A woman's testimony was considered inadmissible in a court of law. Whose law?

Transistor I feel you. I think oftentimes the answer is not clear but many Christians take comfort in believing all of their church's teachings and their apologists' arguments are valid. When I ask questions about the premises or certain details which seem to be contradictory I am often told not that the answer isn't really known or that the answerer disagrees, but I am wrong and should read a book. In the majority of cases I suspect the person answering knows less than I do about the subject but just doesn't want to be seen admitting that something they believe might be false. Even if it is a modern doctrine. I think this is unfortunate as it has led to many religious splits and wars.

Anyway, in this case if you look at Jewish rabbinical law from the Talmud, women are generally not considered admissible witnesses in a courtroom. Here are sources:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_in_Jewish_law

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0021_0_21003.html -- see Women

Since the Talmud was written by the rabbis who were codifying Jewish law in the tradition of the pharisees starting a mere 100 years after Jesus, it seems likely that this was Jewish law generally at the time when Israel had its own courts.

We are talking here about court testimony, though. How men reacted to women is a related but different matter. The opinions about women as witnesses may have spilled over to the disciples - but given that Jesus freely included women among his group and they were all like a big family, I doubt that this is a criterion for embarrassment any more than other mentions of Mary Magdalene in the Biblical as well as Gnostic gospels.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

Moreover another problem for the argument that the gospel writers "wouldn't have put women" as the first ones to see the tomb is the way this information is treated. Luke specifically pointsout that a bunch of women talking about the body no being there didnt make any sense:

http://biblehub.com/luke/24-11.htm

To me it is much more curious that the subsequent verses describe people talking and walking with Jesus, but not recognizing him. It is interesting what the notion of resurrection really was. These stories all have a bit of a mystical quality.

But to answer your question - yes there is a precedent to suppose that women's testimony was not usually admissible in court and this may have affected the disciples. But these werent just any women, they were the ones who were by Jesus' side when the men had fled. They were around for years and part of the family. It could have been that the disciples didn't believe because the women had trouble relaying such an event.

Consider this also: the gospels differ on what the women saw. As for the centurions who saw things, the gospels claim they were bribed by Jews to say nothing happened. Here is Matthew 27 on the events before the burial:

"51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection ande went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

54When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

55Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons."

The whole thing sounds a bit fantastical - we don't find reports of resurrected saints anywhere else. But assuming this was true, then:

1) Resurrections and coming out of tombs already occurred on a large scale so it's strange why the disciples couldnt believe it happened again.

2) The centurions were already so impressed they were convinced that Jesus was the Son of God. So it's a wonder how they were able to be bribed by Jews to say nothing happened after witnessing the empty tomb of Jesus. Why was the money that big of a deal to them at that point?

To me these are bigger questions than why women saw the empty tomb first.


Scriptural Basis for different kinds of marriage

There is no mention in the Bible either of clergy-officiated marriage ceremonies or of state-officiated marriage ceremonies. That's because neither of them existed in Judaeo-Christian society until relatively recently.

Marriage ceremonies officiated by a priest or minister emerged only in the 1500s, and took another two or three centuries after that to become accepted as the norm in all Western Christian countries. State involvement in marriage developed during the same time period in Europe. (Quick reference: Marriage -> History of Marriage, from Wikipedia. For an extensive history of marriage, see: Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, by Stephanie Coontz.)

Since the Bible itself is silent on both clergy-officiated marriages and state-officiated marriages, which one is preferable or proper is a matter of church doctrine and interpretation, and of social and legal custom, rather than of specific Biblical teaching or narrative. So aside from opinion-based answers, which are not supported on Christianity.SE, the only way the question could be answered would be to refer to the teachings of particular branches or denominations of Christianity.

However, to provide a some biblical background, in Bible times marriage took place primarily in the context of family, social, and inter-tribal or international relationships. Most commonly marriages were arranged by the families of the bride and groom in order to form alliances, solidify inter-family ties, and benefit both parties (families, tribes, or nations) economically. Money or valuables commonly changed hands at the time a marriage was contracted, usually in the form of a bride price. The marriage became legally binding at the time it was arranged, and came fully into effect at the time it was consummated—at which time there was often a feast in celebration of the union.

The most detailed account of marriage practices in the Bible occurs in the story of the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24. In line with the customs of the time, the marriage was arranged between the two families before the bride and groom even saw one another. The family of the groom gave expensive presents both to the bride herself and to the bride's family. The union was completed when Rebekah was brought back to Isaac and the marriage was consummated in the tent of Sarah, the deceased mother of the groom. (The consummation is implied rather than explicitly stated.)

Another account providing insight into ancient Hebrew marriage customs occurs in the marriage of Jacob to Leah and Rachel in Genesis 29:14–30. Since Jacob had brought no wealth with him, and was at that time cut off from his family, the arranged bride price was seven years of labor. However, there was a bit of trickery involved. Jacob had contracted to marry Rachel in return for seven years of labor. But her father Laban substituted Leah, Rachel's older sister, at the time the marriage was to be consummated. (Apparently there was plenty of good wine at the wedding feast!) Since his marriage with Leah was now consummated and could therefore not be undone according to the marriage customs of the time, Jacob was obliged to perform another seven years of labor for Laban as a bride price for Rachel.

The role of marriage in international relations can be seen in the later story of Solomon taking "700 wives, who were princesses [from the surrounding nations], and 300 concubines" (1 Kings 11:3). This built up Solomon's wealth by establishing treaty and trade relationships with the surrounding nations. But it ultimately led to the downfall of the unified kingdom of Israel under his son Rehoboam because Solomon began building shrines to the gods and goddesses of his foreign wives, contrary to the commandments of the God of Israel. For the story in its context, see 1 Kings 10–11.

The story of the wedding at Cana in John 2:1–12 offers a peek into wedding practices in New Testament times. Here there is mention of the wedding feast, which was a common practice in the ancient world. But as we would expect, there is no mention of any officiating priest, nor of any involvement of the state, since as mentioned earlier, these involvements did not develop until 1,500 years later. The Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1–14 and The Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1–12 provide additional insight into wedding practices in New Testament times and culture.

Yes, there are laws in the Bible about marriage and adultery, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. But none of these laws require or assume any clergy or state involvement in the wedding. Marriages were simply accepted as valid when they were formed according to the social customs of the day, as described briefly above.

About the most we can conclude from the Bible's descriptions of and laws concerning marriage, then, is that marriage is generally to be done according to the social, legal, and religious customs of the time, and that once the marriage is so formed, recognized, and accepted, the laws relating to it become binding upon the couple, and upon society in relation to them as a married couple.


Do Paul and the other Apostles command the keeping of Kosher diet in Acts 15:29?

The forbidding of blood comes from before the time of Moses :

But flesh with the life thereof, the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Genesis 9:4 - KJV

After the Flood, in a new arrangement, flesh is given men to eat, but not blood. In a world now cleansed with water, flesh is made available :

... my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world
John 6:51 - KJV

Blood is not given to unrepentant mankind to consume. The blood of the everlasting covenant is received by faith, Hebrews 13:20.
So neither blood, nor things strangled (instead of having the throat cut and the blood drained out) are permitted to the gentiles. This is not because of Jewish practice, it is because the commandment of God to Noah pertains to everyone on earth until the end of time.
Meats offered to idols is a matter of fellowship with idols which Paul makes even clearer to the Corinthian believers in the eighth chapter of First Corinthians.
Again, it is not a matter of Jewish practice, or custom, it is a matter of contemporary fellowship with local idolatry.


The translation asserting that Deity 'is persecuted' appears to come from the KJV of 1611.

Neither the Coverdale 1535, The Matthew's 1537, The Great Bible 1539, The Geneva Bible 1560 or The Bishop's Bible 1568 have that rendering.

The Webster of 1833 follows the KJV in that place.

Neither Young's Literal Translation nor Green's Literal Translation follow the KJV :

  He who is smiting peoples in wrath, A smiting without intermission, He who is ruling in anger nations, Pursuing without restraint! Young's Literal 1862.

All references are from Textus Receptus Bibles

Nor does that translation come from the Vulgate because neither the Wycliffe of 1388 nor the Douay Rheims (OT 1609) render the text in that way.


Why do Christians appeal to personal gain and inducing fear when attempting to "convert" people?

These two lines of reasoning are, as you've presented them, problematic as you suggest. Ideally, they'd be used together and be founded in the true message of the gospel.

First, the few details to be cleared up:

  I don't understand how can someone venerate Jesus for his act of ultimate selflessnes and love (the crucifixion) but at the same time try to lead people to Jesus by appealling to their desire for personal gain.

Good point. Firstly, though, personal gain isn't bad. It's great. We're wired to want the best for ourselves - and God's given us plenty of things to enjoy. Personal gain and selflessness are not necessarily mutually exclusive - however, in this fallen world, we often must sacrifice personal gain in order to show selflessness. Secondly, there is no comparison between the earthly gain we sacrifice and the heavenly joy we inherit. The latter is so great, so wonderful, that we should want to do anything to attain it. Additionally, keep in mind that the default state of mankind before sin was to be in the presence of God. Made in the image of God, we want to get back to that state, but we can't. Faith in Christ offers us a chance to do that.

Of course, you're right - both of these reasons are alone insufficient, and lack the true message. That message is this: that despite our sinful state before God that should place us in hell according to his justice (appeal to fear), God has sent his Son to die for us and give us the inheritance of Christ and eternity with him. (appeal to joy)

So the real reason anyone should want this faith is out of gratitude - sheer gratitude. Even if God had simply saved us from Hell, but not given us anything else, we'd be so eternally grateful because Hell is so eternally terrible that we'd want to give him everything. But he's not only given us mercy, but grace, so our gratitude abounds, and our faith is sincere.


A set of traits common for all protestant believers

This is similar to this response I made to the question, 'Do Evangelical leaders (televangelists, megachurch pastors, etc…) not consider themselves Protestants?'. But, essentially the primary doctrine that set Protestantism apart, and was a primary cause of the reformation to begin with is Justification By Faith: that salvation comes entirely from Christ's atoning work on the cross.

Without turning this into the wikipedia article on protestantism, there are a number of other doctrines that have come to dominate the thinking of most modern protestants including, the priesthood of all believers (which is why protestants call their clerics pastors instead of priests), and the five solas, including sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone").


How does Sola Scriptura understanding of the Bible affect the anagogical sense of the Bible?

It is true that sola scriptura is in some sense a reactionary doctrine. It's largely set against extra-Biblical revelation, rather than "wrongly" interpreting the Bible itself. In itself, a sola scriptura position does not necessarily oppose an allegorical or anagogical meaning, though it would resist interpreting an otherwise historical-looking passage in solely metaphorical terms. The original reformers were not shy about using anagogical interpretation for homilectic purposes, provided the anagogical meaning is also found in Scripture. So the basic suspicion is about finding new beliefs from non-literal reading. This comes from the "clarity of Scripture" doctrine more than from sola scriptura itself, though the two are closely related.

My favourite example of the "four senses" is Dante's exposition of Psalm 113:1-2 (aka 114:1-2) in his letter to Can Grande della Scala. The Psalm text reads, in the Douay-Rheims:

  When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a barbarous people, Judea was made his sanctuary, Israel his dominion.

Dante explains how the text supports multiple simultaneous meanings:

  If we look at it from the letter alone it means to us the exit of the Children of Israel from Egypt at the time of Moses; if from allegory, it means for us our redemption done by Christ; if from the moral sense, it means to us the conversion of the soul from the struggle and misery of sin to the status of grace; if from the anagogical, it means the leave taking of the blessed soul from the slavery of this corruption to the freedom of eternal glory.

None other than John Calvin writes (Institutes of the Christian Religion II.8.15, edition of 1559, translated by Henry Beveridge in 1845):

  We again, instead of supposing that the matter has no reference to us, should reflect that the bondage of Israel in Egypt was a type of that spiritual bondage, in the fetters of which we are all bound, until the heavenly avenger delivers us by the power of his own arm, and transports us into his free kingdom. Therefore, as in old times, when he would gather together the scattered Israelites to the worship of his name, he rescued them from the intolerable tyranny of Pharaoh, so all who profess him now are delivered from the fatal tyranny of the devil, of which that of Egypt was only a type.

I would count this as an anagogical interpretation of the Exodus, along the same lines as Dante, and even using substantially the same terminology of spiritual slavery and freedom. More specifically, this is an example of typology, where historical Biblical events are interpreted as prefiguring the nature, life and teaching of Christ. The nice feature of typology from a Protestant perspective is that it adds to the plain reading of the text, rather than replacing it.

In general, Calvin does not seem to mind adding a meaning to the text, when it's a matter of finding "the moral of the story" (so long as that moral is consistent with what the Bible says elsewhere). What he doesn't like is any attempt to use a symbolic meaning in opposition to the literal meaning, especially if he suspects someone of trying to "explain away" moral precepts. Also, these readings are used to illuminate pre-existing doctrine, rather than to justify beliefs that aren't otherwise founded in Scripture. This is where the sola scriptura comes in: from the beliefs that nothing essential to salvation can be found outside the Bible, and that Scripture is perspicuous, it would follow that nothing new can be discovered by anagogical interpretation.

The same pattern holds for Martin Luther, who explicitly uses the term "anagogical" in his Dictata super Psalterium (1514), and often employs typological interpretation. Luther also argues for the perspicuity of Scripture; in On the Bondage of the Will (1525) he says "I will have no one part of it called obscure" (Sec. 37) and objects to the idea that special help is required to extract meaning from the Bible. But this does not stop him from using anagogical reading to further explain any point of Christian belief.

Final example: Philipp Melanchthon wrote in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1530), commenting on Numbers 28:4, "The Law had pictures or shadows of future things. Accordingly, in this spectacle Christ and the entire worship of the New Testament are portrayed." His commentary on John's gospel also makes use of allegory, where for example Mary is seen as sometimes representing the Church, and sometimes the individual believer, in addition to being literally Mary.

Later Protestants have often resisted overly "fanciful" allegorical interpretations, under which the literal meaning is lost, and one has to resort to complex and obscure symbolism. They would all still accept those interpretations that are explicitly stated in the New Testament (such as the "sign of Jonah" in Matthew 12:39), however. Modern Biblical literalism is partly a reaction against this kind of reading, and goes further than the original reformers did. The sola scriptura and clarity motivations are the same, just more strongly expressed, about whether there can be anything in the non-literal meaning of the Bible that is not also in the literal sense.


Can you be Christian while wishing death upon another?

First of all, this is definitely something that should be left to God. A great example is in Jude:

  Jude 1:9 (NLT)

  9 But even Michael, one of the mightiest of the angels, did not dare accuse the devil of blasphemy, but simply said, “The Lord rebuke you!” (This took place when Michael was arguing with the devil about Moses’ body.)

Satan is certainly the evilest being in existence, but even Michael left Satan's punishment up to God.

Also, consider these verses in Romans:

  Romans 12:19-20 (NLT)

   19 Dear friends, never take revenge. Leave that to the righteous anger of God. For the Scriptures say,
     “I will take revenge;
        I will pay them back,”
        says the Lord.
   20 Instead,
     “If your enemies are hungry, feed them.
        If they are thirsty, give them something to drink.
     In doing this, you will heap
        burning coals of shame on their heads.”

Again, leave it to God. He can do it way better than we can.

Also, instead of hating our enemies, we are called to love them instead.

  Matthew 5:44 (NLT)

  44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!

That being said...when the current event was Osama's death, a few of my Christian friends (and I) said that while they had not wished for Osama's death nor were they happy about the death itself, they were glad that Osama had been removed from his position at the head of Al Qaeda.


Are these assertions about Christ correct?

No, the conclusions are not correct. The line of reasoning underlying this homily amounts to a conflation of metaphors.

We are Christ

This one is tolerably permissible. It's a truncation of "We are the body of Christ" (e.g "Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member." 1 Corinthians 12:27). This would have to be understood as all baptized Christians belong to the one body ( the Church) of which Christ is the head.

Christ is a woman
Christ is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer

These are not only incorrect but by Catholicism they would be considered blasphemous and heretical. The name Christ refers to the Hypostatic Union of the Word of God and the man. Christ, as a man, was male ("And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb." Luke 2:21). Catholicism also is clear that humans are born either as male or female; there is no metaphysical possibility of being born in a body of the wrong sex and thus it would be heretical to ascribe such a state to the God-man.
For example, Genesis 1:26-27 says "And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them." The Church has understood this to mean that an individual human has a spiritual soul and is created by God as male or female.
The Council of Vienne (1311-1312) condemned the position that "the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body" (DH 902 as cited in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, pg. 107). The "form" of the human body is in contrast to the Platonic and Cartesian idea of an external union like a pilot with a ship. While Catholic theologians are undecided on whether the soul itself is male or female, it remains impossible for the form (potential) and body (actual) to differ in an essential quality and thus the question is if the soul isn't the source of the other sex, what is? Ultimately, there is no part of the human person where that attribute could originate as a result of the direction creation of God.

in Christ I am lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer

(and his similar statements around racial and gender categories)
These are incorrect but bordering on nonsensical. These seem to derive from taking statements like "There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) in a more than literal way. The context both here and for the similar line in Colossians 3:21 is not that those categories don't exist anymore or that by belonging to Christ you assume those categories from others who belong to Christ, but rather that all people regardless of those categories can be redeemed from their sins and saved.


Are the images of Jesus drawn with blond hair and blue eyes correct?

There was an interesting show years ago to find out what Jesus looked like, and he would be darker skinned than he is depicted for a couple of obvious reasons, one being that due to his origin from a group that lived in a desert-like region, and the fact that he was a carpenter meant that he worked outside a great deal, so he would be tanned.

But, the fact that we show Jesus as white is due to our familiarity with it, I remember visiting a black friend when I was a child and he had pictures of a black Jesus and a black Santa, and that struck me as wrong (I was probably 7 at the time).

For more information you can look at this article, as they have an approximate picture and more details as to how it was decided that how Jesus may have looked: The Real Face Of Jesus - Advances in forensic science reveal the most famous face in history.


What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?

The idea of a kingdom in the biblical sense is not just a sphere under the royal power of a monarch, but a living supra terrestrial life of which God sits on a throne as a redeemer, priest, prophet, judge and king. All in this sphere are redeemed by his blood and born into this invisible realm by faith.  Jehovah in Christ is their God, master and royal Lord.  Christ is that single person who possesses everything under his rule and so he is filled with royal glory.

The idea of God's kingdom is related to those images found in David and promised in Messiah, but it is God himself in his divinity that is the root of the definition:

And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.  “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” (Isaiah 6:3-5, NIV)

As far as the term 'kingdom of God' verses 'kingdom of heaven' there is no difference. Mathew wrote primarily to a Jewish audience that preferred to avoid the term God, as it was taboo to speak his holy name. However, the other evangelists seem to prefer 'kingdom of God' as Gentiles would more easily understand the Messianic aspect from that term, rather then revert to their own philosophical notions of 'heaven'.


What is the "Jews' language" spoken of in Nehemiah 13:24?

A modern translation of the passage in question, Neh 13:23-29, clears up your 3rd question: "half" referred to half of their children, who could only speak the language of their wives, the language spoken in Ashdod, Ammon, or Moab.

Here's verses 23-24, ESV translation:

  23 In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. 24 And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people.

Your first two questions can be answered from the following excerpt from the New International Commentary of the Old Testament: The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.  In short, "speech of Ashdod" refers to a language very similar to Aramaic spoken by the children, while "Jews' language" refers to the Hebrew language used in the temple.

  23-27 Another continual problem was the marriages to foreigners (cf. Ezra 9–10; Neh. 6:18;
  10:31 [Eng. 30]). On his arrival, Ezra had tackled this problem. Drastic measures were taken and the foreign wives and their children were sent away. But when Nehemiah came, the problem was still not resolved, as we learn from Neh. 6:18. As part of the covenant renewal described in Neh. 10 the marriages are again mentioned. The people solemnly undertook not to marry foreigners. In Neh. 13:1–3 the presence of Ammonites and Moabites in the cultic congregation is strictly forbidden. So after Nehemiah’s departure to the Persian court this problem must have developed again. If we take the view that everything was under control when Nehemiah left Jerusalem, we may deduce from the fact that the children spoke a foreign dialect that quite a time had elapsed between his departure and arrival. Soon after his arrival he discovered that children of foreign wives of Jews spoke Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite. We know from inscriptions that Moabite was closely related to Hebrew.¹ We may presume that Ashdodite and Ammonite were languages very similar to Aramaic.² This is substantiated to a certain extent by the discovery of an ostracon in Nebi Yunus that is written in Aramaic.³

  Ashdodite: for Ashdodites cf. our discussion of 4:7:

  The Ashdodites were the western neighbors. Their territory consisted of the whole area where the Philistines once lived.³ To the north were the Samaritans with their leader Sanballat. From a bird’s-eye view Nehemiah gives the four neighboring provinces of the Persian empire. The plot against Nehemiah was contrived by all his neighbors, a grave situation indeed. Judah was totally isolated, cut off from the caravan routes from South Arabia and from the Mediterranean Sea to the west.

  The language of the Jews (Heb. yehûḏîṯ): this is quite probably Hebrew. If we take all this into consideration, we may presume that there was little linguistic difference between Hebrew and Moabite. The vernacular of the Jews was probably Aramaic, so that some difference between this and Ashdodite and Ammonite would exist. What was then precisely the difference? No doubt dialectal differences were involved as well as the different pronunciation of sounds.⁴ Nehemiah was able to distinguish between the language spoken by children of foreign women and by regular Jewish children. Because Hebrew was the language of the cult, people with such a different language could not be permitted to participate in Jewish religious life. For the religion it was therefore a new and dangerous development. Nehemiah tackled this problem vehemently. He brought in a court case (rîḇ) against his people before the Lord (cf. 5:7; 13:11, 17).

As to whether the Hebrew language was Biblical Hebrew (BH) or Mishanic Hebrew (MH), see quotes from the paper A Linguistic Introduction to the Origins and Characteristics of Early Misnaic Hebrew as it Relates to Biblical Hebrew):

  Mishnaic Hebrew (MH), also referred to as Rabbinic Hebrew (RH), characterizes Hebrew literature produced by rabbinic scholars from approximately 70
  C.E. to 400-500 C.E. (thus, the common phrase leshon hakhamim “the language
  of the sages”).  Within this timeframe, MH can be divided into the earlier language of the tannaim “repeaters” (ca. 70-250 C.E.) and the latter language of
  the amoraim “speakers” (ca. 3rd-5th century C.E.). Tannaitic Hebrew is found in
  the Mishna, Tosefta, Halakhic Midrashim, and Seder Olam Rabbah, while
  Amoraic Hebrew characterizes the Jerusalem Talmud, Haggadic Midrashim,
  and the Babylonian Talmud.

  ...

  The notion that MH existed orally for centuries prior to the Tannaitic
  period is generally accepted, but what was the process by which it became a literary language? Kutscher argues that a Hebrew-Aramaic mix developed after
  the exile and was used throughout Palestine until the 1st century B.C.E. when
  Rome invaded Judea. Instead of MH flowing directly out of BH as Segal
  argued, it is more likely that both BH and MH developed synchronically as
  diglossic dialects. If this was indeed the case, BH would have functioned as a
  “high” but dead literary language and MH the “low” vernacular.

  According to Kutscher, foreign attacks on the Jewish state, their political
  center, and their national identity, served as the impetus to BH phasing out and
  MH replacing it as the standard literary form. MH then became the new “high”
  language with Aramaic and Greek becoming the vulgar tongues.

  ...

  It appears highly probable that MH did exist as a living language in and around Palestine in the Second Temple Period, and in many ways
  developed out of and alongside BH. The features of MH highlighted in this
  study are characteristic of that development and additionally testify to significant Aramaic influence.

Since the process of MH development must barely have started during the time of Nehemiah, the high literary language used in the temple must have been Biblical Hebrew.


Lordship salvation is basically when you submit yourself to Christ, obeying him, turning from sin, and receiving him as your Lord. The premise: that Jesus cannot be one's Savior without also being his Lord.
This is a theological dispute, sometimes called the "Lordship salvation controversy", or "Lordship Controversy". One site that takes this from two views with John F. MacArthur Jr. on one side, and Charles C. Ryrie on the other, says:

The issue as seen by those who believe in lordship salvation (e.g., MacArthur) is that someone who is truly saved will produce fruit that will attest to the genuineness of his faith, because he will have acknowledged Jesus not only as his Savior, but as his Lord as well.
Those who reject lordship salvation (e.g., Ryrie), believe that someone may have genuine faith in Christ, but the fact that he continues in his sin demonstrates that he has not made Jesus his Lord, only his Savior. According to Ryrie, just because someone sins or acts in disobedience (even habitually) doesn't mean he doesn't have saving faith.

I am not really sure if this is the position of any Major Churches; I would guess that it is more of an individual belief, not at all seen as "derogatory".


Is the Catholic declaration of an extra biblical saint infallible?

The opinion on this issue seems to be divided.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, at least by the beginning of the XX century (i.e. pre Second Vatican Council) "most of" theologians thought canonisation involved an infallible claim. This is partly based on St. Thomas Aquinas's view:

"Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." (Quodlib. IX, a. 16)

However, there are divergent opinions. This much more recent article deals a great length with precisely this question. It starts by recognising the contemporaneity of aforementioned position:

Currently, it is the opinion of a majority of Catholic theologians that the canonization of Saints by the Pope is an exercise of papal infallibility. The Congregation for the Causes of the Saints (CCS) supports this opinion. And some Bishops also believe and teach this idea.

However, the author argues that actually, canonisation is not an infallible act. The author states:

Is the canonization of a Saint a doctrine of faith or morals? No, it is a judgment and decision, make by proper authority in the Church, that a person lived an exemplary holy life and was faithful to the teachings of Christ and His Church. Canonization is not a teaching, so it cannot fall under the teaching authority of the Church.

Why?

... the Magisterium is absolutely limited to teaching the truths found, explicitly or implicitly, in Tradition and Scripture. Therefore, the Magisterium is completely unable to teach that any person is a Saint (except for those persons mentioned in Tradition or Scripture). Neither the Pope himself, nor the entire Body of Bishops united with him, can teach that such a person is a Saint. The Pope cannot teach this infallibly, under papal infallibility, nor can he teach it even non-infallibly, under the Ordinary Magisterium. Likewise, the Bishops united with the Pope, even in an Ecumenical Council, cannot teach that such a person is a Saint. For the Magisterium is unable to teach truths found entirely outside of the Deposit of Faith.
Now the Saints who are mentioned in Tradition and Scripture, such as Saint Peter the Apostle, are a separate case. Since their lives and holiness is attested to in infallible Divine Revelation, the Church can infallibly teach their holiness and can infallibly declare them to be Saints. But most Saints have lived long after the canon of Scripture was closed. For unless the life of a Saint is a part of Sacred Tradition (e.g. the mother of the Virgin Mary), or unless a Saint is mentioned in Sacred Scripture (e.g. the father of the Virgin Mary, called Heli), such a Saint’s canonization cannot be considered a part of the teachings of the Church, nor of the Magisterium, neither infallibly nor non-infallibly.

More details on the article itself.


In John 2 (NIV), it says:

  23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people
  saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. 24 But
  Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He
  did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each
  person.

In the KJV, it says:

  23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day,
  many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

  24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all
  men,

  25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was
  in man.

While this does not say outright that Jesus did not consort with mystics, it attacks the very basis of the mystical approach to knowledge.

In the Socratic method of the Greeks, a teacher would ask questions and the pupils would answer them and the process would lead them to truth. Jesus needed no such dialogue to establish or explore truth. He did not need a school of researchers to perform experiments and write papers that he could attach his name to. All truth originated within Jesus.


Was Augustine opposed to the death penalty?

Henry Chadwick translates the relevant passage:

  A man enjoying a reputation for eloquence takes his position before a human judge with a crowd of men standing round and attacks his opponent with ferocious animosity. He is extremely vigilant in precautions against some error in language, but is indifferent to the possibility that the emotional force of his mind may bring about a man's execution.36

Here, Henry gives the clear impression that Augustine's illustration is alluding to the possibility of a real execution.

However, J.G. Pilkington renders the passage this way:

  When a man seeking for the reputation of eloquence stands before a human judge while a thronging multitude surrounds him, inveighs against his enemy with the most fierce hatred, he takes most vigilant heed that his tongue slips not into grammatical error, but takes no heed lest through the fury of his spirit he cut off a man from his fellow-men.

And Edward Bouverie Pusey renders it:

  In quest of the fame of eloquence, a man standing before a human judge, surrounded by a human throng, declaiming against his enemy with fiercest hatred, will take heed most watchfully, lest, by an error of the tongue, he murder the word "human being"; but takes no heed, lest, through the fury of his spirit, he murder the real human being.

Both of these translators are giving us Augustine's portrayal of a man whose unbridled anger destroys his brother in the same sense Jesus explains in Matthew 5:21-22

Conclusion

Based on Henry Chadwick's likely misunderstanding of an important detail in Augustine's illustration, together with the lack of citation for his claim in the footnote, I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in his having accurately remembered Augustine's position on capital punishment. Perhaps he is inadvertently giving us his own.


Can someone explain the argument that Jesus believed in Adam and Eve?

In order to interpret what Jesus is saying in Matthew 19:4, you must first understand the reference he is making.

From Matthew 19:4:

  4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
  5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
  6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." - Matthew 19:4-6 ESV

The bolded portion above is taken from Genesis:

  20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
  21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
  22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
  23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
  24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
  25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. - Genesis 2:20-25 ESV

That section of Genesis is dealing specifically with Adam and Eve, and by referencing it in the way that Jesus does, he is using the correct interpretation of the law to respond to a test by the Pharisees.  As such, it is a direct reference, not a parable.   Also note that he says:

  he who created them from the beginning made them male and female

Created from the beginning as male and female, along with a direct Genesis reference to Adam and Eve is a strong indication of Jesus' acknowledgement of the veracity of the Adam and Eve account.


Is the Star Wars "Church of the Force" a revival of the Manichaean heresy?

What did Filmmaker George Lucas set out to do with Star Wars?

George Lucas says he wanted to retell old mythology with classical mythological motifs in a new way. - Cf. The Mythology of STAR WARS, YouTube posting by Shawn Schaitel.

What is the Force according to George Lucas?

There is a dark side and there is a light side. A selfish side and a selfless side. One has to keep them balanced. Actually the balance is NOT to go down to the dark side, whose path, which produces short-lived pleasure, is a selfish person wanting and/or accumulating stuff; afraid of losing or having the stuff acquired taken away makes one angry. That anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. The dark side never leads to satisfaction but unhappiness because the person always wants and is afraid to lose what they have already obtained. On the other hand the sefless person has the joy of giving and there is no pain. - Cf. George Lucas on the Force interview (2010), YouTube posting by John Smith.

Are there religious themes in Star Wars?

Yes and this is to be expected as old mythology with classical mythological motifs have religious themes. For example in the The Mythology of STAR WARS YouTube video linked above, common in religions he researched was that evil characters have horns.

Does the Force align with the Manichæism?

Manichæism, a religion founded by the Persian Mani in the latter half of the third century, purported to be the true synthesis of all the religious systems then known, and actually consisted of Zoroastrian Dualism, Babylonian folklore, Buddhist ethics, and some small and superficial, additions of Christian elements. Manichæism is classified as a form of religious Dualism.

From the way George Lucas describes the Force, it is the person themselves who choose to go to the dark side or the light side of the force, while my understanding of dualism is that reality is the outcome of two eternally opposed and coexisting principles, conceived as good and evil, light and darkness, or some other form of conflicting powers. Therefore George Lucas' Force does not align with Manichæism.

What is the difference between the way Catholicism portrays the balance between good and evil and the way is is portrayed in Star Wars?

To be clear, Catholicism does not teach that there is a balance between good and evil. Catholicism teaches that God is the Supreme Infinite Good and all the good that the creatures have is a participation in this goodness. Evil arises with free creatures, first the angels and then men who disobey and then go on to oppose or not fulfill God's will for them. In Catholicism, evil is no match for Good and will eventually and for ever be vanquished.

Where George Lucas' Force is similar to Catholicism's understanding of Good and evil, is that it is preferable for a person to choose the light side of the Force [choose Good over evil] because they will find happiness along this path.

Further Reference

Charlie Rose George Lucas.


Did Paul read aloud his letters to the Corinthians? To the Philippians? Other books?

The Bible informs us that Paul was a powerful orator and we have evidence of the impact of his public speaking, for example as recorded in Acts 17:16-34.

However, there is no “evidence” that Paul, having written or dictated letters to the various churches scattered throughout Italy, Greece and Asia, then stood up in the church and delivered his message like a sermon.  The only responses you are likely to get to your question are opinions, which do not constitute “evidence” and that is why some have voted to have this question closed.

However, it is possible to establish a timeline showing approximately when he wrote his various letters, when he was on his three missionary journeys and when he was imprisoned.  One certainty is that Paul wrote Ephesians, Philemon, Colossians and Philippians during his first Roman imprisonment and his second letter to Timothy during his second Roman imprisonment.

This timeline is an approximation of the dates of Paul’s missionary journeys and when he wrote to the various churches that had been established during those trips.

1st Missionary Journey AD 46-48 (Acts 13-14): Paul and Barnabas leave the church at Antioch in Syria. At first, their method of evangelism was to preach in the town synagogues. After many of the Jews rejected Christ, they recognized the need to witness to the Gentiles.

Galatians written circa AD 47

1 & 2 Thessalonians written circa AD 49-51

2nd Missionary Journey AD 50-52 (Acts 15:36-18:22): After another stay in Antioch, building up the church there, Paul takes Silas to Asia Minor after which God providentially redirects them to Greece, bringing the gospel to Europe. At Philippi, the missionary team is beaten and imprisoned. Traveling on to Athens, Paul preaches to an inquisitive audience on Mars Hill.  Paul taught those who believed in Christ and established them in churches.

1 & 2 Corinthians and letter to Romans written between AD 52 and 56

3rd Missionary Journey AD 53-57 (Acts 18:23-20:38): During Paul’s third journey, he fervently preached in Asia Minor. Acts 20:7-12 tells of Paul at Troas preaching an exceptionally long sermon. Once involved in the occult, the new believers at Ephesus burned their magic books. At the end of Paul’s third missionary journey, he knew he would soon be imprisoned and probably killed. His final words to the church at Ephesus display his devotion to Christ (Acts 20:18-24).

During Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome (AD 60-62) he writes to the Ephesians, Philemon, the Colossians, and the Philippians; his first letter to Timothy and letter to Titus written circa AD 62.

During Paul’s second imprisonment in Rome (AD 63-64) he writes his second letter to Timothy.

Paul dies AD 67/68

Whether Paul personally delivered sermons to the various churches he established throughout Syria, Galatia, Asia and Greece in no way affects the power of the letters he wrote.  Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit and because of that, his written words are every bit as important and meaningful as anything he spoke.  These days, it seems to me (and this is my own personal opinion) that people are too easily swayed by powerful speakers with charismatic personalities but who may be preaching a false gospel.  We don’t need somebody to stand up in a pulpit and tell us what to believe.  All we need is recorded in the Bible, which is the Word of God, and it is by reading God’s Word and believing in its message that we are blessed.

You would benefit from buying a Study Bible (such as the New International Version, The New Living Translation or the English Standard Version) because they contain lots of useful information on what was going on back then, and provide timelines and maps that help to bring the events and the characters to life.


How does Pope Benedict XVI reconcile conscience and authority?

Hmmm. Thanks for this question. First, it prompted me to read the relevant section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 1776-1802). In brief, the Catechism says this-

Man must obey his conscience.
Man must recognize that his conscience can be erroneous and seek to inform it.
Conscience can remain in ignorance, and such ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. So man cannot say that "well, my conscience compelled me to do it, so I cannot be blamed". (In the case that the priest refers to, this 3rd clause most definitely applies. Those people whose consciences tell them to vote in opposition to Catholic teaching must ensure that they inform their consciences).

We can safely assume that Pope Benedict XVI, being a practicing Catholic, holds all of the above three.

Now, coming to the text you cited, what struck me was the first two words -

  "For Newman..."

This means that Joseph Ratzinger is referring to Newman's views on the subject. Now, Newman is quoted in the Catechism, paragraph 1778. The  footnote for CCC 1778 says -

  John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk," V, in
  Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching II
  (London: Longmans Green, 1885), 248.

If we read the letter cited in the above footnote, we find that Newman explains his position on conscience. According to Newman, conscience must always be obeyed. He also says that conscience and papal infallibility can never be in conflict. According to Newman, conscience and ecclesiastical authority can be in conflict in matters that do not pertain to infallibility. But Newman also agrees that it is possible to have an erroneous conscience. I suppose that Ratzinger holds the same, namely that conscience should be obeyed over and above the pope in matters where the pope is not infallible, whereas genuine ecclesiastical obedience is expected in matters where he is.


When was the Bible formally declared to be inerrant and/or infallible?

A biblical case for inerrancy can certainly be made on the basis of passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:16, but these are limited in that they do not obviously refer to the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.  So to address this question it's best to turn to the writings of the early fathers.

Clear statements of the truthfulness and perfection of the Bible appear very early.  Here are several examples:

Clement of Rome (?–99)

  Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them. (Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 45.  In chapter 47 he cites Paul as an inspired author)

Justin Martyr (100–165)

  I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 65)

Irenaeus (?–202)

  the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit (Against Heresies, 2.28.2)

Tertullian (155–240)

  The statements, however, of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth. (A Treatise on the Soul, chapter 21)

The definition of "Scripture" for these authors varied to some extent, but later fathers, like Augustine, more carefully emphasized the importance of defining a canon and gave even more explicit statements of inerrancy:

  I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. (Letter 82)


Did St.Thomas really throw water in the air (in India) and it remained airborne?

I looked for such an account in the recent Synaxarion compiled by the Monastery of Simonos Petra on Mt. Athos, as well as an English translation of Dmitri of Rostov's 17th century Great Collection of The Lives of the Saints and I can't find anything like this account.  Both of these works are multi-volume collections  and extremely detailed.  Dmitri of Rostov's account of St. Thomas' Life is 14 pages long, but doesn't have anything similar I could find.

The most famous account of St. Thomas in India seems to be how he collected money from a great King to build him a mansion, but kept giving the money to the poor.  When the King found out what he had done, he was furious and had Thomas imprisoned.  The King's brother died suddenly, though, and was vouchsafe a vision of heaven, where he saw an enormous golden mansion being built for his brother by virtue of Thomas' good deeds to the poor.  He came back to life and both he and his brother became Christians as a result.


Do Presbyterian Protestants have a 'day of rest' or a 'day of religious works'?

The position of the Westminster Confession of Faith regarding Sabbath day observance may help to explain why you were exhorted to “think spiritual thoughts all day on a Sunday” and that “you must not let your mind wander”:

  As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.
  This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
  https://www.rts.edu/Site/About/Reformed_tradition/WestminsterConfession/wc_ch21.aspx

It has been my observation that SOME Protestant denominations place great emphasis on what could be described as “maximum religious exertion” by running around like headless chickens on a Sunday, from dawn to dusk, participating in church-related activities.  However, the Westminster Confession does advocate observing a day of rest from secular activities (including employment and recreation).  No doubt those Protestant Christians who are actively engaged in Sunday services do so gladly and willingly and would not describe it as “work.”

Although I am not in a position to comment on the Presbyterian view of the Sabbath, the Bible has this advice with regard to all who participate in Sunday worship and observation of the Sabbath:

  1 Corinthians 10:23-32: “Everything is permissible” – but not everything is beneficial.  “Everything is permissible” – but not everything is constructive.  Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others...  For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?  So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.  Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God – even as I try to please everybody in every way.  For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.”

  Colossians 2:13: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.”


What is the biblical basis for singing in church?

It's very ancient! Song has been used in worship since before the Psalms were written, and certainly continued into New Testament times. And through Christian history to the present.

See Psalm 81 (among lots of other references):

  81:1Sing aloud to God our strength;
  shout for joy to the God of Jacob!
  2 Raise a song, sound the timbrel,
      the sweet lyre with the harp.

And the disciples sang too, as referenced in Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26, following the Last Supper, and it appears to have been common at the time of Christ:

  And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

  Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as you teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, and as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

I'm an organist, and I've often wondered what to do for those for whom singing is a bit of a trial. Generally, the advice is just to do it. It doesn't actually matter what you sound like (although perhaps joining the choir wouldn't be ideal). Raise a song with thankfulness in your heart that God accepts you.

However, if there are other opportunities which might suit better where music is concerned, why not explore those. Do you play an instrument, for example?

On the other hand [third hand!] if lip-synching allows you to join in without embarrassment, that's not wrong either.


Ancient imagery beasts used in Christian symbolisms?

In mythology gargoyles were believed to frighten away evil spirits.  They are often used to guard cathedrals or castles.  Sometimes they are depicted as vessels for demonic possession.  Of course, they also have a very practical architectural function:

In architecture, and specifically in Gothic architecture, a gargoyle is a carved or formed grotesque with a spout designed to convey water from a roof and away from the side of a building, thereby preventing rainwater from running down masonry walls and eroding the mortar between.  When not constructed as a waterspout and only serving an ornamental or artistic function, the correct term for such a sculpture is a grotesque, chimera, or boss. There are also regional variations, such as the hunky punk. Just as with bosses and chimeras, gargoyles are said to protect what they guard, such as a church, from any evil or harmful spirits. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle

There is an interesting French legend concerning St. Romanus, bishop of Rouen (died circa 640 A.D.) and a monster called Gargouille:

La Gargouille is said to have been the typical dragon with bat-like wings, a long neck, and the ability to breathe fire from its mouth. Multiple versions of the story are given, either that St. Romanus subdued the creature with a crucifix, or he captured the creature with the help of the only volunteer, a condemned man. In each, the monster is led back to Rouen and burned, but its head and neck would not burn due to being tempered by its own fire breath. The head was then mounted on the walls of the newly built church to scare off evil spirits, and used for protection. In commemoration of St. Romain, the Archbishops of Rouen were granted the right to set a prisoner free on the day that the reliquary of the saint was carried in procession. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle#Legend_of_the_Gargouille

The dragon or Gargouille was recorded for the first time in 1394. The account described how, in the wild swamps on the left bank of the Seine a huge serpent or dragon rampaged, who "devoured and destroyed people and beasts of the field". Romanus decided to hunt in this area but could only find one man to help him, a man condemned to death who had nothing to lose. They arrived in the serpent's land and Romanus drew the sign of the cross on the beast. It then lay down at his feet and let Romanus put his stole on him as a leash, in which manner he led it into the town to be condemned to death and burned on the parvis of the cathedral (or thrown into the Seine according to other authors). This legend was the origin for the bishops' privilege (lasting until 1790) to pardon one prisoner condemned to death each year, by giving the pardoned man or woman the reliquary holding Romanus's relics in a procession. (Apology – I can’t find the Wiki link to this paragraph)
In the 12th century, before the use of gargoyles as rain spouts, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was famous for speaking out against gargoyles carved on the walls of his monastery's cloister:

What are these fantastic monsters doing in the cloisters before the eyes of the brothers as they read? What is the meaning of these unclean monkeys, these strange savage lions, and monsters? To what purpose are here placed these creatures, half beast, half man, or these spotted tigers? I see several bodies with one head and several heads with one body. Here is a quadruped with a serpent's head, there a fish with a quadruped's head, then again an animal half horse, half goat... Surely if we do not blush for such absurdities, we should at least regret what we have spent on them.

The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans all used animal-shaped waterspouts. During the 12th Century, when gargoyles appeared in Europe, the Roman Catholic Church was growing stronger and converting many new people. Most of the population at this time was illiterate, so images were very important to convey ideas. Many early gargoyles depicted some version of a dragon, especially in France. In addition to serving as spouts for water, the gaping mouths of these gargoyles evoked the fearsome destructiveness of these legendary beasts, reminding the laity of the need for the church's protection. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle#Catholic_Church

The Wikipedia article about the Gargoyle has lots of fascinating images, but I don’t know how to copy and paste them. Fascinating subject!


According to Two Kingdom theology, could a man hold both secular and spiritual office?

This is an interesting question.  Bear with me as I attempt to build a bit of Confessional background to my answer.

It's clear from Article 5 of the Augsburg Confession that the office of the ministry was instituted by God to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments (http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article5).  This is God's "Right Hand Kingdom or Realm."  See also articles 7 and 8 in the Confession.  Then, the Confession notes that no one should do these things "publicly" (i.e. in the name of a congregation) unless he be regularly (or rightly) called (Article 14).

Then, Article 16 talks about Civil Affairs (http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article16).  This is God's "Left Hand Kingdom or Realm" of civil government.  It's interesting that in this Article there is no distinction between the various offices; i.e. "it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage."  In this Article, bearing a civil office is lumped in with marrying a wife.  Then, you have Article 23 later which states it is right and proper for "priests" (i.e. those holding the office of the ministry) to marry.  So, there's a logical connection then that seems to state that those who hold the office of the ministry could, theoretically, hold a civil office.

However, Article 28 (http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article28) goes into more details about the distinctions between God's Left Hand Kingdom (civil government) and His Right Hand Kingdom (the Church).  Both are instituted by God to care for His world; the Left Hand to enforce order, keep peace, pursue justice; the Right Hand to proclaim the Gospel by which people are saved by grace through faith.

A key quote from this Article is: "If bishops have any power of the sword, that power they have, not as bishops, by the commission of the Gospel, but by human law having received it of kings and emperors for the civil administration of what is theirs. This, however, is another office than the ministry of the Gospel."

The point is that bishops may have their office in the Right Hand realm as well as their office in the Left Hand realm, but that they have to understand that these are separate offices with different roles.  So, the Confessions seem to recognize that the possibility exists for one person to hold both a Left Hand ("secular" or "civil) office and a Right Hand ("spiritual" or the office of the ministry).

That said, is this advisable, even if it is technically allowed?  That's probably a separate question that what was originally asked.  On the one hand, it would be hard for a pastor to separate his office in the ministry with his office as, for example, a mayor.  On the other hand, if a pastor may get married, perform marriages, even serve as a soldier (e.g. a military chaplain), then why can he not serve as a mayor?


I'm going to try to give you a good answer to the exact questions you asked; then I am going to suggest a perspective for your consideration based on the issues you have raised in the comments you made surrounding your questions.

1) If you don't believe in the inerrancy of scripture, on what basis can you interpret scripture?

If you believe that scripture may contain errors, then it could contain errors at any point. There is really no passage that would be off limits. You would be forced to decide which scripture you think matches what God originally said, and which scripture you think got messed up somewhere along the line. You could do this a variety of ways, for instance you could examine the oldest documents. But ultimately you would have to decide which parts were pure.

2) Where do people draw the line when they talk about inerrancy?

Some groups say that the original writings were inspired and inerrant. If you google half a dozen denominations you will probably hit on this a few times. Unfortunately, no one has the original writings as penned by the apostles and prophets. So we are back to trying to figure out which readings are probably the closest match to the original writings based on the age or quality of the manuscripts and our skill in interpreting the languages into English.

Examples:

  Christian Missionary Alliance
  cmalliance.org/about/beliefs/doctrine

  First Baptist Atlanta: fba.org/main/statement-of-faith "without
  error in its original manuscripts";

  Westminster Confession section 1.8 OT Hebrew and NT Greek are to be
  appealed to as a final resort
  epc.org/about-the-epc/beliefs/westminster-confession/#ch1

Other groups say that the concepts are inspired, but not the details. Since concepts are built up from details, again you must decide what is a concept and what is a detail, as well as which concept reflects accurately the ideas in the text.

Example:

  Inerrant in what it intends to teach, not the details:
  peterballard.org/errancy.html

3) Is it without error between God's mouth and the original transcriptions?

Again, that is where many groups draw the line. And you are right to point out that it leaves room for problems down the line. And if we accept that premise, those problems are not resolvable without the original writings, which no longer exist.

If there are possibilities of error in the Biblical text, then you are right to point out that those errors could be generated by transcriptional mistakes or translation into our language. Errors could by exposed by science or history. Errors of interpretation could also be incorrect, but that would not affect the text itself.

Another perspective

However, let me propose another perspective for your consideration. Instead of asking "Where do people draw the line on inerrancy?"; I want to suggest a perspective on "Where does the Bible itself draw the line on inerrancy?" that I hope you will find interesting to consider.

Psalm 12:6-7

  "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of
  earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O Lord, thou shalt
  preserve them from this generation for ever."

2 Timothy 3:16

  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
  doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
  righteousness."

This perspective would say that these passages point to God Himself preserving His words in written form on earth ("scripture") for the church to use forever. So by this point of view, at any time in history, the church has had access to His pure words in written form. Since we no longer have the originals, this view trusts that God has continued the preservation process including through the translation process so that people who believe Him and follow Him at least have the potential to access His pure words in written form.

This view depends on God to have a firm hand in the process. He has to guide translators that He chooses, and when they get it right, get that translation into the hands of believers and then bless their efforts so that those words get into the hands of everyone who needs them. All you have to worry about is whether or not you have the right version; but you don't have to really worry about that either because you can trust God, follow God, and seek after God and trust that He will put it into your hands and let you know you have it. "Seek and ye shall find" (Matthew 7:7), and "he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).

By this view then, you should treat the version you have as the pure words of God until God shows you it isn't and shows you to replace it with the one that is. If you have the pure words of God in front of you, and science or history disagrees with it, then either you are reading the text wrong or scientists and historians are interpreting their measurements and artifacts wrong. Not making wrong measurements, but interpreting what they measure the wrong way and using the puzzle pieces to construct the wrong picture.

God will make sure the recording and translating process results in an end product that has His pure words in the language or languages needed for that time in history so that believers are equipped. You can make errors of interpretation, but as you continue to read and study it you will realize those errors and the text will correct your understanding.

So rather than you finding and correcting errors in the text, the text will be finding and correcting errors in your mind.

This perspective is held by certain groups who would not draw the line as you have said but would put the whole process back on God to draw the line, preserve His words (Psalm 12), and put the right copies in the hands of believers as they need it.

Examples of groups who believe preservation by God through history:

  group that holds to the divine preservation of all words:
  preservedword.com/c/pres_doc

  group that holds to preservation in general but not to the detail
  level: gotquestions.org/preservation-Bible.html

Your last question:

4) Doesn't the fact that we are constricted by the boundaries and limitations of language (whether spoken, written, or read) make inerrancy impossible?

Only if the process is up to us with no guaranteed oversight or intervention by the God who is not limited.


Who rules this Earth after the millenium?

As a premillennialist, here's my view:

After the 1000 years (Revelation 20:6), Satan is loosed temporarily. He gathers those who remain on Earth who want to rebel against Christ to try one more time to defeat Him (Rev 20:7-8). Those forces are destroyed by God directly (verse 9). The devil is then permanently cast into the lake of fire to be tormented forever (verse 10). After this the universe and the Earth cease to exist (verse 11; also the end of 2 Peter 3:10). The final great white throne judgment occurs (verses 12-15).

After this, only those written in the Lamb's book of life remain (Rev 20:15). The Earth and the universe are replaced with a new one (Rev 21:1). It has one city called New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2-27). It has the river of the water of life and the tree of life having 12 varieties of fruit in it (Rev 22). God the Father and Jesus in His resurrected body and the Spirit are there (Rev 22). It will be like Eden when God walked with man face to face.

Who rules it? There is one throne, therefore one authority, called the throne (singular) of God and the Lamb. So it is a co-regency of God the Father and God the Son.

The people of God are the only ones left. They are in resurrected bodies, so they will have no tendency to sin; sin will be as repulsive as eating dirt because we will see it clearly for what it is. "Government" and "ruling" will be different because we will all be in perfect harmony doing whatever good fun things we want (where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17). We will have a city to explore- if each floor is 10 feet high, there will be the square footage in it of 369,600 United States. Add to that an entire new planet, a new universe, and an infinite heaven outside the universe with forever to explore and enjoy with an infinite God.

Since all good things come ultimately from God (James 1:17) and all things in this universe have been tainted by sin (Romans 8:22), and God is infinitely complex; then we can assume that the next universe will:

Look better than anything we can see, taste better than your favorite flavor, be more exciting, feel better, be more interesting, more refreshing, more fun, than anything we have now; and never boring. 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 states that "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them which love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."

It is so worth it to live for God now. :)


The "marks of Jesus" refer to the whippings on Paul that had also been applied to Christ.

The Law commanded that a trouble maker be beaten or whipped not more than 40 times.

  Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
  Deut 25:3

This punishment was applied to Christ.

  And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
  Mar 15:15

So too were 39 lashes applied to Paul.  They applied 1 less than 40 lest they accidentally break their Law.

  From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
  Gal 6:17

This apparently aligns to Luke's recording in Acts.

  And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely:
  Acts 16:23

From Christ's point of view, this is a witness against them.

  But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
  Mar 13:9

So, Paul was preaching the Gospel and was punished like Christ for doing so, having the same marks.


What do the Catholic officials intend to do for unity with the Orthodox Church? [2017]

Indeed, those words were spoken, and the complete text of Pope Francis' speech is supposedly included in a news bulletin on 2014-11-30 from Vatican Radio. He mentions doctrinal agreement as necessary, so interpretation of his statement may not be clear without further discussion of which doctrines must be agreed to. Among other things, he stated

All of this precedes and always accompanies that other essential aspect of this journey, namely, theological dialogue.
I want to assure each one of you here that, to reach the desired goal of full unity, the Catholic Church does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith.
The one thing that the Catholic Church desires, and that I seek as Bishop of Rome, “the Church which presides in charity”, is communion with the Orthodox Churches.  Such communion will always be the fruit of that love which “has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (cf. Rom 5:5), a fraternal love which expresses the spiritual and transcendent bond which unites us as disciples of the Lord.


According to Catholicism, how should one read the Catholic Bible?

There is no general rule for how to read the entire Catholic Bible. I have done it from beginning to end, by reading the Sacred Scriptures for a little over a half hour each morning until I finished with the book of Revelation.

Personally, I chose at least a half an hour of reading each day because the Church permits one to gain a plenary indulgence if one reads Scriptures devotedly for a half an hour a day.

  Some ways of obtaining a plenary indulgence include:

  Praying the rosary in a church or oratory, in a family gathering, within a religious community or canonical association of the Christian faithful, or in any context in which the faithful come together for this purpose;
  Spending at least half an hour in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament;
  Praying the stations of the cross at a location where they are legitimately erected (e.g. a parish or shrine);
  Participating in a preaching mission at a parish (e.g. during Advent or Lent);
  Reading the Bible for at least thirty minutes.
  Visiting a special site of pilgrimage. In the Archdiocese of Toronto, the Shrine to the Martyrs in Midland has been a site where pilgrims can obtain a plenary indulgence since 1644. - What is an indulgence?

Reading the Bible from beginning to end can be quite a challenge to some of the faithful. What I found helpful is to incorporate the biblical readings of major feasts into the equation...

For example, one could read the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the Gospel of St. John on Good Friday.

At Christmas one could read the those passages concerned with the Birth of Our Lord.

Many more examples could be mentioned as follows:

Transfiguration of Jesus (August 6) - (Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36)
The Assumption of Mary into Heaven (August 15) - the reading of the Mass of the Assumption

As I have already mentioned, there are no general guidelines on how to read the Bible. It is hard to read it from cover to cover without a little deviation in the course of its entirety, so break it up if necessary in order to persevere.

One could also read 15 minutes from the Old Testament and 15 minutes from the New Testament if desired. The choice is yours.

Another way would be to read 10 minutes from the Old Testament, 10 minutes from the Psalms and then 10 minutes from the New Testament.


When and where did Pope Paul VI say the "Mass is the most perfect form of prayer"?

James T has identified that the sentiment expressed is Thomist.

I can't find anything positively identifying Paul VI either, but I did find something of Benedict XVI:

  The Eucharistic Celebration is the greatest and highest act of prayer, and constitutes the centre and the source from which even the other forms receive "nourishment": the Liturgy of the Hours, Eucharistic adoration, Lectio divina, the Holy Rosary, meditation. All these expressions of prayer, which have their centre in the Eucharist, fulfil the words of Jesus in the priest's day and in all his life: "I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep" (Jn 10: 14-15).

[However, see also CCC 2763; I'd be interested to know how that apparent contradiction is resolved.]


How did the original texts of the Creed relate Pilate to Jesus' Passion?

I found an excellent article showing the precursors of the Apostle's creed with translations in the original Greek, Latin, and English.  It appears that the Pontius Pilate reference was unchanged, and the translation variations between "under Pontius Pilate" and "in the days of Pontius Pilate" don't change the meaning, which is simply to fix the historical time of Jesus's suffering aligned to the current governor of the region at the time (just like saying that the atomic bombs were dropped under President Truman), without explicitly laying the blame exclusively on the Roman authorities, the Jewish authorities, or both.

In other words, the creed serves as merely a faith SUMMARY and points us to the Gospels to find out more on how exactly was Jesus condemned to die.  This is because the creed's function was to help believers know the key tenets of the "official" Christian faith so they are not misled by non-orthodox variations ("heresies") that were still competing for allegiance at the time.  Given that the heresies during the first 2 centuries were NOT about how Jews vs. Rome were to blame, but rather the nature of the Trinity, the humanity/dvinity of Jesus, and the status of the Old Testament, etc. I think it's doubtful that the original author of the creed phrased "under Pontius Plate" because they didn't want to accuse Jews anymore of Jesus's death, especially because in later centuries, many Christians DID STILL blame the Jews severely for their role in crucifying Jesus.  See this article for more discussion on the origin of the creed.


What is the Catholic view of Matthew 18:20 in this technology age?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays down some precepts:

2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.”) requires the faithful to participate in the Eucharistic celebration when the Christian community gathers together on the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord.82
82 Canons 1246–1248

Note the use of the words participate, community, gather together. The use of this language precludes the solitary “participation” of viewing from afar. That’s not gathering in community.
Pope Francis mentions this in Evangelii Gaudium:

87. Today, when the networks and means of human communication have made unprecedented advances, we sense the challenge of finding and sharing a “mystique” of living together, of mingling and encounter, of embracing and supporting one another ... To go out of ourselves and to join others is healthy for us. To be self-enclosed is to taste the bitter poison of immanence, and humanity will be worse for every selfish choice we make.

To answer the inevitable supplementary question, “What about two or three people gathered around a screen?”, it is only necessary to say that they are not participating in what they are watching. It is still a vicarious experience.
This precept doesn’t mean that attending a church service, having to stand outside and watching what is happening inside is not participating, particularly when those inside involve those outside, for example by administering communion to them. That’s participation because there is community; a gathering together; mingling and encounter; embracing and mutual support.


Similarities and differences between the priesthood in the Catholic and the LDS Church

I sincerely apologize that this will (and does) read like a long comment, but the comments section is too limiting to make the point.

The odds are that the only person who could answer this question well would be an active bearer of the priesthood in one church who apostatizes from it, converts to the other and thereby becomes an active bearer of the priesthood in the other.

...and that might be a pretty small group of people.  Active members of any church rarely convert to other churches.1

Let me cite a few examples of the problem.

(Pro-LDS) The Encyclopedia of Mormonism in the article "Catholicism and Mormonism," under the subheading "AUTHORITY," gives a bland one-paragraph statement that basically only introduces the idea of how the two organizations look at the authority held by the apostle Peter.  (And, IMHO, it doesn't even do that particularly well.)
(Neutral) In "Mormonism: An analysis of doctrine in comparison to Catholic and other Protestant faiths"2 author Anne Latham of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology tries to describe the LDS perspective in comparison to other beliefs.  The article compares very few things, and it's obvious that she either isn't LDS herself or is writing from a non-LDS perspective.  For example, she explains that men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood when they become High Priests.  Actually, men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood when they are first called to serve in any M.P. office, most commonly the office of Elder after they turn 18 and prepare to serve a mission.
(Pro-Catholic) A third example comes from Catholic.com.  The article is a decidedly anti-LDS article filled with shallow statements that misrepresent the LDS faith.  Which is curious, as this apparently not-affiliated-with-the-Catholic-Church ministry claims it began when "a Fundamentalist church in San Diego, California, decided to leaflet the cars at a local parish during Mass. The fliers attacked the Eucharist and were riddled with misinformation." (source).

My point is, neither organization really understands the other.3  I would hope there are scholars in each that could answer this question with the objectivity it needs, but if there are, they're not publishing on the Internet in a way that's easy to find.

Recommendation

Therefore, I recommend this question be deleted.  Instead, I recommend you ask something like: "From the perspective of [sect], how is its priesthood or ecclesiastical authority derived, organized and used?"  This will get you detailed answers about specific priesthood practices that can thereafter be compared.  And I suspect the group of people who can answer said question(s) increases thousands fold.

1 This is perhaps an egregious blanket statement.  Let's put it another way, "people who are so active in their church that they participate in leadership and/or ministerial roles rarely convert to other churches."  And whey they do, it's usually after a crisis of faith that led them to wonder why on earth they're attending the church they do.

2 Frankly, the title of this article and its hosting school should have foreshadowed its quality.  I'm hoping the author left the word "other" in as a typographic mistake and didn't really mean to imply that the Catholic Church was Protestant.  Or, perhaps, she mistakenly left the word "Protestant" in and meant Catholicism and other churches?  And why am I reading a religious article from an institute of technology?  Anyway...

3 Which isn't surprising.  In fact, speaking about each organization's membership generally, it's probably fostered and desirable.  But, perhaps on a more positive note, speaking from my own perspective as an active LDS member, my religion is my life.  There isn't a whole lot of time available to really study other religions.  That's why sites like this are so valuable.


Hebrews 10:1 (KJV)
  For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

I think you can say from Hebrews 10 that the Old Testament sacrifices were a picture of Christ's sacrifice more than that his death was a fulfillment of Old Testament requirements.

Edit: Here are the verses I wanted (emphasis on verse 23):

  Hebrews 9:19-24 (KJV)
  For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
  Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
  Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
  It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
  For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


The "Good News" in the Bible refers specifically to the Gospel of salvation. Simply that.

As you stated, it is sometimes translated as "gospel". This is because, the Greek word it came from, can be translated as "good news", "glad tidings", or "gospel", etc.

  (from Koine Greek euangélion — also translated as "gospel", "glad tidings" and variants


What are the claims of authenticity of these two sites of Jesus' burial, the Garden Tomb and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is located at the spot where in the fourth century Helena, Emperor Constantine's mother, identified  the very place where Jesus had been buried on Mount Golgotha. The location was upon the site of a Jewish burial chamber and beneath a Temple of Aphrodite.

Michael Grant, in The Emperor Constantine, pages 202, says that Eusebius tells us, in Life, that Helena was shown the correct location in a vision.  Constantine himself ordered Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem to build on the site “a basilica more beautiful than any on earth”, without sparing money, craftsmen, labourers or materials.

Wikipedia explains that Constantine's church was built as two connected churches over the two different holy sites, including a great basilica, an enclosed colonnaded atrium (the Triportico) with the traditional site of Golgotha in one corner, and a rotunda, called the Anastasis, which contained the remains of a rock-cut room that Helena and Bishop Macarius identified as the burial site of Jesus.

Possible reasons to doubt the authenticity of Helena's claim include that building the basilica required the destruction of an important pagan temple, and the unlikelihood that Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy and influential Jew, would choose to have the tomb intended for his own burial so close to where the Romans executed common criminals (although John 19:41 places them in proximity). Helena had been phenomenally successful in Palestine, and Grant reports the words of a scholar that her thrilling discoveries were made “with miraculous aid seldom now vouchsafed to archaeologists”.

During the post-Reformation era there was an increase in doubts regarding the traditional holy places and various other locations began to be put forward. In Aramaic, Golgotha actually means 'skull', and one of the proposed locations was 'skull hill', a small hill that resembles a skull in appearance. This contains a few natural cavities as well as a man-made cave, which Christians call Jeremiah’s Grotto and which biblical scholar Otto Thenius suggested was the tomb of Christ.

General Gordon accepted that skull hill must be Golgotha, but proposed that Jesus was actually buried in one of a number of tombs found nearby. This particular tomb also has a stone groove running along the ground outside it, which Gordon argued to be a slot that once housed a stone, corresponding to the biblical account of a stone being rolled over the tomb entrance to close it. An ancient wine press and cistern have been cited as evidence that the area had once been a garden, and the somewhat isolated tomb adjacent to the cistern has become identified as the Garden Tomb of Jesus.

John McRay (Archaeology and the New Testament, page 212,) says that two tomb inscriptions found nearby in 1885 and 1889 were used improperly, if not fraudulently, as supporting evidence for this as the site of Jesus' tomb. On its own, the 1889 inscription simply marked the site of "Deacon Nonnus Onesimus of the the Holy Resurrection of Christ and of this monastery."  Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (The Holy Land, page 161) says that on this evidence, the Anglican Church committed to the identification of the Garden Tomb but subsequently removed its formal support.

The site of the Garden Tomb has really been built on speculation: that 'skull hill' really was Golgotha, that the Garden Tomb's Golgotha is north of Mount Zion and that the wine press and cistern were sure signs of the area once having been a garden.

As with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, there are good reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Garden Tomb. Christian and pre-Christian Temple Judaism traditionally maintained the name of Golgotha as the final burial site of Adam's skull and bones, and 'skull hill' played no historic part in Jewish or Christian tradition regarding Golgotha's location. The groove could not have held a rolling stone and it has since been identified as a watering trough for horses. The cistern, which was built as part of the same stable complex as the groove, must date to the time of the Crusaders.  The hill now known as Mount Zion has only had that name since the Middle Ages, before which Mount Zion referred to the Temple Mount, due east of the traditional site, but south south east of the Garden Tomb.


Is there a concept of Christian State in Christianity?

Christianity does not hold a "church and state must be separate" view at all; that might be part of the US constitution, but : not universal - and to all intents and purposes it is not even correct in the US, since it is quietly acknowledged that you don't stand much chance of election if you are openly non-Christian (regardless of your actual views). Indeed, there are still several US states that have, as part of their state constitution, that you can't hold office unless you believe in God (to all intents and purposes, the Christian God). OK, that sounds like a technicality, until people actually try to enforce it.

Now, let's step away from the US, and look at Europe; there are plenty of places in Europe that have an established church. Which is to say: the church that is officially recognised and has power. In England, the Church of England held massive power, and it is only recently waning - but even so, the C of E has unelected bishops that have an automatic place in the highest assembly in the land. That does not sound like separation. This is mirrored in a number of other countries, where the church holds not just social influence, but genuine political power. Historically, this power was put to direct use, often to suppress and enforce the religious statutes of the time. Heresy and blasphemy have been beaten down with sticks and pyres.

My point: the premise of the question is incorrect. Whether Christianity "demands" a separation between church and state seems largely a point of interpretation; for many, the "render unto Caesar" view (i.e. separation) is adopted, but conversely Christians of various ilks have worked hard to try to bring about such a state.


How is "Veneration" similar or  different from "Adoration"?

So, there are many different forms of prayer, the three involved here are intercessory prayer and prayers of blessing and prayers of praise (which is more of paying honor to the saints and God).

Then there are three forms of paying homage to God and His Saints in heaven.

Veneration is the honor given to the saintсѕ аdoration is the honor given to God alone.

In Greek there's latria (worship/adoration due to God alone), dulia (veneration given to the saints) and hyperdulia (veneration given particularly to Our Lady).

The difference is, you really can't say that Our Lady did such and such for you, but traditionally Catholics understood what you were saying when you said such a thing.  We understood her to be the Mediatrix of All Graces without a dogma.  Bl. John Paul II took his motto, 'totus tuus Sum Maria', which is to say,  "I'm all yours Mary".

The idea is that you can't really praise her enough, and all praise of her makes Our Lord happy, just like anything you say nice about my mom would make me happy!

You go overboard when you start calling her a Goddess, start having baptizing in her name, start really believing that it is her, not God who is working miracles.  But cults like that die out and are suppressed by the Church eventually.

So, in short, you can't say enough good things about Mary, you can't praise her enough and everything done for her is done for Jesus.

It's not essential to salvation, but 'to Jesus through Mary' is not a bad path for any Catholic.