What does the LDS Church teach about infallibility?

I think the best summary of the LDS teaching on infallibility, specifically in reference to prophets and revelation, is the following statement from Joseph Smith:

  I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught - (The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369)

In short, nobody who has lived on the earth except Jesus Christ has been or will be infallible; however, those called of God are still capable of receiving and teaching infallible doctrine through revelation.

Since prophets are not infallible, how can we be sure that what they are teaching is infallible doctrine, actual revelation from God?  I know of two canonical measuring sticks, there may be more:

Unity of councils.  At both general and local levels of leadership in the church, presidents of organizations and congregations are members of a council.  For the prophet, he is a member of the 3-person First Presidency and is assisted by the 12-member Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  The decisions of these councils are supposed to be unanimous, according to section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 27:

  And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other

This process of obtain unanimity is believed to be the working of the Holy Spirit to obtain revelation, in order for divergent viewpoints to be brought together in harmony.  From Boyd K. Packer, who was an apostle:

  I have, rather, observed a beautiful and remarkable thing—the coming
  together, under the directing influence of the Holy Spirit and under
  the power of revelation, of divergent views until there is total
  harmony and full agreement. Only then is implementation made. That, I
  testify, represents the spirit of revelation manifested again and
  again in directing this the Lord’s work. - (Ensign, May 1994, 54, 59)

The above quote along with other statements on the process of obtain revelation in a council can be found in this LDS Institute Manual.

This statement from mormonnewsroom.org is also relevant:

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

Personal revelation.  The LDS church teaches that each member can and should receive a personal witness through revelation of anything and everything taught in the scriptures and by church leaders and teachers.  Doctrine & Covenants 50:21-22 demonstrates this:

  21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

  22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

Thus both teaching the word and hearing the word are to be performed by the spirit of God, allowing both the word of truth to be taught by revelation and its truth to be received by revelation.

Similarly, Joseph Smith taught

  God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve [Apostles], and even the least Saint may know all things as fast he is able to bear them. - (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007, 268.)

In summary, no one on the earth except Jesus Christ has been or will be infallible, but through revelation those called of God call still share infallible teachings, and also through revelation those who receive those teachings can come to know of their infallibility.


If God, were only transcendant, perhaps there would be something to what you're saying, But Orthodox (in the wider sense of the word) Christian teaching is that God is both transcendant (we can't know Him fully) and Immanent - he is 'close' and fully able to communicate to his creatures clearly (at least to their level of comprehension).

Orthodox Christianity would further qualify your second premise as God initially gave language to man when he created him in his image (cf. Genesis 1:26-29).  Subsequently, human languages were confused and multiplied by God's direct agency as well (cf. Genesis 11:1-9), so there is a sense that language's are not 'purely' human artifacts at all.  It is true, that since Babel, languages have multiplied further with cross-pollinations and evolutions - this process may have lead to further confusion between humans, but it is not a limiting factor in God communicating what He chooses to communicate to mankind - as he is both omniscient and omnipotent.

With regard to revelation, we can not know everything there is to know about God with our mortal limitations, but what God chooses to reveal to mankind, He also has the capacity to make clear - as He is the Master of all language. (cf. Acts 2)


I know many Evangelical Christians believe that heaven and hell is not a physical place and doesn't have a specific location.

However, I believe something different, I believe hell is literally beneath us and heaven above us, because (as I understand,) the bible says so:

  Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:11 KJV)

  For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40 KJV)

Some Christians say the Great Rift (milky way) is a crack in the barrier between heaven and our universe, caused by either the flood or a war between satan and God. This would mean heaven is outside our universe.

  And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. (Isaiah 34:4 KJV)


Why are the Psalms numbered this way in some Catholic Bibles?

There is a difference in numbering between the Hebrew (Masoretic) text and the Greek and Latin (Septuagint and Vulgate). Psalms 9 and 10 in the Hebrew get combined into one as do Ps 114 & 115. Psalms 116 and 147 both get split in two.

Most Protestant Bibles follow the Hebrew numbering while most Catholic and Orthodox ones follow the Greek.

I suspect the reason for the difference is that the numbers were added to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts at a later date and there were different opinions as to where one finished and the next began.

Cf. Septuagint (LXX) numbering of the Psalms | The Orthodox Church in America.
Cf. Note on the different numbering of the 150 Psalms | psalmen.wursten.be.


When and for what reasons does the Pope have the right to legitimately excommunicate members of the Church?

One must be tried and judged guilty to incur a ferendæ sententiæ excommunication.
In that quote you give, where it says "I forbid under the pain of excommunication…," this refers to the conditions of a ferendæ sententiæ excommunication. One "incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law." (source).
Some Background on Excommunications
For those Catholics in his jurisdiction, a bishop can

perform a ferendæ sententiæ excommunication

or

declare that someone has excommunicated himself by having performed the excommunicable offense itself, in the case of latæ sententiæ excommunications.

For a recent example of latæ sententiæ excommunication that the bishop publicly acknowledged/declared, see the 2010 excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride of Phoenix, Arizona.

See also: "Who can excommunicate?"
However, a superior can annul the excommunication of an inferior, as then-Card. Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, did for Bp. Joseph Ferrario's excommunications of the so-called "[Hawaii Six][4]" in 1991. Here is Cardinal Ratzinger's letter:

Now, a pope has no superior, save God alone. However, a subsequent pope can lift excommunications, as Benedict XVI did in 2009 for the Society of St. Pius X bishops whom John Paul II declared excommunicated in 1988.


Is it correct to say Bible has 2 eyewitness accounts (Matthew, Mark and Luke as comprehensive one & John being the other) of Jesus Christ's lifetime?

Because the Synoptic Gospels contain significant overlapping content but are not identical, we probably need to drill down one layer further.
In one sense, the claim is true: we have two Gospels written by eyewitnesses, those of Matthew & John.
In a more complex sense, though, there is a great deal of eyewitness content on Mark & Luke that isn't in Matthew or John. If, for sake of argument, Luke interviewed Mary (the mother of Jesus), to obtain his information about Elizabeth, the Nativity, the Magnificat, etc--then this is eyewitness testimony preserved by Luke--and only Luke.
Each Gospel contains details of the resurrection narrative that aren't found in any other Gospel (though Mark has only a smidge of unique content). Even if we set aside Mark for the moment, only Matthew tells of the soldiers guarding the tomb, only Luke tells the details of the appearance on the road to Emmaus, only John has the appearance at the sea of Tiberius, and so on. So we do in fact have more than two eyewitness accounts for some of Jesus' ministry. For the resurrection we've got at least four sources (and many would say five by adding Paul) providing independent but corroboratory evidence.
I should acknowledge that I do not believe in Markan Priority or Q, but I've certainly read thoughtful arguments by many people who do. One way that I've seen multiple attestation in the Gospels counted is:

Mark
Q
Material unique to Matthew (M)
Material unique to Luke (L)
John

And to treat each of these as independent sources. If a particular event is separately attested in all 5 of those subdivisions of source-criticism, it would be considered to be attested by 5 separate sources, not just 2.
My own theory on the Synoptic Problem (similar but not identical to the Griesbach Hypothesis) would rewrite the above as follows:

Matthew
Lukan content not found in Matthew
Markan content not found in Matthew or Luke (just a handful of verses)
John

So we can still get more than double attestation for some events.

Appendix
My own theory on the Synoptic Problem is presented here
For those who are frustrated by my extremely abbreviated claim that Matthew & John were written by eyewitnesses, a much more exhaustive discussion is found in the video series I'm making here.


What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex?

Premarital (aka extramarital) sex is fornication, which is sometimes differentiated from adultery. While adultery is specifically forbidden in the 10 Commandments, it would appear the Bible has the same opinion of fornication. There are times when the two terms are used interchangeably as well.
All from the KJV:

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled,
and from blood.
1st Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1st Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1st Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

So it looks safe to say that "Thou shall not commit adultery" also applies to fornication. The colloquialism "living in sin" is accurate.
It doesn't specifically say "Even if you plan to get married, fornication is still a sin." But the 1st Corinthians 7:2 reference is pretty close. To avoid fornication, get married.


What is the Biblical basis that God does not punish disobedient Christians beyond the immediate natural consequences?

One example is Ramah, a town which Jeremiah prophetically lamented. The area was a source of great dispute between Judah and Israel. The punishment for the unwritten actions which occurred here were fulfilled in Matthew 2:17-18

17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.


Starting from God requesting us to glorify Him is starting from the end of the order of things.
First and foremost, God deserves to be praised. Hence His request for it from us. That is the correct order of things. Not to glorify God for us is equivalent to not understanding our place in the world, and our relation to God. We are His creatures. Everything was created by God (by the Father through the Son of God, Jesus). Or do you think human beings are good and powerful enough to compare with God? The creature more than the Creator? (Ideas developed more here).
Hence, from our position as creatures, it follows that we must glorify Him. In fact, it is a basic movement of the heart in Christians (as so beautifully expressed by so many hymns and writings of Saints) to praise God for the marvelous gifts received (including life itself, nature, etc). For instance, St Paul writes to the Romans (11:33-36):

How rich are the depths of God – how deep his wisdom and knowledge – and how impossible to penetrate his motives or understand his methods! Who could ever know the mind of the Lord? Who could ever be his counsellor? Who could ever give him anything or lend him anything? All that exists comes from him; all is by him and for him. To him be glory for ever! Amen.

If God would not ask us to glorify Him, God would be lying to us. Jesus Himself said (John 13:13):

You call me Master, and Lord; and you say well, for so I am.

This is, saying the truth is saying well. Hence, worshiping God is doing well too. If God would not asks us to glorify Him, we would not be doing well. Hence God's call for us to worship Him as what he truly is, God our Creator.
The entry on Glory in the Catholic Encyclopedia also mention this acknowledgment:

... glory is equivalent to praise rendered to God in acknowledgment of His majesty and perfections manifested objectively in the world, or through supernatural revelation.

Notice also that a narcissist needs to be hailed e.g. to fill in self-esteem vacuums. God however needs nothing. The same entry above states beautifully:

Infinite, He possesses the plenitude of Being and Perfection; He needs nothing, and can receive no complementary increment or superfluous accession of excellence from without.

This is, our act of glorifying God does not expand God in any way. By glorifying God we are simply acknowledging the true order of things. It is just reasonable for God to asks us to recognise this true order of things.
Thus, if God is immutable to our glorification of Him, what is it's purpose? St. Aquinas touched upon this in his Summa Theologiae, Question 123:

As Augustine says on John 13:13, "You call Me Master and Lord; and you say well" (Tract. lviii in Joan.): "Self-complacency is fraught with danger of one who has to beware of pride. But He Who is above all, however much He may praise Himself, does not uplift Himself. For knowledge of God is our need, not His: nor does any man know Him unless he be taught of Him Who knows." It is therefore evident that God seeks glory, not for His own sake, but for ours. On like manner a man may rightly seek his own glory for the good of others, according to Matthew 5:16, "That they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Who is in heaven."

God created us in order to share His life with us. That was a selflessness act of Love. God, loved us first, and made us to love Him and love our brethren, and to have eternal life in Him, in perfect happiness. This is quite the opposite to the narcissist God commonly attributed to Christianity.

Notice also that the concept of glory has different meaning across Scriptures. In fact, the quote in your question refers, in my opinion, to the case of the creation of God as a sign of God's powerfulness. This sense of glory if more in line with that which is referred to in the Jesuit motto Ad majorem Dei gloriam (to the greater glory of God). This is often is explained as meaning that the glory of God is the salvation of its creatures.


What is the Biblical support for Purgatory?

From what I understand, the idea behind Purgatory is that it is a place or state where sinful believers go before they are admitted to Heaven.  It is believed that it is possible for the living to pray for and atone for the sins of the dead so they may be admitted into Heaven.

This belief is mostly based on 2 Maccabees 39-46, which is a part of the Catholic bible.  (This book is considered apocrypha for many denominations.  See What is the origin of the Catholic apocrypha?)

(Italics were added by me in the following)

  2 Maccabees 12:39-46 (DRA)

  39 And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the
  bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen,
  in the sepulchres of their fathers.

  40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries
  of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that
  all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.

  41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had
  discovered the things that were hidden.

  42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that
  the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most
  valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin,
  forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of
  the sins of those that were slain.

  43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to
  Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead,
  thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,

  44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise
  again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the
  dead,)

  45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with
  godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

  46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the
  dead, that they may be loosed from sins.


The Catholic Church requires attendance at a Catholic Mass on Sunday's and Holy days of Obligation. Attending another Christian Church does not meet this obligation.

  The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day

CCC #2180

If you do attend another Christian Church you should not take the bread. Other Christian churches do not have valid Holy Orders and usually do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as Catholics do.

  Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

CCC #1400


Does the Catholic Church consider it sinful for couples who aren't able to conceive to have sex?

I believe this to be a valid question because there can be confusion here.

  HUMANEA VITAE
  11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

The Church's position is that the married couple be open to procreation, not that procreation is mandatory.

Sarah had complications. Elizabeth had complications. Even our Blessed Mother had a missing element required for procreation.

Nothing is impossible For God.


What is the ecclesiastical 'hierarchy' of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

As you are probably aware, there is not a high degree of unity in Eastern Orthodoxy in English-speaking nations, especially in North America (cf. Phyletism, autocephaly, controversy concerning autocephaly and the OCA, controversy over the broad appointment of metropolitans). However, there is somewhat general consensus on the orders. But it should be noted that not all Orthodox Christians will recognize all of the titles within the orders, and some consider them to be in a slightly different order. Also, many of the English titles borrow heavily from the Greek conventions, so some of those will be noted. With that said, there are three major orders in Orthodoxy:

Bishop (episkopos, ἐπίσκοπος)
Presbyter (πρεσβύτερος, more commonly called priest, hiereus, ἱερεύς; literally "elder")
Deacon (diakonos, διάκονος)

There are also two minor orders:

Subdeacon
Reader

There were formerly other minor orders but most have fallen into disuse (such as doorkeepers, exorcists, and acolytes). The major orders can be further subdivided.
Bishop

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The first in honor among all Orthodox bishops (first among equals, as the Pope of Rome once was prior to schisming). He is a special patriarch (which is often considered equal to an archbishop in various traditions, different only in honor).
Patriarch. A bishop who is the head of an ancient or ethnic Church (originally there were only five in the early Church, comprising the Pentarchy).
Archbishop. The head of an Orthodox country or capital city (depending on the tradition, these may be above, below, or equal to metropolitans. This is an area of disagreement and difference of practice).
Metropolitan. A bishop who is the head of a large city or a diocese (see note on archbishop).
Bishop. Oversees a diocese or special community of Orthodox Christians. Possesses the full priesthood and may ordain clergy. Chosen only from monastic priests (archimandrites).
Titular / Auxiliary Bishop. A bishop who is not in charge of a diocese. Assistant to a diocesan bishop. Sometimes also granted as a role of honor to those whose dioceses no longer exist.

Presbyter / Priest

Archimandrite. A title of honor given only to monastic priests. This originally referred to a supervisory abbot appointed over other abbots and/or monasteries, or to the abbot of a prominent monastery. It has come to more or less be an honorary title for hieromonks. Only archimandrites are eligible to be appointed as Bishops (which is why I've listed it first, although in many ways they are equal to or below protopresbyters and/or archpriests).
Protopresbyter / Protopriest. A title of honor given only to non-monastic priests. It literally means "first elder" (some traditions do not distinguish between a protopresbyter and an archpriest).
Archpriest. A title of honor given only to non-monastic priests. A priest placed over several parishes may sometimes be appointed to this role (see note for protopresbyter).
Hieromonk. Literally, a "priest-monk." A monk who is also an ordained priest.
Presbyter / Priest. An ordained elder who may administer the sacraments.

Deacon

Protodeacon. A title of honor given only to non-monastic deacons. It literally means "first servant/server" (some traditions consider archdeacons above protodeacons).
Archdeacon. The senior deacon in a diocese, responsible for serving at hierarchical services (services with the bishop). Usually he travels with the bishop. Some traditions only give this title to monastic deacons (see note for protodeacon).
Hierodeacon. A deacon-monk. A monk who has been ordained as a deacon.
Deacon. An ordained servant who may assist the priest in the administration of the sacraments (as well as a variety of other duties).

Minor Orders
Concerning the minor orders, a subdeacon (also called a hypodeacon) may assist the bishop and/or priest in various ways (but not with the administration of the sacraments). The ordination to subdeacon is not performed during Divine Liturgy nor at the altar as it is a minor order. He may be assigned any of the other roles of the minor orders such as Reader (but also former minor orders that have fallen into disuse such as Cantor, Catechist, or other leadership roles in the community). While canon law does consider the ordination of subdeacons to be binding on their marital status, many do not enforce this or consider the ordination to be of a different sort. Thus the canon laws concerning the marriage or celibacy of candidates is generally only enforced for the major orders.
A reader (or lector) is ordained by the bishop to read during services and in the Divine Liturgy. This role developed due to low literacy rates in past history, so being able to read was a special gift. The only way scripture was normally heard by early Christians was when it was publicly read in the church. He may also be assigned any of the other roles of the minor orders other than subdeacon (such as Cantor, Catechist, or other leadership roles in the community).


Did Prophet Jeremiah's soul pre-exist his conception in human form?

No, Jeremiah (and you and me) didn't have a soul until it was "formed in the womb"

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God
CCC 366

It's pretty clear and unambiguous, even Jesus' human soul was created at the Incarnation. (please correct me if the tense or the verbs "was created" are wrong).  The function of the soul is to animate the body.

it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul,
CCC 364

If there's no body, there's no need for a soul and what there is no need for, there isn't.  After death, our souls await being reunited with our bodies because the body+soul mix is what being human is all about.

As for Jeremiah, according to the commentary in the NAB, this is because his birth was foretold.  Obviously, if there's a foretelling, there's a foreknowledge and certainly if God is omniscient, He knows us before we're born, it doesn't mean He makes us before we're born.
If I grew a head of lettuce and some tomatoes and was intent on making a salad, I could say.  Before I ate you, I knew you in the garden. If I had wanted to make an omelet, I could say to the omelet, before I ate you, I knew you in the egg, etc...
I had this question myself many times, belief in the soul preexisting conception is a heresy that was denounced like 1700 years ago that I can't remember the name of but someone called me out on it on this very site, so I figured I'd pass this along to you.


What is the meaning of the large statue of a pine cone in Vatican City?

It is a sculpture created by Publius Cincius Salvius.  It was a former Roman fountain; Fontana Della Pigna.  It predates the Vatican owning the land.

Mathematics Magazine

  The colossal bronze pine cone was cast in the 1st or 2nd century by
  Publius Cincius Salvius who left his name on the base. This was way
  before the Catholic Church was given the property upon which Vatican
  City sits. There is much pre-Christian and non-Christian art in the
  Vatican and its museums

and from St. Peter's in the Vatican by William Tronzo pg 31

  Of equal obscure origin is the colossal pinecone (pigma), over 11 feet tall, which dominated the immediate approach to the basilica as the centerpiece of the fountain in the atrium.  Signed by its maker, the freedman Publius Cincius Salvius, the pigma has been dated on the basis of the letter forms to the first century CE.  It may have been made as a fountain.  As icons of fecundity and regeneration, pincones appeared from the time immemorial on the tip of the Bacchuc thysrus.  The Romans placed them in fountains, and monumental cones were also placed as finials on funerary buildings, with the same symbolic connotations.  In late antiquity, the most conspicuous use of the ancient regenerative symbolism was made by the cultists of Cybele, whose rites, as noted earlier were practiced on St. Peter's doorstep until the very end of the fourth century.  the pine tree signified Cybele's fickle lover,
  Attis, and the ritual felling of pine on the spring equinox, during the public festival called hilaria, baldly symbolized Attis's castration, thanks to which he was able to rise to a higher order of being.  Pine trees with prominent cones appear on most of the taurobolium altars that have survived, including those attributable to the Vatican Phrygianum.

So then, to Christians, I suppose the statue has little significance except that it's beautiful and old - really old.  To others, there may be a different meaning.  I believe it was Paul who said that as long as it doesn't make YOU do evil things, then there is nothing wrong with it.  I believe this was about eating unclean meat, but you get the idea


What Christianity thinks about the God of present day Judaism?

Fundamentally, Christians and Jews worship God the Father in similar fashion, but Christians (meaning Mainstream or Nicene aka Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity) believe God to be larger than just that.  Nicene Christianity confesses that God the Father is "just" one person amongst three within the Godhead.  Muslims and Jews reject this.

While the Trinity is an offense to Muslims and Jews alike, it is nonetheless fundamental to the full understanding of the Godhead.  Christians believe that God is three distinct persons who are one.  This is a paradox. This is nonetheless true, for our limited understanding really precludes an obvious metaphor.

If we would focus on the distinct personalities of God as three individuals (which while technically the heresy of 'Tritheism' is nonetheless useful ) for the discussion here), then we could say:

The Christian understanding of God the Father is primarily (if not entirely) based on the same Scriptures as that of the Jews.  As such, when a Christian prays to God the Father, he could name him "Yahweh" and be perfectly consistent with the Jewish understanding.  (Indeed, it would also be very similiar to that of a Muslim).
Christians pray to God in the name of Jesus, the Son.  Christians fundamentally believe that the Son is God but that he is also Man.  He is not a separate God, but rather we perceive him in different ways.  When Jesus was incarnated, for example, he showed a certain distinction from God the Father (cf. Patripassianism), and yet there is no error in his saying, "I and the Father are one." He taught nothing that was not of accord with his Father.  Ironically, given your current name, He said "Nevertheless, Not my Will but Yours Be Done." In contrast, Jews reject any notion of the divinity of the Son, ergo, they do not agree with Christians in this aspect of God's true nature.
Christians believe that Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father through the Son, and with the Son, He is worshipped and glorified."  I'd argue that in practice, most Christians really don't know what to do with the Holy Spirit - but they acknowledge that like the Son, he is God - though again, Jews (and Muslims) would disagree.

As such, the best answer is to say that Jews and Christians do worship the same God (specifically God the Father), but that Christians have a "fuller" (or "more complex" take your pick) understanding of his nature and how He relates to himself.


In RC doctrine, when is pop culture, like Bernstein's Mass, appropriate to tell sacred messages?

What the Bible says

For starters, the Bible says in (Psalm 100: 1,2)

  1 Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.
  2 Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing.

RC Doctrine and reaction

Doctrine will be addressed later on, I'll start with reaction to the piece since its release.

Whatever reservations or objections the Holy See and the bishops had when Bernstein's Mass was first performed, it eventually got modest support from Pope John Paul II.1

  Mass came full circle when, in 2000, Pope John Paul II requested a
  performance at the Vatican.

The performance in the Vatican City was released on DVD in 2004. This performance was staged at the Vatican as part of the Jubilee 2000 celebrations of the Roman Catholic Church.

Bernstein's Mass is not liturgical music

That piece will not be performed at a Catholic Mass, since the Vatican has rules (Musicam Sacram) for the use of music in the liturgy.  The Current Catechism (RC Doctrine) has five references to music (CCC 1155-1158), one of which (CCC 1192) is a summary of the other four.  Put succinctly:

  1158 The harmony of signs (song, music, words, and actions) is all the
  more expressive and fruitful when expressed in the cultural richness
  of the People of God who celebrate.  Hence "religious singing by the
  faithful is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and
  sacred exercises as well as in liturgical services," in conformity
  with the Church's norms, "the voices of the faithful may be heard."
  But "the texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with
  Catholic doctrine. Indeed they should be drawn chiefly from the Sacred
  Scripture and from liturgical sources."

The article and its source material, (Sacrosanctum Concilium(SC), 1963, Pope Paul VI) address music for both the mass and "devotions and sacred exercises" (Such as during Adoration ...)  It does not address popular musical forms beyond music within the Church's context.

Objections to Bernstein's Mass

From SC, 121, you can derive an objection to Bernstein's Mass because it presents both an imitation and an interruption of a Mass celebration (while obviously not being one).

  Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of
  treasures.

  Let them produce compositions which have the qualities proper to
  genuine sacred music, not confining themselves to works which can be
  sung only by large choirs, but providing also for the needs of small
  choirs and for the active participation of the entire assembly of the
  faithful.

  The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from holy scripture and from liturgical sources.

An objection is that this musical piece does a disservice to the sacred nature of the Mass by (1) creating a secular spectacle while (2) associating itself (by using the name Mass) with the most sacred sacrament of the Faith.   Cultural appropriation?  Yeah.  Giving offense?  For sure.  In the past 10 years, I've seen great public outrage over far lesser offenses. (intended or otherwise).

  CCC 1211 ... This order, while not the only one possible, does
  allow one to see that the sacraments form an organic whole in which
  each particular sacrament has its own vital place. In this organic
  whole, the Eucharist occupies a unique place as the "Sacrament of
  sacraments": "all the other sacraments are ordered to it as to their
  end."

While the composer, Bernstein, could not be excommunicated for profaning something sacred (he was not Roman Catholic) it is a fair criticism from the Catholic point of view that his treatment of this sacrament is a profaning of the sacred for the purpose of profit (his intentions, however sincere they may have been to offer up a tribute to belief and faith, etc, are not obvious if one simply listens to or experiences the performance).

Can popular music handle sacred subjects?  Yes!

Handel's oratorio Messiah and Bernstein's Mass differ significantly.  (Beyond the fact that the former was originally written for smaller vocal groups and only grew into grand orchestral performances over time).

Handel (actually, the author of his libretto, Charles Jennens) stuck to scriptural and liturgical sources.  Bernstein and his collaborators interspersed their piece with secular and even skeptical passages and themes, to include addressing crises in faith.  The Roman Catholic mass is a grand celebration of faith, an affirmation of faith, not a session of self doubt, not an examination of the loss of faith in God.  By using the title Mass for the piece, and recognizing that the Catholic Mass is a celebration of the most sacred sacrament of the Catholic Church, Bernstein is open to fair criticism of the piece going beyond matters of taste  -- the criticisms of profaning the sacred.  Those criticisms can still be fairly made, even if tempered by Pope John Paul II's inclusion in the Jubilee celebration in 2000. (A sedevacantist can argue that since Vatican II's shake up of the church, his endorsement or tolerance is null and void as pontiff, or further evidence that there's still no real pope in St Peter's chair, but that's a separate topic).

Sacred music, and music about that sacred

Since Vatican II, there has been an ongoing dialogue within the Church on the appropriateness of various forms of liturgical music, and devotional music, as well as continued disagreement between the more traditional Catholics and charismatic Catholics on what is or is not appropriate music for the liturgy itself.  (The Q&A linked only covers part of it).  Many traditional Catholics object to what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops(USCCB) has approved, recently: charismatic versions of the Gloria(for example) and the Agnus Dei.

If Bernstein's Mass finally passed Pope John Paul II's muster for a public performance, that partly answers the question in terms of the reactions changing.  Whether it has aged well is a matter of personal taste.

Music in popular forms and sacred subjects

The USCCB has provided guidance (doctrine) for American Catholics regarding other uses of music in support of worship/prayer/praise, as well as guidance on music with the proclamation of God's word.

  The works of Handel and other composers who have set biblical texts to
  music are marvelous examples of music’s power to evangelize. Music can
  open ears and hearts to the Good News of God’s presence, action, and
  love for the human race. Even today many composers are creating
  musical settings of scriptural texts through which listeners can meet
  the living God in fresh expressions of the Word.

Contemporary Christian musician Matt Maher has performed at World Youth Day with the Pope present on multiple occasions (most recently in 2014).  Like Handel with Messiah, his approach (while using popular musical style) conform to Catholic belief and liturgical references.  Does that please all Catholics?  No.  From a doctrinal point of view, he's staying within bounds, and certainly is within the guidance of the USCCB.  Each council of Bishops will provide guidance for their territory/country. (For example, Bishops in Canada will not necessarily agree with the USCCB.)  Provided that the guidance from the Holy See is complied with, some local variation is tolerated.

From SC again:

  In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a
  great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due
  importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is
  to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion,
  but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in
  Art. 39 and 40.

Full disclosure: having been raised by two agnostic parents, the first time I ever heard the Lord's Prayer was on my 9v-battery-powered Sony transistor radio, in 1974, as sung by Sister Janet Meade.  I started singing it around the house.  My mom, who was baptized Presbyterian, asked me why I was singing that song.  I explained.  She pulled down the old (dusty) KJV my dad had on the shelf and we had an interesting conversation about the Lord's prayer.  Singing as evangelism: it reached me.  Bernstein's Mass, which my father has a copy of, was a bit much for me as a teenager when he played it on his Hi Fi system.  I have not heard it in years, so I can't comment on it's aging well or not.

1 {Another popular-form-styled song did not get such support from the Vatican.  }


Did God's moral principles change with the change of OT times to NT times?

While I understand why we would question God for killing seemingly innocent people in those 2 stories, I think we need to remember that the primary focus of those 2 stories is to demonstrate God's protection of His prophets: Abraham and Elijah.  In the narration of the stories then, we shouldn't expect God to explain the morality of His actions, keeping in mind the following factors:

How this is similar to how God told Joshua to kill everyone (including women and children) when taking Canaanite cities in the promised land or in the (possible) innocence among some of the firstborns in Egypt killed in the 10th plague.  Most commentators are very uncomfortable with God's action in Canaan, in what seem to look like genocide, but try to mitigate this in terms of Gen 15:16: God's giving them time.

That out of His foreknowledge and omniscience God could have taken into account His personal dealings with each of the 50 men in the Elijah story.  This is maybe similar to how Abraham asked God whether He would destroy Sodom if there are more than 50, 40, 30, 20, 10 righteous people (Gen 18:16-33).

That in the Abimelech story, it was a threat not carried out, and that Abimelech was dealing with God as either a King or a head of the household where in ancient practice at the time puts the King / head of the household as a rightful representative of the fate of people "belonging" to him.  Thus, for the original audience, they wouldn't see God as unjust.

That in the Elijah story, we may see those 50 men as war combatants in God's war against a rebellious king of Israel, just as God became enemy to Samaria when He executed judgment in the Assyrian exile.

That in these 2 stories we are talking about God's actions, not human actions against another, which are regulated by Deut 24:16. Morality rules for human are only a subset of God's justice; thus, we cannot limit evaluation of God's justice from Deut 24:16 alone.  See this article for more discussion.

That life on earth is temporary.  If we are killed as part of God's greater plan so good can come from evil, God will reward us in the afterlife.

Of course the above factors are not completely satisfactory to answer your good question, but in my mind still gives room to allow consistency with the moral concept you cited in your first paragraph, especially given the narrative perspective of the stories where we should not infer too much from them.  I think when it comes to knowing God's moral principles, His direct commandments in the Pentateuch and the Psalmist's teaching about God are a much better source to argue for consistency between OT and NT.  Furthermore, as I argued in point #5 above, the two stories are not proper illustrations of Deut 24:16 or of Ez 18:20, which is the basis of the moral principle you cited in your question.
CONCLUSION: Given the larger factors that we have to consider about the morality of God's own acts as opposed to God's moral principles imposed on us humans, the 2 stories you cited are not a valid basis to support the contention that God's moral principles have changed from OT to NT.  Deut 24:16 is still applicable for us in both testaments, but is not applicable to God.


What is the state of Christianity among the Huaorani people today?

I contacted I-TEC, Steve Saint's missionary organization, about this question. Steve's son Jaime sent this reply by email:

  The Waodani people today are around 20% Christ followers. We don't have any information on how that breaks down on age, though most of the older generation (over 50 years old) are Christ followers. Their churches are very different from ours in many ways. While most of their communities have some Christ followers (the church), they typically do not have organized times of worship. When they have a "service," there may be 10-20 "preachers," depending on who wants to talk. At the same time, they talk about following God's trail on a daily basis.

He also pointed me to the Joshua Project's page on the Huaoroni, which says that 40% are Christians and 0.3% are evangelicals. I asked Saint about the difference between his numbers and those of the Joshua Project, and he replied:

  Not sure why the discrepancy. I travel down to the jungles several times a year and have been going for more than 25 years. The Waodani themselves do not count anyone as a Christ follower unless they have have trusted Christ as Savior, been baptized, and the fruit of their lives shows that they are following Christ.


Christianity is for everyone.

Your question is more like a "Pastoral Advice" which is less welcomed here. However, let me try to sum up about Christianity, which I think, is what you need.

God's perfect creation: God created man perfectly along with woman (see Genesis 1:27). Everything was fine. No death*, no suffering and no sin.
The fall of man: Satan the deceiver came to the woman and deceived her to disobey God, the man also followed (see Genesis 3). This results in separation of God and man. Man belongs to Satan now. Man is now a sinner by nature and cannot change by himself.
The redemption plan: Then God made a plan to redeem man and his inheritance from the slavery of Satan and sin. God selected a people called Israel and instituted them of the Laws of God and the requirements to purge sins from man. Animal blood was required to receive forgiveness of sins from God. (see Leviticus 4)  Old Testament sacrificial laws are the shadows of the things to come, which is the New Testament.
Jesus Christ paid the penalty: The redemption plan was completed successfully by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He paid the price for our sins by pouring out His own blood as a sacrifice to God for the forgiveness of sins. He died on the cross but was resurrected on the third day.
Salvation through Jesus Christ: Now, by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and by following his commands, God forgives our sins and we become the children of God. We no longer need to try to achieve holiness and perfection. We simply rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us. God no longer demands your perfection but your faith alone.

  John 3:16 (NIV) For God so loved the
  world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him
  shall not perish but have eternal life.

  If you are ready to believe this and receive Jesus Christ in your heart by prayer, you become a Christian! It's simpler than you think but it takes time, of course. It is also important to join any Christian congregation which will help you to grow in your faith.

May God bless you.

*Different Christian groups interpret this differently, some believing literally that nothing (including animals) died prior to the fall of mankind. Other groups say the death mentioned in Genesis was strictly a spritual death (separation of man from God). And there are a number of interpretations that fall somewhere between.


The veneration and collection of relics is a ritual which started in the Middle Ages, following many pilgrimages to the Holy Land following the Crusades. The first relics which were collected were those the Virgin Mary together with those of St. Joseph and Jesus Christ himself. Particularly, relics were collected from the remains of the Holy Cross, which was greatly venerated at the time. Other relics were collected from the house of Nazareth, where the Holy Family lived in.

The Second Vatican Council recalls that "the Saints have been traditionally honoured in the Church, and their authentic relics and images held in veneration" - taken from the document Decretum de invocatione, veneratione et reliquiis Sanctorum, et sacris imaginibus of the Council of Trent. The term "relics of the Saints" principally signifies the bodies - or notable parts of the bodies - of the Saints who, as distinguished members of Christ's mystical Body and as Temples of the Holy Spirit in virtue of their heroic sanctity, now dwell in Heaven, but who once lived on earth. Objects which belonged to the Saints, such as personal objects, clothes and manuscripts are also considered relics, as are objects which have touched their bodies or tombs such as oils, cloths, and images.

There are 3 kinds of relics which are issued by the Holy See. These are ranked as follows:

1st Rank Relics: Actual body parts, clothes, jewellery and pieces of other objects which are known to have belonged to the saint. This also includes bones and blood of the saint in particular.

2nd Rank Relics: Whole objects or fragments extracted from the place where the saint was present at. For example a piece of furniture at the house they lived in would be a 2nd Rank Relic. It is presumed that the said himself/herself was in touch with this particular object during his/her lifetime.

3rd Rank Relics: This are any other objects which were in lifetime, or even after his death, in contact with the body of the saint. These are the most commonly found relics and can be easily obtained in events commemorating the particular saint. They are usually touched to the burial place of the saint, to constitute a 3rd degree relic.

In itself, there is no procedure whereby the Vatican claims the body of the saints upon his/her death, since there is a whole process to be made before the person is finally declared a Saint. This includes miracles to be performed with the intercession of the person. After these have been scrutinized and studied by the respective board at the Vatican, the process for the canonisation of the person is started. This is divided into 3 stages, whereby the person:

is primarily proclaimed Venerable
he is then Beatified
Then he is finally Canonised and declared a Saint

The process of being proclaimed venerable must be started after the death of the person, and it is then, that relics can start to be collected. At this stage in particular, the body is usually moved from the actual burial place, to a better location, where he/she can be venerated in a better manner (unless the person was already being venerated, such as in the case of Saint Pope John Paul II for example).

As already mentioned before, relics are then gathered from body parts, vestements, jewelry or fragments from places visited by the saint.

The Vatican had in fact issued a document on the veneration of Beatified people and Saints in 2001. Paragraphs 236 and 237 speak of relics and their collection. Additionally, chapter 8 of this document speaks of the importance of shrines and pilgrimages, outlining their importance to the Catholic faith.


Resources to learn about Bible canonization

For a good brief overview, Wikipedia has the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon that may prove useful.

Some Authors to Consider

If you want a respected secular scholar, Bart Ehrmann's Misquoting Jesus is probably your best bet. I'm not endorsing what he says, and I'm not going to say he is unbiased (he has explicitly rejected his Christian faith and openly wishes others would do the same), but he is well respected and has a good grasp of the chain of events.

In addition to his book, the Teaching Company has a [series of lectures he did on the New Testament and on the Church Fathers (the documents, not the people!) which illustrate the early church development of practice. The "History of Jesus to Constantine" and "Lost Christianities" in particular would probably give you the secular development case the best.

In contrast, Daniel B. Wallace will give a more orthodox understanding of why particular books were accepted, and lend credence to the traditional canon.

A Breif Overview

In general, the best way to understand the "process of canonization" is to understand the unique contribution of each book in the canon to the Bible as a whole. Remember, there was no committee that sat down and said, "This is the authoritative list, and everything else is just a book!" Rather, over time, there was a general consensus amongst Christians as to what really was Scripture, and what wasn't.

Marcion would be a good example. He was one of the first to compile a "canon," and his consisted solely of the letters of Paul, and the Gospel of Luke. He considered the Old Testament to speak of a different god, and thought it useless.  What Marcion, thought, however, wasn't nearly as important as the reaction of the majority of Christians in contrast.  They said, "No, the Old Testament is part of who God is." The general consensus that Marcionism is heresy was pretty well established by about 200AD, and led most then to accept that the Old Testament is part of the canon.

Similar processes occurred around the adoption of the Johnanine corpus - the Gospel, the letters, etc... Likewise, the Gospel of Thomas - purported collection of 115 of Jesus' sayings - proved to be more Gnostic than Christian, and so it was rejected.

The key point is that all of this happened over time.  It isn't until Athanasius' Festal Letter of 367 that we even have the first "complete" canon listed anywhere - and Patristic scholars continued to quote other works for some time as well.

Even today, there are certain Christian authors who are considered "more important" than others.  If you asked me to pontificate about who is canonical, for example, I'd want to throw in C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesteron, Augustine, and a couple of others.  David Barton, Joel Osteen, Tim Lahaye, not so much.  And, I would clearly reject, say, (and I only speak for myself) anything by Joseph Smith or the Watchtower society.  Why do I say that? Because my canon speaks to what is important to me. Many Evangelicals would probably agree with me, and do, as can be shown by what other Evangelicals tell others "should be read." The point is not what I've picked, but rather that the same process was in place 2000 - 1600 years ago.

In the end, Why did the canon close? is really the only remaining question, and that has already been answered elsewhere on the site.


Is there a difference of substance between the veneration of Mary, and the worship of God?

One useful distinction appears in petitionary prayer. We ask both Mary (as well as the other saints) and God to help us by doing things for us. The difference is in what we ask them to do.

For example, the prayer to Mary known as the Litany of Loreto begins by petitioning God in the Trinity, then moves to petitioning Mary, then back to God. But though both God and Mary are asked to do things, they're very different. We ask God:

  God the Father, have mercy on us.
  God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.

And later,

  Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace.

In contrast, to Mary we pray;

  Mother of Christ, pray for us.
  Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.
  Queen of the most holy Rosary, pray for us.

Only God has the power to grant us graces, and it is only Him whom we ask for actual things. Mary and other saints have no such power, and our reverence to them does not (should not) extend so far as to ask them for things. We can only ask them to pray to God for us.

You can see another difference, perhaps, in this example. Someone who looks up to another, who takes them as a life example and perhaps even thinks of them as a hero, will treat them with great respect and reverence. They may feel a certain sense of awe in their presence. But in the other hand, there's the sense of awe and wonder that many people feel when they look up at the stars, and confront the majesty of the universe. The two feelings are different (I contend) in kind, not just in scale. That's analogous to the difference between our feelings toward Mary and those we have toward God.


Have Christian Scholars been forced to use BCE and CE instead of AD and BC?

Our traditional calendar references of AD and BC are neither ancient nor entirely sacred in the sense of a reference to the birth of Jesus. It was first proposed in 533 by the Roman abbot Dionysus Exiguus, but as a practical matter he  began counting years from from what he believed to be the year of King Herod's death1, not from the year of Jesus' birth, which he realised was unknowable. Nevertheless, the pagan Roman calendar continued in use until the ninth century, when Dionysus' calendar began to be adopted widely, with its references to AD (Anno Domini) and BC (Before Christ).

Many Christian scholars continue to use the terms AD and BC in their writing, but others have adopted the more neutral CE ('Common Era' or 'Christian Era') and BCE ('Before Common Era' or 'Before Christian Era') as much in deference to Jewish and other non-Christian sensitivities as any other reason. I have never seen any request for them to do so, either from irreligious people or people of other faiths, and therefore no refutation of such requests. Most certainly, Christian scholars are not forced to use the newer terms, as evidenced by the number of Christian scholars who continue to use the older abbreviations.

If the Christians of the early Middle Ages felt that the use of a Christian calendar, with AD and BC, was of such little moment that they delayed its use for some centuries after its development by Dionysus Exiguus, then we need not be overly concerned about whether some choose to use the same calendar, but with CE and BCE.

1We now know that King Herod actually died in April 4 BC/BCE.


What is the Calvinist perspective on regeneration?

It largely depends on which Calvinist you ask :)

The author of one of the more famous Systematic Theology works (can't remember if it was Shedd, Berkhof, or Hodge... I remember reading it in a defense of Classical Arminianism by Picirilli) said that predestination is not unto faith. This indicates that predestination is unto regeneration.

So what is required is a definition of Calvinistic regeneration. Here is Berkhof's take on regeneration (too long to post, please read. Also read the discussion. It's highly interesting.). Essentially, regeneration is a change in a man's condition, from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive. Once a man is spiritually alive, he has the ability to see his rebellious condition. Because of this, he has an irresistible urge to be saved and have faith in Christ, and he does. Regeneration and salvation are not something that are considered to happen in a chronological order whereby one happens then the other. That regeneration precedes faith and therefore salvation is only a logical ordering. In actuality, the chronological ordering is simultaneous. An important note, though. In Romans, we see that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by preaching. We also see in Ephesians that faith is a gift of God. So, simply put, the faith is given to the believer by God, and the believer comes upon this faith by hearing the Gospel.

There is a second question, how sin affects a regenerate's life. The first point is that regeneration occurs at a point in time. An elect man is born into original sin and rebellion toward God, and regenerated at a later point. He does not necessarily emerge from the womb in a regenerate state.

However, even if this was the case, a regenerated man will still sin! This does not mean that this is accepted by God, but rather that through the man's faith in Christ, he has access to the forgiveness brought through Christ.

Edit:
It has been asked, "Is faith a gift of God? Does the verse from Ephesians necessitate this interpretation?"

First, whether or not an individual believes faith to be a gift from God is not the question at hand. We're talking about a Reformed interpretation of the doctrine, so for point of this answer, faith is a gift from God.

More importantly though, is it good to consider faith as a gift from God?

A cursory glance at the verse in Ephesians says no.

  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
  (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV)

I'm not a Bible languages scholar, but the commentaries I've read all say that "It's" antecedent is "grace," not "faith" because the gender of the words in question. So, we can make the argument from language that "it" refers to "grace," not "faith." However, we have not established that faith is not a gift in this verse, only that the antecedent of the gift is "grace." If we're going to use this information to determine that faith is not a gift, we're going to need to say that grace is a gift from God, but the channel through which grace is applied is not a gift from God and is instead resident within the believer. This is shaky ground for Arminians and Calvinists alike (and Lutherans, etc.).

The Calvinist position is that the mechanism whereby God applies His grace is also a gift, or at least the ability to act on that mechanism. If the believer had present within himself the channel through which Grace is applied, in addition to the ability to employ the channel, and chose to employ this channel when another did not, this would give the believer a right to boast over the non-believer that "I was wise enough to act upon something within me, whereas you were not." The Reformed interpretation of this verse completely blows this argument out of the water: none of salvation is by works, it is all of grace. A common answer to this is that "faith is not a work," but if it is something that the believer does and something an unbeliever does not, then why should we not consider one's faith a work? Without considering faith as a gift of God, we are relegated to consider faith a work and are no better off than demons

In other places too, we see faith as being something God can administer. In Romans, we see that God assigns a measure of faith.

  For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
  (Romans 12:3 ESV)

In Mark, we see that Christ does not rebuke the man who begs his Lord to "help with his unbelief," and rather the Lord blesses the man through the healing in the passage.

  And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.” And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, “He is dead.” But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

(Mark 9:23-29 ESV)


Why did God not want man to have the knowledge of good and evil?

Perhaps there is a difference between the eating of  such evil knowledge and knowing of such evil knowledge.

If two con artists wish to steal the life's savings from the elderly, and one of the two con artists changes his ways and tries to inform the elderly of how they were about to be deceived by the other con artist, it would not be logical for a priest to then do everything he can to prevent the elderly from knowing how they could be deceived, and do so by preventing them from knowing of the evil knowledge of the con artists decetfulness.

A priest would not dive between the informer and the elderly.

Thus it would be the knowing and practicing of such evil knowledge that is of the wrong.


How can suffering from natural causes be reconciled with an omnimax god?

You're looking at the question from a mortal perspective, whereas God has an eternal perspective.  He put us here not to be here as an end unto itself, but to prepare us for what comes after this life.

In the Sermon on the Mount, we are commanded to be perfect "even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."  God is perfect because he never uses his power to do anything which would be wrong, no matter how tempting we might make it.  But we are imperfect and prone to physical and spiritual problems of every kind in this life.  In order to grow and attain a Godly level of perfection, we need practice.  We need for things to go wrong so that we can learn to deal with them correctly.  Otherwise, we can never become the kind of perfect people that the Gospel is supposed to lead us to be.


A cathedral is the seat of the diocese, where the bishop conducts mass.

Cathedrals are given the precedence of the diocese: more important or influential dioceses have more precedence, with the Diocese of Rome (the seat of the Pope) having the highest precedence. Like getting a particularly influential ambassadorship or corporate title, it's a mark of honor to be assigned to a diocese with higher precedence.

One thing to keep in mind is that there is no higher ecclesiastical rank than bishop: even the Pope is a bishop. But as with most bodies of equals there is a pecking order, as it were: the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) is essentially the first among equals. The precedence of the bishops and their diocese is meant to provide some amount of order and structure to a large number of bishops.

If you're familiar with the United States Senate, another way to look at it is how seniority is established there. Even though they're both duly elected senators, Sen. Chuck Schumer has more seniority and influence than Sen. Kirsten Gillabrand.

A minor basilica is the formal designation of a church that is more notable than regular churches, but does not act as the seat of any bishop.

The purpose of designating a church a minor basilica is the recognize the historic nature and importance of the church; essentially it's an honorific that can be bestowed for a variety of reasons as long as the church has demonstrated its notability or magnificence to the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Robert F. McNamara mentions a few different ways a church can do that:

  The petition must show that the church in question is ancient, at least in a relative sense. Or if it has not the dignity of age, it must at least be truly "basilican," that is, "regal" in character. It must, of course, be a permanent church, and solemnly consecrated; and it must be large, spacious, and rich in its appointments. From a devotional standpoint, it must be in some way or other a notable religious center. If it is a shrine by reason of its possession of the body of a saint, so much the better. If it is not distinguished for its relics, it should at least be distinguished for its paintings, images, etc. The staff of the church should be large enough to permit the frequent and splendid performance of solemn rites. All this implies that it should have an ample and stable income; and, as a matter of fact, the Congregation insists that it be informed of the source of the income. In addition to satisfying the Roman authorities on these points, the bishop is requested to send along books or pamphlets containing a description of the exterior and interior of the church, together with photographs.

Because of its notability, minor basilicas have higher precedence than other churches, but they are outside of the cathedral hierarchy: a basilica that is not also a cathedral is not given precedence over a diocese's cathedral.

For the sake of completion, there's also the major basilicas, also known as the Papal basilicas, of which there are four (all in Rome):

Basilica of St. John Lateran
St. Peter's Basilica
Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls
Basilica of St. Mary Major

These are given the highest precedence, and only the Holy Father and his delegates are allowed to conduct mass in them.


No, Jesus did not save us so we can sin as much as we want to.  In fact, the actual consequences of sin are temporary pleasures and lasting pain.  Why, then, would Jesus want us to incur greater amounts of lasting pain?  Sin is always to our loss, perhaps not always physically, but we are not merely physical beings.  We are spiritual beings, so the spiritual consequences of sin are always to our loss.
The epistles are mostly instructions for holy living, and holy living is what we are saved to.  We are saved from sin and its penalty, but we are also saved to something.

For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification.  1 Thessalonians 4:7 NASB
But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior  1 Peter 1:15 NASB

So, the assumption that sin is actually good is invalid.


What exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of the four Marian dogmas, the others being the Divine Maternity, the Immaculate Conception and the Glorious Assumption, which have so far been defined.

Pope Clement VIII in 1603 in Dominici Gregis condemned as heresy the error that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not remain  forever in her virginal integrity, before Christ's birth, in the birth itself, and perpetually after His birth.

This repeats the ancient formula

  ante partum, in partu, et post partum

or

  before giving birth, during the birth and after the birth.

So according to Catholic teaching, yes, Mary's hymen did remain intact during the  miraculous Virgin Birth of Christ. (It would hardly be necessary or seemly to take the phrase that she  remained a vigin during the birth as implying she did not have sex during the birth.) It is Catholic belief that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, with her body intact.

Article 510 of the catechism says:

  Mary remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm


Religious Customs in the Family: The Radiation of the Liturgy into Catholic Homes by Fr. Francis X. Weiser, S.J., mentions this regarding the Feast of the Holy Innocents (a.k.a "Childermas day"):

  December 28, the feast of the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem, is a festive day for little children, according to ancient tradition. In Catholic families, December 28 should be the "feast of babies." The babies themselves cannot consciously celebrate it, of course; but the rest of the family can, with some appropriate observance like decorating the baby crib, having a party "for the baby," and/or blessing the baby with the Sign of the Cross; and everyone can pray to the Holy Innocents for their intercession, that God may bless the baby in body and soul.

Dom Guérenger's The Liturgical Year says this:

  In Rome, the Station for the Feast of St. Stephen is in the Church dedicated to the holy Protomartyr, on Monte Celio; that for St. John is in the Basilica of St. Mary Major; today, the Station is made at St. Paul’s beyond the Walls, which possessed several of the bodies of the Holy Innocents. In the 16th century, Pope Xystus the Fifth caused a portion of these Relics to be translated to St Mary Major’s, and put near the holy Relic of our Lord’s Crib.


What process was used to translate the KJV?

The King James Version or Authorized Version as it was originally known, was translated by a group of 47 scholars.

It was actually a thought-for-thought translation, rather than word-for-word translation.  The idea is that they tried to take the original meaning of the text (not just the individual word) and translate that into the (then) common language.

Compared to modern paraphrase translations, the King James version is almost a word-for-word translation.  However, there were places where the scholars explicitly rejected the word-for-word translation in favor of wording that would make more sense to the contemporary English reader of the day.

Here's an example in Romans 5:2-3

  2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

  3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

The words "rejoice" (in verse 2) and "glory" (in verse 3) are the same word in the original text.  A word-for-word translation would have given the same word for those in both cases.

Having said all of this and in light of today's translations, it's commonly accepted as a word-for-word translation.  If you compare this, for example, to a thought-for-thought translation or a paraphrase, this translation is much closer to the original text (dramatically so in the case of a paraphrase).

While the original scholars intentionally rejected word-for-word translations, it's commonly accepted as a word-for-word translation when compared to thought-for-thought or paraphrase translations.


Athanasian Creed: taking of the Manhood into God

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Apollinarianism provides an excellent background why emphasizing the "taking of the Manhood into God" was necessary.  At the time that the anathema against the heresy was declared in 381, the doctrine of Hypostatical Union was not yet fully developed, so there were a lot of people who believed that Christ's soul was not 100% human, but replaced by the Word.

To answer your question, the creed addressed the ambiguity inherent in the manner of incarnation.

John 1:14 on its own does not seem to sufficiently guarantee that Jesus's soul was fully human.  Reading Pope Damasus's anathema in full makes it clear that the Church needed to emphasize that Christ came in the flesh to also "save the rational and intellective soul of man" which probably what the language "taking of the Manhood into God" refer to.

An extensive discussion can be found in The History and Theology of The Three Creeds Vol II, 1854 by Rev. William Wigan Harvey, M.A, chapter titled "The History of the Athanasian Creed" (starting on page 541).

The chapter begun by discussing the original language, manuscript copies, the liturgical usage in various churches in late antiquity, and the dating which scholars tried to connect with the dating of when various heresies flourished as indicated by some writings of various bishops and church fathers.  Then the chapter made the case of why portions of the creed were tied to the condemnation of the Apollinarian heresy and the confutation of the error of Eutychianism

Relevant quote:

  (page 554-555) The next particular instanced by the Council of Chalcedon is another, in which Apollinaris and Eutyches alike erred, in imagining a mixture or confusion of the two natures in Christ.  It is evident that this notion is condemned in the words of the Creed, 'Unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione Humanitatis in Deum, unus omnino, non confusione Substantiae, sed unitate Personae.'  Both heretics imagined a confusion of substance; the earlier, by declaring the body of Christ to be uncreate and essentially divine, even before the Theophania; the latter by asserting that, after the birth of Jesus, the substance of the Divine Word was, in such a manner, made one with the human body of Christ, as to form of two but one substance.  The later was manifestly a modification of the earlier heresy.  ...

Then in the next chapter titled "The Theology of the Athanasian Creed", starting on page 585, Rev. Harvey provided the theology of every line of the creed.  This is the beginning of the explanation for lines 33 (Unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione Humanitatis in Deum) and 34 (Unus omnino, non confusione Substantiae, sed unitate Personae).  Rev. Harvey pointed out how the two lines should be read together, so I believe the intention of line 33 makes more sense now (see the bold portion below).

  (pages 661-662) We are confirmed again in the opinion that the Creed was written prior to Nestorian times, by the tenour of this article; which first refutes the Apollinarian συναλοιφὴ of two natures, and then subjoins the contrary Catholic tenet, in words that even Nestorius would hardly disclaim; 'One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by the taking of the Manhood into God.'  The impersonation, so to speak, of the Son of Man, was effected by this assumption of the flesh.  The creating of the flesh, and the taking it into God, was but one act.  The Son of Man, before non-existent, now first had a being, the Word, or eternally subsisting Son of God, having taken upon him the flesh; but his personal subsistence was the same; He was the Son of God and the Son of Man, but the person was one, and that person was Christ.  There is a parallelism also of phrase between this verse and the next, that clearly marks this.  The words, 'Unus autem non conversione Divinitatis in carnem,' correspond with the term, 'Unus omnino non confusione substantiae,' the two are in fact identical in meaning; we may look therefore for a correlative identity in the subordinate members; and the statement in the one, 'Sed assumptione Humanitatis in Deum,' will mark the same reality with the words of the other, 'Sed unitate Personae.'   Unity of Person therefore in Christ, both God and Man, has subsisted from the moment that the first rudimental element of humanity was created and 'taken into God.'  Now this truth is very precisely and clearly worked out by Tertullian, in words that run too closely to the purpose to be abridged: 'But we find him expressly declared to be both God and Man; according to the words of the Psalm: "Quoniam Deus Homo natus est in illa, et aedificavit eam voluntate Patris." [footnote Ps lxxxvi. 4. ...]  Surely in every respect, the Son of God and the Son of Man; since [he was] God and Man, and without doubt, according to either substance, distinct in its own property; for neither is the Word any thing else than God, nor is the flesh any thing else than man.  So the Apostle teaches us with regard to the twofold substance; He, "who was made of the seed of David," must be Man, and the Son of Man.  He who hath been demonstrated already to be the Son of God according to the Spirit, must be God, and the Word, the Son of God. ... [the paragraph continues the argument, too long to quote here]  [bold added by me]

The book has been digitized by Google and available to be downloaded in PDF format.


Why was St. Joseph given instructions in dreams? (Roman Catholic perspective)

I am the Eastern Orthodox. But as both we and Catholics honor John Chrysostom as Saint and Doctor of the Church, I think his answer to the original question could be considered as the both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic view:

  And why not openly, as to the shepherds, and to Zacharias, and to the Virgin? The man was exceedingly full of faith, and needed not this vision. Whereas the Virgin, as having declared to her very exceeding good tidings, greater than to Zacharias, and this before the event, needed also a marvellous vision; and the shepherds, as being by disposition rather dull and clownish. But this man, after the conception, and wide the interval between the two men; wherefore neither was there need of rebuke.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200104.htm

Sorry for the bad English.


Agur was a compiler (not the actual Sacred Author) of part of the collection of Proverbs in the book of Proverbs, which forms part of the Old Testament. His contribution to this book is mainly in Chapter 30 of the book. His name could suggest that he is free from earthly transgressions. It could also mean 'He who understood the will of the Lord'.

Lemuel is only mentioned in Chapter 31 of the book of Proverbs, as a King of Israel, most probably referring to King Solomon, son of King David. Still, there is no clear evidence of this. The meaning of his name in Hebrew suggests the he was the one who "belongs to God". This could imply that he was a Spiritual leader, and not an actual king of the Jews, but this remains pure speculation. Some modern studies have also linked Lemuel to the King of Assyria.


How do creationists explain the genetic diversity of animals after Noah's Ark?

Scientifically speaking, evolution is not required for variations within a species.  The only requirement is that all of the genetic information seen in the species today was present in the first generation.  From then on, species experience the isolation of genes through geographic and other factors.

The breeding of new species of dogs does not produce new genetic information--it merely isolates particular genetic information that is already present in the species.  This is a key point--selective breeding does not result in any new information, but actually the loss of information, as only the chosen genes are kept.

In cattle, selective breeding often results in weaknesses within a certain breed.  Hereford cattle are quite susceptible to Pink Eye, but if you have Hereford Angus cross, the weakness in the Hereford Breed, that resulted in a loss of genetic resistance to Pink Eye, is merged back with the lost genetic information that is still present in the Angus breed, yielding a herd with higher genetic resilience.

Different breeds of dogs can still interbreed with each other, as can different breeds of cattle, so there is no new species and no evolution.  Evolution is the creation of new species--variation within a kind is not evolution.

Dogs have, indeed, shown a higher variability than other species, but they are all still dogs.  Another key point, though, is that this doesn't happen in nature, but with a great deal of intervention and unnatural forces brought to bear upon the process (by humans).

The word used in Genesis is probably best translated "kind".  Noah didn't bring Chihuahuas, Poodles, Great Danes, Labrador Retrievers, Beagles, and every other kind of dog.  He brought two mutts, which is basically what you get if you take all the breeds and interbreed them together to undo the genetic isolation.

Furthermore, Noah didn't bring a Chinese, a Korean, a Vietnamese, a Russian, an Arab, a European, a Jew, an African, and a Hawaiian.  There were only eight people, but those eight people contained all the genetic information necessary to produce the variations we see today that have been caused by genetic isolation through geographic and other factors.

There are a lot of resources online about this.  Here's just one.


"Hell's Best Kept Secret" from a Calvinist Perspective

This sort of teaching actually doesn't conflict with Calvinism. Ray Comfort's emphasis on the law and the penalty of sin as an evangelistic tool is not new to him; it has been employed by Calvinists for centuries.  For example, Charles Spurgeon:

I say you have deprived the gospel of its ablest auxiliary when you have set aside the law. You have taken away from it the schoolmaster that is to bring men to Christ. No, it must stand, and stand in all its terrors, to drive men away from self-righteousness and constrain them to fly to Christ. They will never accept grace till they tremble before a just and holy law; therefore the law serves a most necessary and blessed purpose, and it must not be removed from its place.1

John MacArthur similarly teaches that teaching of the law must precede teaching grace:

Grace means nothing to a person who does not know he is sinful and that such sinfulness means he is separated from God and damned.  It is therefore pointless to preach grace until the impossible demands of the law and the reality of guilt before God are preached.2

The Parable of the Sower
This may seem counter-intuitive.  To Calvinists, who believe in Unconditional Election, why would it matter how the Gospel is preached to sinners?  Won't the elect be saved regardless?  George Whitefield sheds some light on this subject:

But you may as well expect a crop of corn on unploughed ground, as a crop of grace, until the soul is convinced of its being undone without a Saviour.  That is the reason we have so many mushroom converts, so many persons that are always happy! happy! happy! and never were miserable.  Why? Because their stony ground is not ploughed up; they have not got a conviction of the law; they are stony-ground hearers.3

Whitefield, of course, is referring to the Parable of the Sower, which describes four types of people: the unresponsive, the impulsive, the preoccupied, and the well-prepared.  A more extensive treatment of this passage from a Calvinist perspective is available, but for now, we notice that Whitefield is arguing that many of the "converts" he sees, because they never understood the law, are actually not Christians: the seed fell on rocky soil, and so it did not grow.
Other Calvinists draw similar lessons from this parable.  The people whose hearts are like rocky soil have emotions that are "superficial, not based on deep-seated convictions," according to Hendriksen.4  Calvin writes that "their hearts are not so properly and thoroughly subdued, as to have the softness necessary for their continued nourishment."5
Calvinism therefore has no objection to "plowing the soil" and preaching the law prior to preaching grace.  The condition of the sinner's heart when he expresses faith matters.
But what about election?
It's true that there is mystery in the doctrine of election.  But just because we don't fully understand how evangelism and election work together does not mean, to Calvinists, that it is acceptable to preach an incomplete Gospel or not preach at all.  Even accepting that our faulty methods will not keep anyone out of heaven, there are two very good reasons to preach the law to those with "rocky" hearts:

Some, being taught the law, would reject Christianity rather than be falsely converted.  This is preferable to having a false hope of salvation (cf. Revelation 3:15–17; Matthew 7:21–23).
Others, being taught the law, will have their hearts softened and will be truly converted.  Without the teaching of the law, God's plan might have been that they be converted later in life.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: given that we do not know who the elect are or when they will come to Christ, it is the evangelist's responsibility to preach the Gospel faithfully (Matthew 28:18–20).  Many Calvinists since the Reformation have regarded the teaching of the law as a critical component of such a faithful Gospel witness.
Summary
Ray Comfort's emphasis on the law, far from contradicting Calvinism, aligns nicely with it.  Faith in the certainty of God's election does not give the Calvinist an excuse to fail to faithfully preach the Gospel, and many Calvinists find the law to be an essential part of it.

References:

"The Perpetuity of the Law of God," May 21, 1882.  (Google Books)
Galatians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary, page 93.
"The Gospel, A Dying Saint's Triumph," in The Revived Puritan, 422.
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 561.
Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Volume 2.

Note: All emphasis in quotes has been added


Why is Cain afraid when he is driven away from God?

Cain was likely afraid of one of his brothers or sisters taking revenge by killing him.  Yes, he was the older brother, but he was also guilty of murder.  If Cain was willing to kill one of his brothers (Abel), then it is reasonable to think that someone else was willing to do the same.  And, as you mentioned, there was no one else around to fear, so Cain did fear that his siblings would take revenge for Abel's sake and take his life.


Adam (and presumably Eve) simply died of old age.

  Genesis 5:5 (NIV)
  5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

As for where they're buried, I don't think that's recorded anywhere in the Bible. Who died first certainly isn't recorded; that bit of trivia likely wouldn't have been important to people of the time.


Prior to Exodus 3:5, was it customary to take off one's shoes on sacred ground?

The practice to remove shoes (and other parts of clothing) in various circumstances seems to permeate throughout ancient cultures. Even with a liberal dating of Exodus around 700 BC, that still places the practice as very old among the Jewish people. Various reasons given include respect and hygene:

  It was a custom for a person to remove their shoes as a mark of respect when approaching a Nazarene, or a place where a Nazarene lived or was buried. The practice primarily related to hygene rules.
  The Bible, The Hallowed Book of Man - Robert George Crosbie

Other sources: Why are sandals considered to be unholy? and Was removing one's shoes a special sign of respect?

To date the practice before Moses, we'd need an older Jewish instance, but they seem hard to find, including the absence in any earlier Biblical stories (both in real dating and chronology). Jews in general believe that the practice was taught to Moses and was not known (at least to them) before that time. For example:

  [T]he Jewish custom that requires mourners who at the conclusion of a funeral to remove their shoes in the graveyard as they depart the palce of burial ... undeniably echoes Jewish behavior on hallowed ground. This is a practice that God taught Moses when he warned him to "take off your shoes from your feet ..."
  When a Jew Dies - Samuel C. Heilman

However, Egyptians removed their shoes when entering their temples, and the story tells us that Moses was raised as a prince by Egyptians, so he should have had much contact with Egyptian priests.

  [Egyptian] priests wore papyrus or palm leaf sandals made so that they could be slipped on from the front or rear. Egyptian priests removed their shoes out of respect for their gods. It was also the custom to remove sandals in the presence of superior rank . Shoes were worn outside the house but never in the home.
  History of Sandals - "Egyptian Sandals"

Conclusion

This seems to me, if we believe Exodus accurately describes Moses' life, strong evidence that Moses was keenly aware of removing foot ware for many reasons, including religious ones.

Extra Information

  The burial of one's own dead in a place in effect turns that place into one's family's hallowed ground on which those who mourn must remove their shoes ... Death numinously transforms these places so that they are no longer profane and are set apart from the rest of the world. These places then serve, as we have seen, as special portals for petitions to heaven, places where the bond connecting mourners, the dead, and God are ritually reenacted and affirmed.
  When a Jew Dies - Samuel C. Heilman

While searching for sources, I found this concept of transformation of the profane into something holy, merely because something divine has happened, opened a few doors for some interesting cultural explanations that do not exist in our modern society. It would seem that the idea that a "divine touch" makes things holy, therefore makes them no longer usable in common use. God touched the ground where the burning bush was, making it holy, but had Moses' shoes then touched that ground, they would also have been made holy and it would then be a blasphemy to use them in common vulgarities.

  [I]t was common practice in many cultures to remove their shoes when walking on sacred ground lest their sandals become transformed.  Contact with hallowed ground would have made their shoes unusable for everyday living.  Priests and other individuals, who regularly were exposed to the divine, often wore special garments that were reserved for that purpose.
  Göbekli Tepe: The Burying Of An Ancient Megalithic Site - Dr. Rita Louise

The author continues, discussing a different culture but contemporary to Moses', and notes that ancient peoples feared unintentionally making things holy:

  A god, or his human counterpart, could not be touched; his possessions could not be handled.  Likewise, if he touched you or something that belonged to you, its status was instantly changed.  The rules of taboo included their home and anything in it.  If a divine agent entered someone’s home, their home became sanctified and no one else could go into it or use it.  Even the ground a divinity walked upon was deemed holy.  Their fear of unintentionally coming into contact with something sacred was so powerful that it became custom in many regions to carry the god-king upon a littler so his feet did not touch the ground.
  ibid

I can't help but reminded of the strict "no touch" rule of the Ark of the Covenant in this instance. I suspect that Moses had many ideas and images about removal of foot ware and some of them may have included ideas such as the above.


How are the different covenants related to or different from each other?

Wikipedia's article on Covenant theology says the following:

Covenant of redemption is a covenant amongst the Godhead in which Christ was appointed to redeem mankind.
Covenant of works is a covenant between God and Adam (representing all mankind) that obedience would bring life and disobedience would bring death.
Covenant of grace "promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ."

Through the covenant of grace, Christ fulfills the covenant of works on behalf of those who receive forgiveness. In this manner Christ also fulfills the covenant of redemption in which he was appointed to redeem mankind.

In my opinion they're not a variation on a theme. They all share the same purpose of salvation for mankind, but they have distinct agreements and expectations of those involved. The covenant of works and covenant of grace are also closely related in that they both promise eternal life, but the former involves God while the latter involves Christ, and the former requires works while the latter requires faith.


What is the biblical basis for the idea that the Bible cannot be understood without aid from God?

Jesus said in Matthew 11:25, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children." By these words we know that God has knowledge to share that we can't get anywhere but from Him. This is reinforced by Jesus saying in Matthew 11:27, "All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

In addition, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9-13: that we cannot comprehend the things of God unless His Spirit reveal them to us, and that is exactly what He has done to those who love Him:

  But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the
  heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

  these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit
  searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s
  thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no
  one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we
  have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from
  God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And
  we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the
  Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

In Galatians 1:12, Paul tells us how he came by the gospel: "For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." This is an amazing admission by a man who was a master of his religion and of its holy book. He who sought to kill the disciples of Christ asserts that God had to reveal information not available to his natural mind in order to grasp its truths.

These are some of the arguments that we need God in order to apprehend spiritual truths, such as those in the Bible.


When Saint Rita was born, how old was her mother?

Ch. 2, "The Birthplace and Parents of St. Rita," of Sicardo & Murphy's 1916 biography of her says Antonio Lotti and Amata Ferri were married in 1309. Ch. 3, "St. Rita's Birth," says "The biographers of St. Rita give the day, date and year of her birth as Saturday, May 22, in the year of Our Lord 1381, during the pontificate of Pope Urban VI."

So, assuming she married at an age of 12* in circa 1297, this means Amata was at least 84 years old** when she had St. Rita.(If she married in her 20s in circa 1289, she would've been at least 92 when she had St. Rita!)
*the youngest age, according to canon law, that a female could marry back then, assuming she reached puberty by then; in fact St. Rita herself became a wife at 12 years of age according to this**cf. Abraham's wife Sarah, who was 90 years old when she had her first child (Gen. 17:17)

Ibid. says:

  Words cannot describe the indescribable joy of Antonio and Amata as, with loving eyes, they gazed on their little daughter whom they considered a precious gift of God, the fruit of their desires, and the reward of their long years of hope and confidence in God. The unexpected news that Amata Ferri had become a mother in her old age was the cause of much surprise, talk, and gossip among the inhabitants of Rocca Porrena. All considered the event as truly miraculous. Every man, woman, and grownup child of the little hamlet went to offer congratulations to the happy and overjoyed parents, and all who gazed on the smiling face of the newborn babe were charmed by the radiance of the little one’s wonderful beauty.