second Book of Homilies still read in Anglican Churches?

tl;dr> No.

Quick insight to the lack of use of the Book of Homilies can be seen in the fact that the book itself has technically been out of print in England since 2003.

The Book of Homilies is primarily an artifact from a condition that is not nearly as prevalent today. At the time of the 39 articles (in the mid 1500s), two conditions conspired to make preachers scarce:

In order to preach in any church, you needed to be licensed. (Baptists, in particular, hated this!).
In order to be licensed, you needed an education.

While in modern America, neither of these is a requirement, in the England of the time of the 39 articles, these were rather significant hurdles.  Imagine not only the paucity of students devoting themselves to an education, but also the massive number of churches required when you couldn't just drive to the local megachurch, and one can quickly see why a lack of professional preachers was a problem.

To address this problem, the Anglican church printed books of homilies - pre-approved, biblical, sermon-like speeches that could be delivered by laymen acting in a priests' stead.  Much like how blessed elements could be distributed by Lay Eucharistic Ministers - a position that still exists today in many Episcopal churches, the Book of Homilies enabled instruction to be conveyed by those with less training.

Nowadays, with the Episcopal Church in decline in much of North America, the situation is exactly the opposite - there are too many qualified ministers.  As such, there is almost no need for these.  In my more than 5 years as a lay preacher in the Episcopal Church, I have never run across a church that still used them.


What caused people in Jerusalem to change so much from "Palm entrance" to crucifixion day?

God is amazing in that He can have real people make real choices that have are rooted in metaphoric and spiritual meaning.

1.) It was the same people in that it was the nation of Israel who welcomed Him with much praise, and it was the same nation of Israel that demanded He be crucified. The thing to understand is that throughout all of their history Israel has been on a roller-coaster relationship with God. We see that in Exodus, Judges, Kings, all the prophets, and practically everywhere else in the Old testament. One generation praises God and is rewarded, the next generation loses it, gives in to idolatry and is punished. The amazing thing is that they do it over and over, the same mistakes time and time again. I would list references to exact passages but I'd take up the entire page with them. Here they simply were excited for God in that they thought this might be their "warrior king messiah" and when God's plan took a different direction they did what they do best. Turn away from God. Just like the Golden Calf in Exodus 32 and The idol worship detailed in Kings concerning the Prophet Elijah's constant battle with the false prophets of Baal.

2.) Understanding the biblical definition of "blindness" is key here as well. In John's Gospel chapter 12 it says,

  37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not
  believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be
  fulfilled, which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to
  whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 Therefore they could
  not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 “He has blinded their eyes
  and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes,Lest
  they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should
  heal them.” 41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and
  spoke of Him.

Blindness was tool that God used over and over again to symbolize man's fallen nature. There was the messiah, God in the flesh right before them and they -could- -not- -see- -it! That was precisely the point though you see God's Will must and will always come to pass regardless of what scenario surrounds it. Just as the law required that the people of Israel sacrifice a lamb to God for the passover and for atonement for their sins. So to was the Messiah to be sacrificed. It had to be Israel who chose the death sentence despite Pilate's willingness to be merciful. If Jesus was never executed we the Gentiles would have no part in God's kingdom. We would not have Christ's remdemptive work to be our mediator to God.

3.) Israel was looking for a warrior king. Another David or something to that nature that would come and restore God's people to the position of power in the world. Their interpretation of scriptures called for that and they're still awaiting that today, which is why they, for the most part, will never accept Christ as the messiah until He returns. Fulfilling that prophecy just as the scriptures said he would. They were ignorant however that "The age of Grace" would come beforehand. How they missed Isaiah 53 & 54 I do not know but it's all pretty much detailed there if you need to reference. Chapter 53 detailing the messiah's life, death, and how they would not know who he was. Then immediately after that in Chapter 54 it details how the "barren woman" which is a depiction of the Gentile nations will now have part in the covenant. You see the flow there The messiah will come, then comes the age of the Gentiles, and God does this to create jealousy in people of Israel. All things work to bring people back to their creator.

Lastly, the reason I believe it was indeed the same people. Is because he was "sent to his own, and his own recieved him not." The people seen the miracles. Heard him speak. Were first hand eye witnesses, but still they turned away. Whether it was fear, or anger, or confusion doesn't matter. What matters is without them condemning him, without the blood, and cross. There would be no salvation.

I really hoped this helps you and If I'm in error I welcome any correction.
God bless.


Is the desire for a spiritual mother natural to mankind?

In his book, First Comes Love, Scott Hahn outlines a concept of God that is in concert to this question.  He cites a writing of Pope John Paul II.

  “In the light of the New Testament it is possible to discern how the primordial model of the family is to be sought in God Himself, in the Trinitarian mystery of His life.  The divine “We” is the eternal pattern of the human “we”, especially of that “we” formed by the man and woman created in the divine image and likeness…God in His deepest mystery is not a solitude, but a family, since He has in Himself fatherhood, son-ship and the essence of the family, which is love.”

Hahn concluded:

  “Now we must be very careful readers here, because many people understand these statements precisely backward, which mans they don’t understand them at all.  The Pope was not saying that God is like a family.  He was not presenting the family as a cozy, homey metaphor for the Trinity.  He said that God is a family.  Thus, it would be more accurate to say that my wife, my kids, and I are like a family than to say God is like a family.  God is not like a family.  He is a family.  From eternity, God alone possesses the essential attributes of a family, and the Trinity alone possesses them in their perfection.  Earthly households have these attributes, but only by analogy and imperfectly.”

God's creation tells us that a Father has a Wife and a Son has a Mother as well as a
Father.  The Holy Spirit bears fruit from the will of God the Father and the First-Fruit is Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew word “Ruwach” is a feminine noun, therefore when Jesus spoke of the Holy Ruwach He understood that spirit by nature is feminine.

The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, which is eternally pregnant with the will of God the Father.  Just as Mary the mother of the incarnation we also through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit bear out the will of God the Father in our lives, which is Jesus Christ.

So "yes", The Holy Spirit is Mother, the Church is Mother and Mary is Mother!


Is there any Denomination which think that the "serpent" at the beginning of his existence in Eden is not a bad being?

The consensus of the first millennium Church Fathers was that the serpent of Genesis 3:1 (Masoretic נָחָשׁ - nā·ḥāš; Greek ὄφις - ophis) was a simple creature that was used as a tool by the devil.

John Chrysostom (c 349-407) wrote:

  Do not  regard the present serpent; do not regard how we flee it and feel repulsion towards it.  It was not such in the beginning.  The serpent was the friend of man and the closest of those who served him ... As a creature who enjoyed great closeness to man, the serpent seemed to the devil to be a convenient tool.1

Similar views are held by by Ephrem the Syrian2 (306-373) and John of Damascus3 (c 675-749).

All of the above are considered authoritative even today within the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church.  Their teachings carry various weight among many Protestants as well.

Note that Scripture itself attests that  the serpent was simply a beast of the field (or wild animal).

The above seems to have been the consensus (at least at one time) of Jewish interpreters as well.4

1. On the Creation of the World VI.2
2. Commentary on Genesis II.XV.1
3. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II.10
4. Oxford Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.)


Why do most Christians not follow the Talmud?

The Talmud "takes the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history." (Wikipedia)  It was written by ancient Rabbis as discussions and interpretations of the scriptures of the Tanakh (Old Testament).

The New Testament teaches that Scripture must be given by inspiration of God.  As the Talmud was not, and does not claim to be, inspired writing, it is not considered authoritative by Christians.

Also, many of the passages of the Talmud are dedicated to interpretations of various provisions of the Law of Moses, which Christians believe were fulfilled in Christ and no longer apply, which makes a great deal of the Talmud not only non-authoritative but also irrelevant, from a Christian perspective.


Too often parts of the Bible are taken literally when in their context they are figurative.

It is necessary to look at these verses in context; in reference to this specific "teaching moment" we read (emphasis mine):

  34  Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not
  say anything to them without using a parable. 35 So was fulfilled what
  was spoken through the prophet:

  “I will open my mouth in parables,     I will utter things hidden
  since the creation of the world.”

  ...

  44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When
  a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all
  he had and bought that field.    45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is
  like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46 When he found one of great
  value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

  ...

  51 “Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.

  “Yes,” they replied.

  52 He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has
  become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a
  house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”

  53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.

The primary point Jesus is making is that the Kingdom of God is so incredibly valuable it would be worth paying any price to obtain a place within it.

So, yes, this account is literally what Jesus taught, but no, he did not teach using a literal form on this occasion.


What is a historicist’s view of the seven seals in Revelation?

The details argued by E. B. ELLIOTT are a good example of historic interpretations. He places the seven seals during the period of John’s writing of the Apocalypse until the time of the barbarian invasions of Rome.

The interpretation can be summarized as follows:

First Seal – While Horse with bow and crown conquering – Continued expansion of Rome (~ A.D. 96-184). All the symbols match the period as white, the crown and even the bow representative of the line of Emperor’s association with Crete, which was famous for the bow suit to this period of continued Roman conquest.
Second Seal - fiery red and taking peace and killing each other with a large sword – The civil wars that followed the expansion during approximately (~A.D 185 – 248) All the symbols match this period as the large sword indicates too much power given to the military leaders that suppressed the peace of the senate and resulted in killing each other through bloody civil war.
Third Seal - black horse, rider holding a pair of scales in his hand with voice mentioning the official cost of wheat, barley and a desire to protect oil and the wine – this indicates the injustice of the following period where the rich war machine overtaxed the masses resulting in greater inequality between the rich and poor (~A.D 248 - 268) All the symbols match as the scales represented justice and the backwards measuring represents injustice. Scales were also used to extract taxes and even oil and wine were part of the tax revenue.
Fourth Seal - pale horse, which was Death, and Hades killing by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts – A period of initial barbarian invasions, poverty, plagues, natural disasters that made the period a low point (~A.D 268-292). All the symbols naturally match for it was more or less like the Black Death in the middle ages and during such times even wild animals begin to encroach upon the people in their weakness and death.
Fifth Seal - the souls of those who had been slain – the era of the Martyrs centered on the Diocletian persecutions (~A.D. 303). Naturally the symbols match as the fifth seal is about the martyrs.
Sixth Seal – an earthquake, sun turning black, moon turned blood red and stars fell etc.–This is the sudden change in the ‘heavenly powers’ of Rome, when the persecuted now became the powerful and Constantine declared Rome Christian (~A.D. 313). This is immediately followed by the 144,000 sealed, representing God’s election of his true church out from the initial beginnings of the anti-Christian church just established by Constantine through civil power of sword. Doctrinally this same truth was soon developed in revelation to St. Augustine establishing the tradition of the true church within the  anti-Christian power eventually leading to the future reformation along Augustinian lines.
Seventh Seal - silence in heaven for about half an hour – indicates the brief silent prayers of the elect before the first trumpet is to sound triggering the judgment of severe barbaric invasions on Rome, the beginning of judgment for its sins against the previous persecutions of the elect.

Of course not all historicists hold the same timelines but this gives a good example of how closely and logically revelation can be made to record a chronology of history before the events actually occurred. The strength of this method is that this is how most Old Testament prophecies regarding the coming Messiah are understood today. This means 'all biblical prophecy' can use the same uniform exegetical methods and that prophecies already fulfilled become potentially faith building (depending on one's confidence level) rather than just confusing.


What arguments do KJV-only proponents give to support that the 1611 translation is better than say, Greek language Bibles?

You will find the among some KJV-Onlyists the assertion that the 1611 KJV Bible was directly inspired by God.  That cuts away any need for them to explain why the KJV can be considered the infallible word of God while its immediate predecesors should be viewed with scepticism.

For example, Peter Ruckman:

  The text of the A.V. 1611, in Genesis 27, is the inspired infallible
  text, preserved without error.

and:

  The Holy Spirit has thrust Himself into the AV committee of 1611 and
  said, “WRITE…!

and:

  The “truth” is that translations can be given by inspiration.

Now, it should be pointed out that he seems to make some distinction between "inspired" and "given by inspiration":

  What version of the Bible was the inerrant, infallible, inspired
  translation prior to the AV1611?” Answer: Who cares? Ask the people
  that read it. We believe the one we have is infallible and inerrant
  and is “given by inspiration” (not “inspired”).

but it's hard to see how that distinction makes any difference.

The only conclusion that seems possible is that the KJV-Onlyist believes that the earlier manuscripts used by Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus etc. were good, but probably not perfect.  However when the time came to translate those documents into English, the Holy Spirit supernaturally guided the translators to choose the correct words from their available manuscripts, and replace any errant words with inerrant words as the Spirit inspired them.

There is also a view (put forward, for example, by David Stewart) that the many versions that led up to the final KJV translation represent a fulfilment of Ps. 12:6, where God's word is likened to gold refined seven times.

Personally, I think the claim that the KJV is the result of a supernatural re-inspiration of the translators by the Holy Spirit is an indefensible claim entirely without scriptural warrant.  But if one accepts that as their foundation, it allows them to easily sweep aside questions of which older manuscripts were accurate.  Like Peter Ruckman says, who cares what God's inspired word was before 1611?  Not him.

Citations:

http://www.ruckmanism.org/inspiredornot
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/inspired_or_preserved.htm


What is the origin and basis of the idea of spending an hour each day in prayer?

When asked to teach his disciples how to pray, Jesus responds by saying 'when ye pray' but does not specify when, or how often or how long, Luke 11:1.
He then gives an example of prayer (and advises not to use it as mere repetition for he warns against such a thing elsewhere Matthew 6:7) and the example takes but a minute or two to actually voice.
There are many examples of prayer in scripture but I have never yet found a rule or a requirement about time or frequency.

And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. [Luke 11:1-4 KJV]

Daniel (for example) used to pray three times a day but this was only discovered when he was put under constant surveillance so that some fault might be discovered whereby he could be prosecuted as prayer was forbidden at the time to any but the king, see Daniel 6:10-28.
But Daniel never commands anybody else to pray three times a day. It was just what he chose to do. Similar examples may be found in the psalms where psalmists promise (to God) to pray or give thanks. But this is between them and God himself. They do not demand it of others.
In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was in an extremity. He wanted company and support. But the disciples were weary and could not stay awake to watch during the hours of the night.
In the end God, the Father, sent an angel to strengthen Jesus in answer to his prayer, see Luke 22:43.


Five related questions regarding the relics which consecrate Roman Catholic altars?

No, size doesn't matter - grace matters.
No, transubstantiation doesn't require an altar.
No, it's not that organized.
Depends, relics cannot be sold so they either have to be retired and buried or go to other homes.  It would be up to the local Bishop to deal with storage of the altar relic. But Canon Law says the altar can lose its dedication

Can. 1212 Sacred places lose their dedication or blessing if they have been destroyed in large part, or have been turned over permanently to profane use by decree of the competent ordinary or in fact.

No database and no correlation - the relics are not necessarily related to the saint of the Church (i.e. Our Lady and St. Joseph have no 1st degree relics, so they couldn't have churches dedicated to them if that were the case). If you want to find out whose relics are at an altar, you'd have to ask someone at a parish.  I have no knowledge of any of the relics of any of the churches I go to, which is kind of sad, but might give you some indication of how important the relics are to average Catholics, it might be another "one of those things", so I wouldn't get hung up about it if I weren't a Catholic - we've got plenty of other weird stuff to worry about going on in the Church!

Also, the degrees of relics are:

1st degree
Any body part, hair or blood from the saint

2nd degree
Something that the saint touched or used during their lifetime. Saints like St. Maximillian Kolbe, who was cremated at Auschwitz, and St. Anthony of Egypt, who was buried in secret so his body wouldn't be fought over, only have 2nd degree relics.

3rd degree
Something touched to a saints grave or over their corpse.


Saints: Are they always comfortable in society? (Catholic Church perspective)

Saint Bernadette Soubirous was a very shy person as we can see here:

  The next request of the Lady to Bernadette was to have a chapel built on the site of her visits. For Bernadette, a shy, 14-year-old girl, this was an impossible task. She felt compelled, though, to go to the parish priest with the request. She received a curt dismissal from him with these words: “Tell the beautiful Lady that the Cure of Lourdes is not in the habit of dealing with mysterious strangers. If she wants a chapel and has the right to one, she must reveal her identity.” - Our Lady of Lourdes

A good biography of her life will give examples of this saint avoiding human praises, like the time she hide behind a curtain in order to avoid being singled out by the bishop.


Why would Fundamentalists think Set Theory is anti-Christian?

"Is it anti Christian" is a Truth question. Answering in such a way as to avoid that...

From a doctrinal or even denominational perspective, the answer is "no".  Do some Christians think this way?  Yes.

The author of the article does, however, quite accurately describe the mindset of certain types of individuals within more conservative, fundemantalist Churches like those that I favor and prefer.  I am personally friends  who share the type of mindset he describes.  In some of the examples, I fit the stereotype he's describing.

One of the relevant statements made in the article is this:

  I can tell you from experience that A Beka (and Bob Jones University
  Press) are stridently against modernism in all its forms. (I'm
  assuming they're against post-modernism, too, but you have to
  understand that the opinions and perspectives this sort of Christian
  fundamentalism has about society and culture were formed between the
  late 1920s and early 1970s and, because of this, the culture wars that
  they are fighting often come across as confusingly antiquated.)

He's dead-on there.  There is a culture of anti-modernism inherent in Fundamentalist culture and the Fundamentalist mindset.

And there are certainly individuals that I know that would say, "Amen, brother!" to the A Beka statements.  But none of them would confuse such a thing as a Doctrinal issue. Another hallmark of Fundamentalism is a strong belief in Sola Scriptura, and a rabid belief in sound doctrine. This isn't to say that they wouldn't argue that such things are true. Certainly, there are, as I said, those who believe such, but they know the difference between  such beliefs and doctrine.

Rather they might say that their opposition to modernism is an application of doctrine. They believe x is evil, dangerous, wrong, etc, because of doctrine y.

So they might argue that set theory is anti-Christian, but that is a personal interpretation and application of doctrine, not a doctrinal statement in and of itself.


Christian folklore, traditions and legends concerning plants?

This post is a community wiki answer, so that others may add their own appropriate or interesting (local) Christian plant lore if so desired.

There certainly no one source that will cover everything about Christian plant folklore, traditions, legends and symbolism.

One of the best sources, I found, can be seen in the book Plant Lore, Legends and Lyrics (Myths, Traditions, Superstitions  and Folklore of the Plant Kingdom) by Richard Folkard Jr. Chapter 5 (page 40) deals with The Plants of the Christian Church. This chapter deals with plant on a biblical basis, as well as in relation to the lives of saints and Christian festivals and feast days.

For plants in the bible the Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent article published as such: Plants in the Bible.

Some modern named plants are not readily known. For example I remember being asked out to dinner with a family that ate only cheese and fruits at lunch. In the course of the meal we ate some passionfruit. No one knew the origin of why this fruit was called thus and it was decided that we I’d not know which Passion, it was to stimulate? We were all wet behind the ears on this topic.

If fact the passionfruit can be found in Mexico, Central and South America. The symbolism of the  passion flower is as follows:

  The "Passion" in "passion flower" refers to the passion of Jesus in Christian theology. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Spanish Christian missionaries adopted the unique physical structures of this plant, particularly the numbers of its various flower parts, as symbols of the last days of Jesus and especially his crucifixion:

  Blue passion flower (P. caerulea) showing most elements of the Christian symbolism.
  The pointed tips of the leaves were taken to represent the Holy Lance.
  The tendrils represent the whips used in the flagellation of Christ.
  The ten petals and sepals represent the ten faithful apostles (excluding St. Peter the denier and Judas Iscariot the betrayer)
  The flower's radial filaments, which can number more than a hundred and vary from flower to flower, represent the crown of thorns.
  The chalice-shaped ovary with its receptacle represents a hammer or the Holy Grail.
  The 3 stigmas represent the 3 nails and the 5 anthers below them the 5 wounds (four by the nails and one by the lance).
  The blue and white colors of many species' flowers represent Heaven and Purity.
  In addition, the flower keeps open three days, symbolising the three years' ministry.
  The flower has been given names related to this symbolism throughout Europe since that time. In Spain, it is known as espina de Cristo ("thorn of Christ'"). Older Germanic names include Christus-Krone ("Christ's crown"), Christus-Strauss ("Christ's bouquet"), Dorn-Krone ("crown of thorns"), Jesus-Lijden ("Jesus' passion"), Marter ("passion") or Muttergottes-Stern ("Mother of God's star").

Bouquets of basil leaf are blessed on the Feast of the Exsultation of the Cross (September 14) and sprinkled with Holy Water, after a legend that this herb grew at the foot of the Our Lord’s Cross on Good Friday. This is equally an Orthodox pius tradition and pius belief.

  Some account for the connection between the herb basil and the Cross as follows:

  The herb, basil has long been associated with today’s feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. The word “basil” is related to basileios, from the Greek word for king.

  According to the liturgical legend, the Empress Saint Helena found the location of the True Cross by digging for it under a colony of basil. Basil plants were reputed to have sprung up at the foot of the Cross where fell the Precious Blood of Christ and the tears of the Mother of Sorrows.

  A sprig of basil was said to have been found growing from the wood of the True Cross. On the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross it is customary in the East to rest the Holy Cross on a bed of basil before presenting it to the veneration of the faithful.

  Also, from the practice in some areas of strewing branches of basil before church communion rails, it came to be known as Holy Communion Plant. The blessed basil leaf can be arranged in a bouquet at the foot of the crucifix; the dried leaves can also be used by the faithful as a sacramental. - Blessing of Basil on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross

Birch boughs and (St. John Wort, as well as other plants and flowers were used to decorate the the Church doors in England on St. John’s Eve (June 23) in the 16th century.
Source

  The Baptist's day, midsummer day, was a general holiday, when everyone did indeed rejoice, a day full of games and sports and dancing. On the eve of the feast everyone's door "decorated with birch leaves, St. John's wort and white lilies and such-like, garnished upon with garlands of beautiful flowers, had also lamps of glass, with oil burning in them all the night. . . - Catholic Activity: St. John the Baptist's Day


Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church considered scripture?

The immediate answer is “No, it is not scripture.” Scripture is scripture and adding to it or subtracting from it is a no-no.
As to “Does it have the same authority as the Bible?” Well, I suppose the answer is “authority for what?” For some things the authority of the Catechism is superior (certain areas of theology are only hinted at in the Bible). It can be safely said, though, that there is nothing in the Catechism which contradicts the Bible (if the Catechism is taken as a whole and in light of a Catholic understanding of Scripture).
Can you contradict the Catechism without being called a heretic? That depends on how you contradict the Catechism. On certain matters it is more definitive than others and on some matters it is 100% correct. On other matters it is a bit more theologically ambiguous. It is important to remember:

This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”. (CCC 11)

That word aims is important, because it is not a perfect synthesis and there are many, many finer points which can be debated and there is quite a bit of room for disagreement (you are talking about a Church which has a 1400 year old debate with its neighbor over one word). And it even testifies the the fact that it has not gotten everything perfect for all times and all people:

By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful:

Whoever teaches must become “all things to all men” (⇒ I Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers.... Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct. (CCC 24)

All of that said, it is very difficult to contradict the Catechism without contradicting some important and definitive doctrine.
I know of one place, for example, which is phrased very poorly (in an attempt to guide pastors to a more compassionate action). My disagreement is perfectly acceptable and reasonable (as I agree with the teaching but not the admonition which goes along with it). On the other hand, if I were to disagree with the teaching behind the phraseological error I actually would be contradicting some very authoritative doctrines in the Church. That would be, at a minimum, a form of heresy.


Has the Catholic Church outlined specific Biblical passages which should not be taken literally?

As I am not a Catholic I may not have the right to answer this question. My practicing Catholic brothers and sisters are more qualified than I am qualified to answer it. Anyway, I will take a stab at it.

As of your question 'has the Catholic Church outlined specific Biblical passages which should not be taken literally' the answer is there is no official Catholic Church statement as such. Many a Jewish and a Christian (including liberal Catholics) do not take many of Bible stories literally (you probably already know this). That said, the only such official Catholic statement I am aware of is late Pope John Paul 11 statement on evolution which implies a non-literal understanding of Adam and Eve creation passages (this is at least my understanding). In addition, this very important and well-written document has an important paragraph related to your question:

  For my part, when I received the participants in the plenary assembly of your Academy on October 31, 1992, I used the occasion—and the example of Gallileo—to draw attention to the necessity of using a rigorous hermeneutical approach in seeking a concrete interpretation of the inspired texts. It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean.


Is Jesus talking about supererogatory merit in Matt 5:38-48? i.e. earning a reward rather than sin

I don't think that Matt 5:38-48 is a depiction of the type of system you are describing. Rather, it appears to be Jesus doing something he often did, namely, turning the thoughts and traditions of man upside-down. When He says "you have heard it said...", he is referring to some Rabbi's teaching somewhere (that is how they often taught back then, similar to PhD's today quoting one another).

However, there IS a biblical basis to defend the type of system you are curious about. Read 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.

(NIV)
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Paul says here that no one can lay another foundation (the foundation must be Christ), so, the foundation is your salvation or justification by Christ's body and blood (I, as a Protestant, would say "faith alone"). However, Paul also states that each man builds on this foundation using materials (your works and/or fruits, or merits), and that we will receive rewards according to how our works hold up in God's test (most likely on judgment day).

I hope that helped to answer your question.


How do opponents respond to the Grace Gambit?

This isn't truly an "answer" to the question so to speak, so please excuse my butting in here.  I think it may be helpful, however, for future readers, to do a small deconstruction of this argument from the perspective of a sola fide belief system.  I'm still interested in the other perspectives as well.

While logically, the gambit seems to make sense, it makes unclear the entire object of the faith in a very relativistic way.  At it's core, the different soteriologies that exist all point, eventually, to a difference in who God is.  The soteriology of salvation by faith alone apart from works implicitly assumes that there is a loving God who has provided a way for us to be near him, and has provided it in such a way so that:

We are freed from having to do works for salvation.
God is declared righteous and the only one worthy of praise.

To have a "fall-back" position is to either be unclear or deny the character of God has he has revealed it through Scripture.  In other words, living by the gambit is inherently a lack of faith in the saving power of God via Christ's sacrifice.  It's the kind of relativist "soft belief" that is so pervasive today (for which we have Pascal, among others, to thank).

It's the Christianized version of the relativistic worldview, which will claim to believe something, but doesn't believe either it's truth or it's power enough to stand it up in contrast to conflicting beliefs.  In other words, it's prideful unbelief masked in believing terms for no true reason other than to allow the one holding the gambit a false sense of security that they've somehow "out-logicked" God, and thus, he can hold God's hand to the fire saying he must save us because of our amazing prowess with finding loopholes.

In other words, it's another sign of depravity.

And I say this with great humility, realizing as I write this that I, sadly, am too often subject to this form of unbelief.


What is the Evangelical view on tithing?

This is at least one modern evangelical view...

It is true that the New Testament really does not prescribe tithing, that is, giving 10% of your income.  It does, however, prescribe giving:

  Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or
  under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.  2 Corinthians 9:7

The church at Phillip specifically financially supported the ministry of Paul:

  Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.  Philippians 4:16

Another aspect is to consider that, as believers, we understand that everything we have comes from God, so we must honor God with 100% of our income, time, talents, and possessions--not just 10% of our income.

So, since there is a prescription to give, but not specific amount prescribed, it is common to use the tithe (10%) as a great pattern to follow.

So, in most biblically oriented circles that I've been involved with, the tithe is a great benchmark.  That means we are free to give whatever amount and should cheerfully give generously to the work of Christ all over the world.  Generosity may mean 5% for some, but others may be able to comfortably give 15%-20%.

Indeed, for people with very high income levels, 10% could be considered hardly generous.  The point is to be as generous as we can and to enjoy the pleasure of giving.  My personal hope is to continue increasing my percentage as my income grows.

It really is more blessed to give than to receive, and this is true in many different ways.


Has the name "Jesus" ever been used for naming Jewish children since the Savior's incarnation?

Yes, it is actually a common name in many languages. It isn't so popular on English but* I know lots of people in the Spanish,  Turkish and Arabic worlds that use various renditions of the name "Jesus". I am sure it is used in many other languages as well. Personally I would never name my kid that but there is nothing to stop anybody from doing so.

*Several people have pointed out my mistake, it exists in English too the quite common name "Joshua".


How are the soul and the body related to each other according to the RCC?

The Council of Vienne (1311-1312), under the authority of Clement V, defined the dogma that the soul is the form of the human body (Denzinger 481):

Moreover, with the approval of the said council, we reject as erroneous and contrary to the truth of the catholic faith every doctrine or proposition rashly asserting that the substance of the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body, or casting doubt on this matter. In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.

"Form" is "the actualizing principle that makes a thing to be what it is." Thus, a body without the substantial form of a human being (a soul) is a corpse.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines form as:

In the Scholastic philosophy: The essential determinant principle of a thing; that which makes anything (matter) a determinate species or kind of being; the essential creative quality.
This use of form (Aristotle's μορϕή or εἶδος) and matter (ὕλη) is a metaphorical extension of their popular use. In ordinary speech, a portion of matter, stuff, or material, becomes a ‘thing’ by virtue of having a particular ‘form’ or shape; by altering the form, the matter remaining unchanged, we make a new ‘thing’. This language, primarily applied only to objects of sense, was in philosophical use extended to objects of thought: every ‘thing’ or entity was viewed as consisting of two elements, its form by virtue of which it was different from, and its matter which it had in common with, others.

Read St. Thomas Aquina's short work On the Principles of Nature (De principiis naturæ) for more information on matter and form (hylemorphism).
St. Thomas Aquinas also addresses the question of the union of a human's intellectual soul with the human's body in Summa Theologica I q. 76.


What is the relationship between international branches of the LDS Church?

They don't "relate to the US", except insofar as the headquarters of the church happen to be located in the US.

There aren't "international branches" of the LDS church; there is one worldwide church. The church is organized into individual congregations, known as wards or branches (a branch being a smaller congregation in an area where the church is not yet well established), and several local congregations located close to each other (generally around 10) make up a stake.  The presidency of each stake is chosen and ordained by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Each stake is fairly autonomous within its boundaries, possessing the authority to direct the business of the church in its area, up to and including granting temple recommends (which are considered valid at any temple in the world) and holding disciplinary councils which can result in a member's excommunication, which again is binding throughout the entire church.

Several stakes make up an Area, which has an Area Presidency, though this is mostly an administrative grouping; church members have little if any interaction with the church at the Area level.  Areas are determined more by geography than national boundaries.  There are several in the US, for example, whereas when I was serving as a missionary in South America, the Area included all of Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.

At the highest level are the General Authorities of the church, who are headquartered in Salt Lake City.  Basic doctrines, directives and practices for the whole church come from there, and are accepted and followed in stakes, wards and branches throughout the world.

While stakes, areas and the Church Headquarters in SLC could be seen as roughly equivalent to the Catholic diocese, archdiocese and Vatican organizational model, there is no independent LDS organization equivalent to the American Conference of Bishops.  By the principle of Common Consent, the members of the church throughout the world--including local leaders--sustain and affirm their faith in the leadership of the General Authorities as God's chosen representatives on the earth in our time, twice each year at General Conference.  Under such a principle, there's really not much call for such an organization.

And one interesting thing in the linked article that deserves a bit of clarification is the following:

  The Young Guard contends that Mormon missionaries in Russia cooperate
  with the FBI and CIA. They repeat another theme that's common on the
  Internet as well: that American Mormon missionaries go to work for the
  U.S. security agencies in disproportionate numbers when they return
  home.

There's a lot of truth to that, but the reason behind it is much simpler than coming up with shadowy conspiracy theories about the church working for the US government (or vice versa, of course!)  The CIA and FBI (particularly the former) need people with a solid knowledge of foreign languages and cultures.  LDS missionaries in the US frequently get sent abroad and spend two years totally immersed in a foreign language and culture, a practice that was established long before the FBI or CIA even came into existence.  It just happens to be an excellent method of acquiring a core skillset for that particular type of job, (as well as several other jobs that deal in international business,) and agencies that look for people with that skillset when recruiting are aware of that.


What are the differences between Catholic and Episcopal saints?

It’s a subtle distinction, no doubt. There is a simplified view that Catholics pray to saints as intercessors, while Episcopalians pray about saints in remembrance. But that's not super accurate.

The Catholic Church bestows the title of Saint upon an individual through a rather lengthy process of canonization, after which the individual is officially and formally recognized as a Saint. At least two posthumous miracles are required by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints at The Vatican.

The Episcopal Church (TEC) does not canonize, though she does recognize most of the Catholic Saints by name (one exception I can think of right now is St. Valentine.) Furthermore, TEC includes all baptized Christians in something we call the Communion of Saints, believing that everyone has the potential to be an influence to another in faith.


No, but Jesus reaffirms these. In Matthew 19:16-19, He tells the rich young ruler,

  And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed
  must I do to have eternal life?”

  And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is
  only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

  He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder,
  You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear
  false witness,

  Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as
  yourself.”


Did Augustine often complain that his contemporaries burdened the church with their traditions?

Augustine wrote hundreds of letters to priests and bishops in the Church. Many of the letters are written in response to questions that he had received from them, some of which Augustine did not necessarily think were worth his time and effort, but were a burden to address, and provide responses to:

~I have not at my disposal sufficient leisure to enter on the refutation of his opinions one by one: my time is demanded by other
and more important work. (Augustine to Casulanus, A.D.396)
~You have sent suddenly upon me a countless multitude of questions, by which you must have purposed to blockade me on every side, or
rather bury me completely, even if you were under the impression that
I was otherwise unoccupied and at leisure; for how could I, even
though wholly at leisure, furnish the solution of so many questions to
one in such haste as you are, and, in fact, as you write, on the eve
of a journey? ... You seem to me to be prompted to mental effort night and day by no other motive than ambition to be praised by men for your industry and
acquisitions in learning. (Augustine to Dioscorus, A.D.410)

In the same letter to Casulanus quoted above, in which Casulanus asks if it is lawful to fast on the seventh day of the week (a thing forbidden by the tradition of the elders), the translators left out 6 chapters of the letter, giving this explanation:

"We have no compunction in passing over about eight columns here of
this letter, in which Augustine exposes, with a tedious minuteness and
with a waste of rhetoric, other feeble and irrelevant puerilities of
the Roman author whose work Casulanus had submitted to his review.
Instead of accompanying him into the shallow places into which he was
drawn while pursuing such an insignificant foe, let us resume the
translation at the point at which Augustine gives his own opinion
regarding the question whether it is binding on Christians to fast on
Saturday."

It's apparent in this example that Augustine didn't appreciate the Church being troubled by questions about old traditions, I imagine that there are many more and much better examples that can be gleaned from these letters.
-> A comprehensive listing of Augustines works that have been translated into english.
I've been sifting through his letters trying to find one where Augustine compares certain bishops to the letter-of-the-law Pharisees or Sadducees, but the amount of reading is rather overwhelming. I imagine that Luther may have formed his opinion while studying Augustine's discourses. It could have been from a single letter, or it could have been a conclusion he drew from several letters. It is entirely possible that there are some letters that illustrate exactly what he was quoted saying, though they may not yet be translated into English, or the specific references may have been left out because the translators considered the accusations "puerilities" or "rhetoric."


What doctrines are based on 1st Timothy 4:14 when hands are laid on a believer?

As ever, context is all important when trying to understand this verse. The gift in question is not the laying on of hands itself, but Timothy's ability to teach and preach:

1 Timothy 4:11-14 (New International Version):

  Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an
  example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and
  in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of
  Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift,
  which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid
  their hands on you.

The Message puts it even more clearly:

  Get the word out. Teach all these things. And don't let anyone put you
  down because you're young. Teach believers with your life: by word, by
  demeanor, by love, by faith, by integrity. Stay at your post reading
  Scripture, giving counsel, teaching. And that special gift of ministry
  you were given when the leaders of the church laid hands on you and
  prayed—keep that dusted off and in use.

So to answer your last question first, references to the same gift given to Timothy (a teaching/preaching ministry) can be found in many places in the Bible. I won't list them here as any decent concordance (or a search of an online Bible) can do that for you.

But the main thrust of your question concerns the laying on of hands. The main principle behind this is a channelling of (for want of a better phrase) spiritual power through touch. Often in new churches you can see someone with one hand raised in the air (towards God) and the other laying on someone's head, shoulder or back while they pray for them - symbolising that the person praying is acting as a conduit, a link between God and the person being prayed for.

As well as the laying on of hands to confer a prophecy as in this case, it's often used in prayers of healing. There are numerous examples in the gospels of Jesus healing people by touching them physically:

Luke 8:43-56 (MSG):

  In the crowd that day there was a woman who for twelve years had
  been afflicted with hemorrhages. She had spent every penny she had on
  doctors but not one had been able to help her. She slipped in from
  behind and touched the edge of Jesus' robe. At that very moment her
  hemorrhaging stopped. Jesus said, "Who touched me?"

  When no one stepped forward, Peter said, "But Master, we've got
  crowds of people on our hands. Dozens have touched you."

  Jesus insisted, "Someone touched me. I felt power discharging from
  me."

  When the woman realized that she couldn't remain hidden, she knelt
  trembling before him. In front of all the people, she blurted out her
  story—why she touched him and how at that same moment she was healed.

  Jesus said, "Daughter, you took a risk trusting me, and now you're
  healed and whole. Live well, live blessed!"

  While he was still talking, someone from the leader's house came up
  and told him, "Your daughter died. No need now to bother the Teacher."

  Jesus overheard and said, "Don't be upset. Just trust me and
  everything will be all right." Going into the house, he wouldn't let
  anyone enter with him except Peter, John, James, and the child's
  parents.

  Everyone was crying and carrying on over her. Jesus said, "Don't
  cry. She didn't die; she's sleeping." They laughed at him. They knew
  she was dead.

  Then Jesus, gripping her hand, called, "My dear child, get up."
  She was up in an instant, up and breathing again! He told them to give
  her something to eat. Her parents were ecstatic, but Jesus warned them
  to keep quiet. "Don't tell a soul what happened in this room."

The laying on of hands is not essential for God to bless the recipient (as shown when Jesus heal's a woman's daughter without the daughter being present, as outlined in Matthew 15:21-28) but the passage above shows how powerful and effective physical touch can be,and the laying on of hands is simply an expression/extension of that.


Is Aquinas' idea of 'Beatific Vision' widely accepted today?

Relationship with God is generally understood as being the most important thing we can hope for in all the Christian circles I am familiar with (a wide variety of Protestant denominations and movements. Often a simplistic view of the Gospel focuses on the negative, avoiding condemnation. Even here, the most consistent view of being condemned is that it means "eternal separation" from God; implying that not being separated must be a great benefit.

Slightly more advanced views emphasize the benefits of relationship. Although Christ said we would suffer in this world, He assures us of God's continual presence -- primarily of the Holy Spirit during our Earthly life; presumably learning to relate to all aspects and the three persons of God in the hereafter.

Some emphasize the joys available during this life, others the benefits of Heaven. It seems that most of the time figurative speech is used, comparing our relationship with things we can understand from a worldly viewpoint.

Not a lot is said about our final state in the scripture, so the connection between relationship with Christ now and our permanent estate may not be as clear as one would like. In my own opinion, it is desirable to understand the "Beatific state" as the joy of relationship, available to us now to considerable degree, and our glorified state as a continuation with a deeper relationship far beyond the limits of what we can now understand. The idea of "blessedness", from the Hebrew word Shalom, is an attempt to express this.

I found the book, "God is the gospel" by john piper. Its subtitle is, "MEDITATIONS ON GOD’S LOVE AS THE GIFT OF H IMSELF". It is online at:
http://www.slideshare.net/FreeLeaks/god-is-the-gospel-by-john-piper-28686854

Piper's book is for inspirational reading, not theology. Neither Piper nor Aquinas use the term "relationship" consistently, which I see as the central point. Nevertheless I hope some short quotes will show the similarity between Aquinas' view and Piper's.

"God loves as no other being can or should love. No one else in the universe can or should love by giving us the gift of himself." (Piper, p. 165)

"If I would love you, I must do what Jesus did. I must live and die to give ou God. That’s what Jesus did. That’s what God does. God’s highest act of love is giving us himself to love."

"[The Gospel brings] us to the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ as our supreme, all-satisfying, and everlasting treasure." (Piper, p. 167)

Piper quotes 1 Pet 3:18 as, "Christ . . . suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God"

Piper refers to (Acts 26:17b-18; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6), saying we can see in the gospel “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (p. 168)

"[T]he best and highest and final good in the gospel ... is the glory, the worth, the beauty, the treasure of Christ himself who is true God and true man."

Piper refers to a number of hymns which reinforce the idea that God is seen as the source of the joys of Heaven.

"Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art;
Thou my best Thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light."

The last verse relates this clearly to Heaven, but can add nothing to the expression of the joy of the relationship. The final line is, "Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all."

Other hymns quoted are "Jesus, the Very Thought of Thee", "Jesus, Thou Joy of Loving Hearts", and "Fairest Lord Jesus".


I believe Lot's Daughters did rape their father.  However, the fact that Lot was raped does not excuse his wonton drunkenness by any means.

By rape I simply mean that Lot did not agree (and would not have agreed if sober.)  Note the quote below:

  Gen 19:33 So they made their father drink wine that night, and the
  firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when
  she lay down or when she arose.

Note that this was the case with the older daughter and the younger did the same.

  Gen 19:35  So they made their father drink wine that night also, and
  the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay
  down or when she arose.

The very fact that Lot was completely ignorant of what went on made him incapable of agreeing with the act of incest.  Therefore, it was an act of rape by the daughters who deliberately inebriated their father to make him insensible enough so that they could get away with such action.


Ancient Western Christianity & Indian Christians

The Christian's in the West did have some loose connection with those Christians in the far east due to the trade that went on with the Silk and Spice trail.   The Christians of Far Asia and The Roman empire however were mostly separated due to the political divide between Rome and the Parthian empire, and of course the vast distances that existed at a time before modern communication inventions were developed.   (I will point out an Illustration of this, the Christians of the Syriac, "Church of the East" that lived in Iraq and further East accepted the first two Ecumenical Counsels that formed the early Nicene Creed but did so 40 years after the fact, and due to the distance and traveling difficulties was not able to send delegates to both those counsels!)

Early Church historians like Eusebius, report the account that the apostle Thomas brought the gospel to India (around AD 52 according to Wikipedia) to The Malabar coast, saint Thomas was said to have been martyred by a Hindu, who stabbed him in a cave with a spear.  Besides the Thomas tradition, Christians of the East Syriac (Nestorian) tradition also gradually moved into the area as well sometime after the Fourth Century.  But needless to say, there has been a small Christian presence in India since the time of the writing of the New Testament, and for some centuries it was quite significant in numbers and social status (Christians in medieval India had a caste rank that was right below that of the Brahmin, the top caste of India).

If you are interested in this Topic, I recommend, "East of the Euphrates", by TV Philip a member of the Mar Thoma Church of India.    See the amazon link here
https://www.amazon.com/East-Euphrates-Early-Christianity-Asia/product-reviews/8172144415

(PS - I was once a member of the a Church of the East group, that had missionary ties to India.)


Catholic Theology and Transubstantiation

Form General Instruction of the Roman Missal (319-324):

  Following the example of Christ, the Church has always used bread and wine with water to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
  The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition
  of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.
  The meaning of the sign demands that the material for the Eucharistic celebration truly have the appearance of food. It is
  therefore expedient that the Eucharistic bread, even though unleavened
  and baked in the traditional shape, be made in such a way that the
  priest at Mass with a congregation is able in practice to break it
  into parts for distribution to at least some of the faithful. Small
  hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those
  receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it. The
  action of the fraction or breaking of bread, which gave its name to
  the Eucharist in apostolic times, will bring out more clearly the
  force and importance of the sign of unity of all in the one bread, and
  of the sign of charity by the fact that the one bread is distributed
  among the brothers and sisters.
  The wine for the Eucharistic celebration must be from the fruit of the grapevine (cf. Lk 22:18), natural, and unadulterated, that is,
  without admixture of extraneous substances.
  Diligent care should be taken to ensure that the bread and wine intended for the Eucharist are kept in a perfect state of
  conservation: that is, that the wine does not turn to vinegar nor the
  bread spoil or become too hard to be broken easily.
  If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he
  pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into
  the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the
  institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice,
  without being obliged to consecrate the bread again.

Jesus celebrated his Last Supper with bread and wine, so bread and wine is necessary. There is not a consensus between Western and Eastern Christianity whether the bread should be leavened or not. This is based on accounts different evangelist and of Paul whether the original Last Supper of Jesus was a Passover supper with unleavened breads or not; due to this uncertainty, both variants are OK.
About wine, I've heard that some of early churches celebrated Eucharist with unfermented grape juice, so it could be theoretically possible to substitute this for wine. But lager is definitelly not suitable.

Addendum: in bad conditions like a prison (many priests are still being arested in some Christianity unfriendly, usually Islamic or communist countries), any bakery suits for "bread" and even a raisin smashed in water can qualify as "wine". No priest would approve to celebrate mass with this instead of standard bread and wine if he can choose, but such exceptions are possible in really harsch conditions.

And an anecdote for the end: I don't know where this happened, but once a drunken priest came to a baker's shop and started to pray a eucharistic prayer. Then he had to buy everything in the shop and destroy it with piety, because nobody could be sure what is ordinary bakery and what is Body of Christ, and risking desecration of Eucharist was not an option.


What does "saving grace" mean in Christianity?

"Saving grace" is grace that saves.  The relevant definition of 'grace' is:

  mercy; clemency; pardon: He was saved by an act of grace from the governor. Synonyms: lenity, leniency, reprieve. Antonyms: harshness.

So "saving grace" is God's mercy, clemency, or pardon shown to us.


It generally means 'automatic excommunication'. Most people conceive of excommunication as something that happens to people, rather than something they do to themselves. That form of excommunication indeed happens (it recently happened when the Pope excommunicated an Australian priest), but is relatively rare. You cannot expect the Pope or the church to look at all our lives and make sure nobody does something naughty. Thus, latae sententiae came to be, which means excommunication that does not need an 'act' excommunicating them. Literally, the term means 'done excommunication' or 'excommunication as it is', as opposed to excommunication that has to be pronounced. A significant difference is that excommunication latae sententiae happens from the moment of the act onwards (meaning that for instance certain ecclesiastical acts become invalid but sometimes licit) while excommunication ferende sententiae takes effect upon pronouncement, regardless of when the offence has been committed.

For reference, Canon 1314 describes the difference between the effect of latae sententiae and ferende sententiae. Also, to clarify, it is procuring an abortion (i.e. it includes the person carrying it out and many more) and any use of force against the Pontiff. Also note that latae sententiae is not so much a form of excommunication but rather a general criminal doctrine of Canon law, meaning it applies to other forms of punishment, for instance some acts attract a latae sententiae interdict (Canon 1370§). Other things that incur latae sententiae excommunication include: heresy/schism, as well as the offence generally known as 'profanation of the Host' (throwing away a consecrated Host or retaining it for a sacrilegious purpose), which is regarded as an offence against God directly.


What level of assent does the 2018 teaching on capital punishment require of Catholics?

The new wording of the Catechism, as approved by Pope Francis, does not quite require Catholics to disapprove of the death penalty in all circumstances.

  Was the Pope’s decision to  revise the Catechism’s teaching on the death penalty a change in Church teaching, or a development of existing doctrine? Theologians may debate the point, but the vast majority of Catholics, receiving their information from the secular media, will hear about a change—a clear break from previous Church teaching.

  Even the new wording of the Catechism, as approved by Pope Francis, does not quite require Catholics to disapprove of the death penalty in all circumstances. The Pope’s new language does not contradict the time-honored Church teaching that the state has the authority to invoke the death penalty in appropriate circumstances. (That traditional teaching was clearly upheld, in the same section 2267 of the Catechism, even after Pope John Paul II called for a tighter restriction on executions.)

  Nor does the revised Catechism teach that the use of capital punishment is intrinsically immoral. So when liberal Catholic activists argue, as they inevitably will, that politicians who support the death penalty should be judged as harshly as those who support abortion and euthanasia, they will be distorting the Church’s teaching. Again. - Pope Francis and the death penalty: another dose of confusion

  The Pope can say—indeed Pope John Paul II did say—that it is always wrong, in every case, deliberately to take the life of an innocent human being. But if he values logical consistency, he cannot say that it is always wrong to take an innocent life under current political conditions. Because political conditions change.

  Cardinal José Gomez of Los Angeles, in a Twitter comment on the Pope’s announcement, offered his own version of the case for change:

    The Church has come to understand that from a practical standpoint, governments now have the ability to protect society and punish criminals without executing violent offenders.

  Expressed in those terms, the change in teaching prompts a number of questions:

  •If a doctrine is based on a “practical” judgment, who should make that judgment? If it is primarily a political judgment, should it not be made by political leaders?

  •Do all governments have the ability to protect innocent civilians effectively? If not, how can capital punishment be “inadmissible” in all cases?

  •Who should decide what constitutes adequate protection for civilians? Again, is that not clearly a political judgment?

  •What would happen if, “from a practical standpoint,” governments lost the ability to protect civilians? Would the Church teaching on capital punishment be changed again? - Pope Francis on capital punishment: doctrine built on shifting sands?

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as John Paul’s chief doctrinal officer, explicitly affirmed some of the faithful may indeed have a different outlook on the subject of the application of the death penalty, as reported in an article on FirstThings.com — Pope Francis and Capital Punishment:

  It was clearly and consistently taught by the popes up to and including Pope Benedict XVI. That Christians can in principle legitimately resort to the death penalty is taught by the Roman Catechism promulgated by Pope St. Pius V, the Catechism of Christian Doctrine promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, and the 1992 and 1997 versions of the most recent Catechism promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II—this last despite the fact that John Paul was famously opposed to applying capital punishment in practice. Pope St. Innocent I and Pope Innocent III taught that acceptance of the legitimacy in principle of capital punishment is a requirement of Catholic orthodoxy. Pope Pius XII explicitly endorsed the death penalty on several occasions. This is why Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as John Paul’s chief doctrinal officer, explicitly affirmed in a 2004 memorandum:

    If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment … he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities … to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible … to have recourse to capital punishment.


Does Christianity or the Bible forbid polygamy and widow remarriage?

Christianity forbids polygamy but allows widow remarriage.

I agree with you that Gal 3:28 is not usually cited as support for the rejection of polygamy, because the passage context is about unity of Gentiles and Jews in Christ (notice the contrasts of social groups in the verse).  Ken Graham already covered the OT view of polygamy, so I will not repeat it here.  Ken also covered how the criteria of elder's marriage shed light on monogamy, so I will not repeat it here either.

The NT support for rejection of polygamy is based on what Jesus said in Matt 19:3-9 as the original intent of marriage before the Fall.  I think in general Christianity agrees that marriage is to be a symbol of God's covenant between Jesus the bridegroom and The Church the bride, prefigured in the covenant between God and Israel.  Read the whole book of Hosea which revealed the exclusive love that God demanded from Israel as a proper response to God's exclusive love for Israel, His chosen people.  Hosea is a very touching book of how God STILL wanted Israel to come back to Him, even after Israel did "polygamy" and "adultery" by simultaneously worshiping other gods.  The theme of monogamous relationship continued on to the NT period where there is only one Church and one Jesus.  So it makes sense that the covenantal relation between husband and wife should be modeled after the relation between Jesus and The Church (see Eph 5:21-33)

This booklet on The Bible's Teaching on Marriage and Family (pdf here) is an excellent, easy-to-read, theological exposition on why Christianity espouses monogamy as well as the purpose of Christian marriage and how Satan wants to destroy it.  The booklet contrasts between the secular notion of marriage as contract versus Christian notion of marriage as covenant.

On the other hand, NT teaching on widow remarriage is more on a prudential basis, far less dogmatic than the teaching on monogamy.  The main relevant passages are embedded on Paul's recommendation to the churches he founded in Corinth (1 Cor 7 esp. vv 39-40) and Ephesus (1 Tim 5:11-16) so that the members of the church can grow toward holiness (you can get this sense from the circumstances which precipitated the 2 letters).  Thus, Paul's advice on widow remarriage is to prevent distractions, temptations, and sins from polluting the local church body (example: like bad yeast in 1 Cor 5).  Notice the overall context of the passages: the importance for a man and a woman to channel their desires into wholesome patterns instead of into deviant ways that the enemy (Satan) can use.  This is because one theme of the overall teaching of Paul is the importance of holiness so Christians can enter the Kingdom of God (i.e. receive their promised inheritance) on the Day of Judgment (see 1 Cor 6:9-11, Gal 5:19-21, Eph 5:1-5).

See also a gotquestions.org article on What does the Bible say about remarriage after the death of your spouse? commenting on the same NT passages plus some OT background, saying that widow remarriage is "absolutely allowed by God".

The care of older widows (1 Tim 5:16) who cannot provide for themselves was a carryover from the OT ethic for helping the weak, which became the basis of why God condemn the powerful Jerusalem elite who instead of using their power to protect the weak they use it to oppress "the widows and the orphans".  So Paul's teaching about widow remarriage should also be read in the immediate context of how the local church should choose which widows to support.

In modern North America (USA, Canada) and Western Europe, the situation has much changed since the NT period since:

women now have equal rights and opportunities to pursue their career
there is not much social stigma to single career women
there is nursing facility and social security payments for older widows
household arrangement is more nuclear than extended, so less "temptation" from busy-body younger widows living in the same household

Therefore, the churches have a lot less responsibility to care for widows than in Paul's period so this impacts the prudential judgment about whether widows should or should not remarry.  But there is still a lot that we can do today.  This scholarly article titled The Order of Widows: What the Early Church Can Teach Us about Older Women and Health Care describes the practice of the early church in light of Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy as well as the OT practices mentioned above as a background to what we can do today to help modern elderly women.

The NT is rather silent on the reunion of the marriage bond in heaven.
Two frequently cited NT passages on marriage in heaven are Luke 20:34-36 and Mark 12:18-27 with sample interpretations in Why is there no marriage in heaven? and Marriage in Heaven? Will We Know and Love Our Spouses in Heaven? respectively.


What work of Augustine is Aquinas Citing Here?

The English translation of that passage is incomplete. The Latin of Summa Theologica I q. 1 a. 10 says

…ut dicit Augustinus in epistola contra Vincentium Donatistam.
…as St. Augustine says in his letter against the Donatist Vincent.

Opera omnia, iussu impensaque Leonis XIII (vol. 4): Summa Iᵃ q. 1-49 (p. 25) gives this as the full reference:

Ad Vincent. Rogat. Ep. XCIII (al. XLVIII), c. VIII.

Thus: chapter 8 of letter 93 (45 in another numbering scheme).
Relevant passage:

For what else is it than superlative impudence for one to interpret in his own favour any allegorical statements, unless he has also plain testimonies, by the light of which the obscure meaning of the former may be made manifest.


Romans 16:1 vs 1 Corinthians 14:34 - Position of Women in Congregation?

What do these three verses say about the position of Women in the congregation?

  Romans 16:1  I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant
  of the church which is at Cenchrea:

servant = diakonos = one who does errands or serves.

  1 Timothy 3:12  Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling
  their children and their own houses well.

In context I see the "diakonos" (servants) as the other leaders in the church under the biscopos or overseer. Here diakonos is used in a way that associates it with leadership as opposed to anyone who serves someone else.

The reference to Phoebe as a servant or deacon I see not as the occupant of a organizational position but as a description of the work she does ministering to others.

  1 Corinthians 14:34-34  Let your women keep silence in the churches:
  for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to
  be under obedience, as also saith the law.   And if they will learn
  any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for
  women to speak in the church.

The context of 1 Corinthians chapter fourteen is one of chaos in the church. Specifically spiritual gifts were being used carelessly and were in need of correction. Paul uses this subject at the end of the chapter to also address the disruption caused by women speaking in church.

Most people today see red when they hear these verses. However, there are a number of points that can be missed if we focus only on feminist outrage.

Today these verses sound strange not only for political reasons, but that today not only women, but everyone is silent in the church. One might make a case that in the early church teaching was by question and answer instead of the more common lecture format of today.

Women were required to ask their husbands at home not only to reduce the commotion in the church, but to stop the husbands from sloughing off their responsibility to be teachers in the home. This is more of an admonition against men than women.


What extrabiblical sources support the existence of Jesus in history?

In short

Lucian
Pliny the younger
Josephus
St. Ignatius of Antioch
Tacitus
Suetonius
Aristides
Galenus
Lampridius

I tried to get all those that Norman names. Just a problem with spelling those wholly foreign names. You can find all 19 of them in the video though.

It is curious to note that even Tacitus who was a rather big critic of the early church never thought that Jesus was a myth or never existed. When even Christianity's first century opposition talk about Jesus as a historical figure then it really becomes unreasonable to buy into this atheist rhetoric of him being a myth.

Josephus is the account is the most violently opposed because it gives such credence to Christianity. The atheist is left with the burden of proof of proving the text suspect. This again becomes unreasonable seeing as all the extant manuscripts of The Antiquities of the Jews says the same thing.

The Christian when confronted with these attacks need to ask the naysayer what is his / her evidence for these texts being suspect? This will probably get you the response of denial of the burden of proof or if the opponent is honest enough he / she will admit their is none.


Why did God accept Abel's offering and not Cain's?

One interpretation is that Cain's offering was not selective but Abel's offering was of the best ("fat portions") of the special ("firstlings").  Under this interpretation, Abel considered God well worthy of special honor (which tends to be associated with love), while Cain may have viewed the sacrifice more as something to be done, an expected action that was satisfied (perhaps indicating a legalistic inclination, perhaps something like the older brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son).  Abel's offering of "firstlings" may also have indicated his understanding that the produce of his flock was a gift from God.

Another interpretation--which I do not believe to be accurate--is that Abel's offering involved blood, indicating a recognition of his need for atonement.  This interpretation seems not to account for the special aspects of Abel's sacrifice (and the context gives no indication that the "offering" was one for sins, though likewise it does not specifically indicate thanksgiving).

Even if one views the passage as not clearly giving the reason for God's favor to Abel, the general message of Scripture is that God "looks at the heart" (1 Sam. 16:7) and so one can assume that God's favor coincided with Abel's loving and faithful heart.  In fact, assuming that the type of sacrifice itself is what wins God's favor would be wrong-thinking because he does not benefit from such sacrifices (e.g., Psalm 50:9 [NIV]: "I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens,") but seeks a heart-sacrifice (e.g., Psalm 51:17 [NIV]: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.") of which outward sacrifice is to be a fruit.

In addition, Hebrews 11:4 indicates that the offering came from faith, a trait of the heart without which "it is impossible to please God" (11:6) [NIV]:

  By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did.  By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings.


Is calling the church the "body of Christ" merely a metaphor or is there a deeper significance?

As is so often the case with questions such as yours, it's not a matter of "either/or" but "both/and."
Let's put it this way: the comparison between the church universal ("the holy catholic Church"--the Apostles' Creed) and a body is both an analogy and a metaphor. The expression of the church as a body is presented perhaps no more clearly than in 1 Corinthians 12:12-26, where we read,

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. . . . Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers . . ." (vv.12-14, and vv.27,28a).

Notice that the analogy comes first:

". . . as the body is one . . ." (v.12).

The word as, as I was taught since elementary school is one of the words which signals a simile (the other word being the word like). For example,

"As one whom his mother comforteth , so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem" (Isaiah 66:13 KJV).

Or,

"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me" (John 15:4 KJV).

[Notice: in each of the above verses, the emphasis is mine!]
Think of an analogy as an extended simile, or a simile that is expanded to include at least one analog, or point of comparison, but usually two or more analogs, or points of comparison. The analogy of the vine in John 15, for example, indicates in "Miller's analogy-type" format,

Grapes:vine::fruit:abiding (or, "grapes are to vine, as fruit is to abiding").

[Logicians: please don't correct my Miller's analogy. I know it's not perfect!]
In a less formal way, we could go on to say that abiding in the vine and drawing sustenance from the branches of the vine via the root system is analogous to abiding in Christ and drawing our spiritual sustenance from Him. In other words, the water and nutrients from the soil which nourish the vine are analogous to Christ's power and purity in us as we attach ourselves by faith to Him.
If a poor interpreter were to force the analogy to include the idea that all Christians must paint their faces purple so that they more closely resemble grapes, then we know the analogy has been pushed too far! All analogies break down at some point, but if not pushed too far, they serve as an excellent pedagogical tool.
A metaphor, on the other hand, is perhaps both a little easier and harder to understand than an analogy/simile. First of all, a metaphor does not clue us in with the word "like" or the word "as." In 1 Corinthians 12, verse 27, Paul says,

"Now you are Christ's body . . .."

We know, of course, that neither the worldwide church of Jesus Christ nor any given local church is literally Christ's body. Christ, as a flesh and bone human being, ascended into heaven 40 days after His resurrection. That's why "you ARE Christ's body" is a metaphor, or as we learned in English class, a comparison which does not use the word "like" or "as" to signal its presence.
Instead of, or in place of, His human body on earth, Jesus has given us His Spirit to comfort, teach, empower, counsel, lead, guide, rebuke, and encourage us.
Whereas in the verses 12-26, Paul uses an analogy, in verses 27 and 28, he uses a metaphor, and he makes it crystal clear that the body is the church; the body of Christ = the church of Christ:

"Now you are Christ's body . . . and God has appointed in the church . . .."

Are we Christians literally the body of Christ on earth? No. We do function, however, as Christ's hands, feet, eyes, ears, tongues, and more, when we perform His bidding through His Spirit (the Holy Spirit) within us.
What is the biblical metaphor for Christ? For one thing, He is the head of the body.

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:18 KJV).

There are, of course, many other metaphors for Christ, and He gave us a number of them in His teaching in the Gospels:

"I am the bread of life"

"I am the resurrection and the life"

"I am the true vine, and my father is the vinedresser"

"I am the Good Shepherd"

"I am the way, the Truth, and the life"

"I am the door of the sheepfold"

"I am the water of life"

In conclusion, I find your linking of the body metaphor and Christ's incarnation to be quite perceptive! If we kind of "unpack" the metaphor (which is not strictly biblical, but true nevertheless), it won't be long until we realize that yes, in the church age, prior to Christ's return, the church functions as Christ's bodily presence on earth in and through each and every one of His disciples, each of whom is a part of His body, whether a foot, an ear, an eye, or a hand.


What is the Word of Faith teaching on "little gods"

Psa 8:5  For thou hast made him a little lower than the [H430], and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhı̂ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Heb 2:7  Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
2Co 4:3  But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4  In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

There are three main points to the little g gods idea. Adam's original place, the fallen man's place and our place in Christ.
Adam was created the first son of God made in the image of God not diety but he was the little g god of this world because God created a being in his same class as his children. This is somewhat confirmed by scripture Psa 8:5 as the word translated angels is actually the word for God himself. You can however agree with the New Testament version which in the greek does have the word angels. However that said satan did become the god little g of this world and as best we know that power was given to him through Adam's transgression. Such power is assumed to remain his until he is put underfoot when his supposed lease runs out.

Psa 82:6  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Joh 10:30  I and my Father are one.

...

Joh 10:33  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Joh 10:34  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Now apart from those verses there are two witnesses Christ and David which call some gods lowercase g and children of the most High lowercase c. Its difficult to deny that Christ called even the children of the devil gods with a little g. Jesus used this scripture as a defense of his claim on being God in a its no big deal manner.

Hos 1:10  Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
2Co 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
1Co 6:17  But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Finally being in Christ (while not being the head of the body of Christ but being in Christ) makes you a part of Christ. Christ's spirit lives in us and is joined to our spirit. We are new creations new spirits fully compatible with God's Spirit. While Christ is capable of severing us from Himself he chooses not to. This does not make us part of the divine Godhead but Christ body is of type god. In like similar manner like your hand is of type human but you could live without your hand Christ's hand is of type god but Christ could live without that part. We could not live without Christ.

Rom 5:17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Mar 11:22  And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
Mar 11:23  For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Mar 11:24  Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
Mar 11:25  And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
Mar 11:26  But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

In connection with being part of Christ we are taught to have the faith of God or to have faith in God and to speak believing that God will back the authority (which he has delegated to the Church on the Earth) with His power.
Also in connection with being a little g god for all men is the gift of speech and things like the random power of positive thinking.
For a better introduction to this topic you can see Kenneth E. Hagin's Reining in Life as Kings and The Authority of the Believer by John A. MacMillan and the primarily cited by Mark Hankins: Discovering the Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale
It's important to note that while the Blood of Jesus, the word of God as interpreted by the word of God, Faith ie "confession and possession"/"believing and receiving", the moving of the Holy Spirit are all fundamental parts of the Word of Faith movement the little g gods is definitely tertiary at best not something important to scripture and not frequently taught. We have a corresponding doctrine for nearly every scripture sometimes multiple doctrines per verse as we go to church frequently. If you disagreed with this you would still be comfortable at a Word of Faith church as few actively teach it. It is something which people commonly use to poke fun at us hence its inclusion on wikipedia. It also predates Creflo Dollar.