Why does the Pope not issue letters on the lines of Pastorals?

Perhaps it does happen from time to time. However, when the pope or the Holy See are involved it takes on a much greater degree of seriousness or urgency. Since such documents come from the pope and the Vatican it would certainly carry a different name. One such occasion was the Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI On the Church and the German Reich: Mit brennender Sorge.

Written in German, Pope Pius XI, it was smuggled into Germany for fear of censorship and was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, Palm Sunday (21 March that year). Some pastors hid the encyclical inside the tabernacle, in order that the German authorities would not find it.

  Mit brennender Sorge ("With burning concern") On the Church and the German Reich is an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, issued during the Nazi era on 10 March 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March). Written in German, not the usual Latin, it was smuggled into Germany for fear of censorship and was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches on one of the Church's busiest Sundays, Palm Sunday (21 March that year).

  The encyclical condemned breaches of the 1933 Reichskonkordat agreement signed between the German Reich and the Holy See. It condemned "pantheistic confusion", "neopaganism", "the so-called myth of race and blood", and the idolizing of the State. It contained a vigorous defense of the Old Testament with the belief that it prepares the way for the New. The encyclical states that race is a fundamental value of the human community, which is necessary and honorable but condemns the exaltation of race, or the people, or the state, above their standard value to an idolatrous level. The encyclical declares "that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect." National Socialism, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party are not named in the document. The term for the German government (Reichsregierung) is used.

  The effort to produce and distribute over 300,000 copies of the letter was entirely secret, allowing priests across Germany to read the letter without interference. The Gestapo raided the churches the next day to confiscate all the copies they could find, and the presses that had printed the letter were closed. According to historian Ian Kershaw, an intensification of the general anti-church struggle began around April in response to the encyclical. Scholder wrote: "state officials and the Party reacted with anger and disapproval. Nevertheless the great reprisal that was feared did not come. The concordat remained in force and despite everything the intensification of the battle against the two churches which then began remained within ordinary limits." The regime further constrained the actions of the Church and harassed monks with staged prosecutions. Though Hitler is not named in the encyclical, it does refer to a "mad prophet" that some claim refers to Hitler himself.

The actual encyclical can be read here.

More closer to our own day and age, Pope John Paul II called the Great, wrote a number of pastoral letters. For example, his Letters to Priests were published every Holy Thursday for all priests throughout the world.

  Pastoral letters (Wikipedia)

  Letter to Children, 1994
  Letter to Families (Gratissima Sane), 1994
  Letter to Priests, 1994
  Letter to the Secretary General of the International Conference on Population and Development, 1994
  Letter to Women, 1995.
  Link to other letters on the Vatican website.


According to Protestantism, are we saved by faith into a repentance of law-following?

Although it is true that Christians believe salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, it is not true that Christians believe they are under the Mosaic Law.  Jesus came to fulfil the Law and has introduced a new covenant.  The new covenant frees us from an obligation to keep the hundreds of laws that were given to Israel.  The new covenant is not a covenant of works (obeying the Mosaic Law).  Christians have been liberated from the condemnation of the Mosaic Law and have been set free by the grace of God and are “born again” – the spiritual rebirth that gives us life.

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10).

Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in [God’s] sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin (Romans 3:20).

When people repent, before God, and seek His forgiveness, it is because the Holy Spirit has convicted them of their sinful condition.  They realise (as I did, 25 years ago) that Jesus died in order to pay the penalty of sin – of all sin.  It is our sins that nailed Jesus to that instrument of torture.  God, in His infinite wisdom, grace and love, provided the solution to sin.  He sent His one, His only-begotten Son, to redeem us from the penalty of death that comes with our inability to keep God’s laws.
Your question is based on a wrong premise.  You say, “By believing that Jesus is God, the person also believes that following the law is what he/she should do.”  By believing that Jesus died to pay the penalty of sin (which is spiritual death as well as physical death) the person who repents comes to understand that it is faith that saves us.  And, as the Bible says, even faith is a gift from God.

But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.  He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7).

The deity of Jesus has nothing to do with following the Mosaic Law.  When I turned to God in faith I didn’t even know that Jesus subsists in the One Being of God. It took some time before I fully understood who Jesus REALLY was.  That lack of understanding did not prevent me from realising that I had to repent and turn to God and seek forgiveness.
I am a Christian of the Protestant persuasion.  I have been set free and have been adopted into God’s family, not because of anything I could ever do, but because I have faith in Christ Jesus, and am eternally indebted to what God, in Jesus, accomplished in order to save a sinner such as me.


Is there anything like a curse on some people?

Actually, we are all under many curses.

Death: We are subjected to death, aging, sickness and deformities because Adam and Eve failed to obey God by eating the fruit from the forbidden tree.

  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all
  sinned (Romans 5:12, NIV)
  Sin: Because of Adam, we are all under the curse of sin. Our heart is now inclined to do evil instead of good. Immorality, homosexuality, robbery, murder, theft, lying and all kinds of sinful things are coming from within us because we are sinful by nature.

  For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality,
  theft, false testimony, slander. (Matthew 15:19, NIV)

Condemnation: Because all are sinners and no one can fulfill the requirements of the Law, we are all condemned and cursed.

  For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is
  written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything
  written in the Book of the Law.” (Galatians 3:10, NIV)

However, we have Good News! Jesus the righteous Son of God took all our curses and made us righteous in the eyes of God the Father.

  Clearly no one who relies on the law
  is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”
  The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person
  who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the
  curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written:
  “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” (Galatians 3:11-13, NIV)

So, because this world itself is under a curse,  some are born with disabilities, blindness, psychological disorders etc. And because we are evil from the inside, we see many horrible things around us - war, murder, robbery, immorality, homosexuality, corruption etc.

  To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very
  severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your
  desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” To Adam
  he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the
  tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed
  is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food
  from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles
  for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of
  your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since
  from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
  (Genesis 3:16-19, NIV)


According to Catholicism, is it wrong to joke about holy things?

Is it wrong to joke about holy things?
The short answer is no, as long as the Sacred is maintained and no blasphemy is committed.
Telling jokes about about the Scriptures, Jesus, Mary, the sacraments and so on, may possibly be permitted in Catholicism. But in all things the sacred must be maintained and blasphemy must be avoided.
The basis for this attitude can be found in the Scriptures. For example, God clearly commands us to respect Him in the Ten Commandments:

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. - Ex. 20:70
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. - Deut. 5:11

More specifically, as regards the Holy Eucharist, St. Paul admonishes the faithful in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. - 1 Cor. 11:27-29

The sacredness, even in jokes has not to be seen as being disrespected. In fact, disrespecting the Sacred could be considered a kind of blasphemy. The Catechism explains:

Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. [In the usual Catholic numbering, which follows St. Augustine, that is the Commandment against using the Lord’s name in vain.] It consists in uttering against God—inwardly or outwardly—words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. … The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. … Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin (No. 2148).

To joke about Jesus, Sacred Scripture and other holy subjects may be permitted, as long as the sacredness of the subject is maintained and no blasphemy is committed. This also goes for story telling and making puns.
My favourite story of Mgr Roncalli, who went on to become Pope John XIII (known also as the Good Pope) although not the best in this situation, does show where I am going.

Msgr. Angelo Roncalli once found himself seated at a banquet next to a woman who was dressed with little regard for the virtue of modesty. Others observed him, wondering how he would deal with his predicament, given his moral convictions and his reputation for diplomacy.
After the dinner, Msgr. Roncalli took an apple and offered it to the woman in question. She declined his offer. Nonetheless, he persisted in his offer, to the point that the woman asked why he was so interested in having her eat the fruit. He responded with a twinkle in his eye, “Because when Eve ate an apple, she realized she was naked.”
Msgr. Roncalli went on to become Pope John XXIII — now Blessed John XXIII. It’s not known what happened to the woman. - The Secret of Modesty

Here is a joke.

What is the favourite baseball team?
The Cardinals?
No, it is the Angels. He has more confidence in them!


What doctrinal changes did the Westminster Confession bring to the Church of Scotland?

I like this question because it forces us to read the Westminster Confession in its context, and not just as a settled statement of belief. In summary, the two confessions are in continuity, but the earlier Scots Confession was more permissive. Especially, it did not exclude the option of episcopal polity, or of royal power over the Church. The Westminster Confession includes more ramified theological content, and is more strongly Calvinist. This is partly the result of its having been written by theological experts, and vetted by others in the Scottish universities before its adoption, and partly because the writers were commissioned to make sure there would be an official "weapon" to use against Arminians and so on.

The project of the assembly at Westminster was to create a unified religious settlement for the three kingdoms (England, Scotland, Ireland), incorporating reformed doctrine, polity, procedure for worship, psalm and prayer texts, and relationship with the civil order. It was the product of a "covenant" between presbyterians in the different nations, seeking to establish their ideas over Catholicism on the one hand, and more radical Protestant factions on the other. In the period, the kingdoms were engaged in civil war, and this project was a claim for how it should be resolved.

From official correspondence from the Scottish side, the main doctrinal points they thought should be included in the settlement were:

Conformity in the three kingdoms. Everyone would have to follow the new Confession and related documents. They also envisaged that this would be an example for the world, both morally (look how holy we are) and practically (we've written this stuff for you already, just sign up).
Presbyterian polity. This was opposed to royalist counterproposals for retaining bishops in some capacity or in some areas, and to more radical congregational views that would have eliminated any church structure beyond the parish.
Excommunication. Ministers - and nobody else - were to have authority to exclude someone from the sacraments. In particular, they could rebuke even the King, and on the other hand the King would not have any authority over the administration of the sacraments. They were also keen on a general suppression of vice and immorality (drunkenness, non-observance of the Sabbath, etc.).
Elimination of heresy. "Socinianisme, Arminianisme, Anabaptisme, Antinomianisme, Brownisme, Erastianisme, Independency, and that which is called (by abuse of the word) Liberty of Conscience, being indeed liberty of errour, scandall, schisme, heresie, dishonouring God, opposing the truth, hindering reformation, and seducing others; whereunto we adde those Nullifidians, or men of no religion, commonly called Seekers" were to be suppressed, by power of the civil magistrate and with the authority of doctrinal statements against them. 1

Comparison with the Scots Confession shows that the Westminster document is more explicit about doctrine, including Calvinist theories of soteriology rather than more general statements that might cover Arminian views as well. It also declares a stricter separation between the roles of Crown and Kirk. Under Westminster, regulation of the ministry of word and sacrament is excluded from the responsibility of the civil magistrate: he must suppress heresy and keep order, but it's for the Kirk to decide what heresy is. The Scots Confession leaves it open that the King's role for "maintenance of the true religion" could be more expansive, perhaps including the power to excommunicate or readmit.

The practical difference between the confessions was shown in the Restoration. On 28 March 1661, Charles II revoked the Westminster Confession via his "Act Rescissory", which repealed all legislation from 1633 onwards. He declared that the Protestant religion would be observed as it had been under James VI and Charles I; and while he said Presbyterian polity would be maintained "in the mean Time" if presbyteries were "keeping within Bounds and behaving themselves", it was only a few months before episcopacy was brought back.2 In effect, the Scots Confession had been restored as the standard of faith, and read in a way that allowed considerable royal latitude, as well as the presence of bishops.

In 1681, the Test Act3 formalized this, at the suggestion of James Dalrymple: its loyalty oath invoked the Confession "recorded in the first Parliament of king James VI", and required the belief in royal supremacy in all matters, "as well ecclesiastical as civil". Religious assemblies were only allowed if the king approved them, and they certainly could not "endeavour any change or alteration in the government, either in church or state". While this was sold as an anti-Catholic measure, it was really an attempt to wrest Protestants back to a more moderate course. (And James VII exempted Catholic officers from having to follow it anyway!) Accordingly, the re-ratification of Westminster in 1690 made it absolutely clear that the presbyterian system would be restored, including that it would be "the only government of Christs Church within this Kingdome". The royal power was taken away, and this settlement was preserved in subsequent legislation, including the Act of Union with England. To this day, doctrine and governance of the Church of Scotland is for the Church itself, and not for the Queen or Parliament.

1. Declaration and Brotherly Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their Brethren of England, 20 August 1647.
2. The King's Majesty's Proclamation concerning Church-affairs, 10 June 1661.
3. An Act anent Religion and the Test, 31 August 1681


According to Trinitarian theology of Calvinism, was the Word (2nd person of the Trinity) missing from heaven when He (the Word) incarnated on Earth?

Ah, the extra calvinisticum as it was derisively called by the Lutheran Reformers. The Reformed position is that although the Word is fully united to the human nature it could not completely contained by it.

The Belgic Confession discusses the two natures:

  We believe that by being thus conceived the person of the Son has been inseparably united and joined together with human nature, in such a way that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in a single person, with each nature retaining its own distinct properties. Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth. His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature-- it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body. And even though he, by his resurrection, gave it immortality, that nonetheless did not change the reality of his human nature; for our salvation and resurrection depend also on the reality of his body.

The Divine nature was always filling heaven and earth. Note that this continues today with the locations reversed.

From the Heidelberg Catechism:

  Question 47 :Is not Christ then with us even to the end of the world, as he has promised?

  Answer: Christ is very man and very God; with respect to his human nature, he is no more on earth; but with respect to his Godhead, majesty, grace and spirit, he is at no time absent from us.

  Question 48: But if his human nature is not present, wherever his Godhead is, are not then these two natures in Christ separated from one another?

  Answer: Not as all, for since the Godhead is illimitable and omnipresent, it must necessarily follow that the same is beyond the limits of the human nature he assumed, and yet is nevertheless in this human nature, and remains personally united to it.

So, the Godhead is 'beyond the limits of the human nature' and 'omnipresent'. Today, while Christ's body has ascended to Heaven, his Godhead is still with us -- beyond the limitations of the body. Likewise, while he sojourned on earth, His Godhead was still (also) with the Father and Spirit.

Answer B

It should be noted that this idea is often identified with Calvin, it can be found in the Fathers as well.


Can a married person be elected as the Pope?

A married person cannot be elected, because the pope is Bishop of Rome and married people cannot be bishops.

Can 1042: The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:

a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate;

Canon law does allow married men to become deacons (as stated there), and also priests with the individual approval of the Holy See, but it does not extend that relaxation of Canon 1042 to bishops.
These restrictions and relaxations are the same as in the Eastern Churches, so as not to rule out eventual reunification.


Does Nehemiah Gordon self-identify as a Christian?

I found an article that examines the beliefs of Nehemiah Gordon and briefly mentions that although brought up in an Orthodox Jewish family, he converted to Karaite Judaism after he moved to Israel in 1993. The article gives a critical overview of Nehemiah Gordon’s book ‘The Hebrew Yeshua versus the Greek Jesus (Hilkiah Press, 2005).  Apparently he rejects Jesus as the Messiah:

I still do not believe Yeshua to be the Messiah; like all Karaites I eagerly await the coming of the anointed Davidic king who will reign as king over Israel, ushering in an era of eternal peace...
It seems more and more that Yeshua may have been a first century Karaite opposing man-made laws of the Rabbis and returning people to the Torah.

For the purpose of answering your question, it would seem that Nehemiah Gordon does not believe that the Jesus of the New Testament is the Christ, or Messiah.
Source: https://carm.org/nehemia-gordon


Why is Infant Baptism considered to be invalid by so many Protestant denominations?

In order to be saved, one must follow the order of salvation that the scriptures set forward. Romans 10:14 tells us that the order is 1) preach, 2) hear, 3) believe, and 4) call upon the name of the Lord (baptism, Acts 22:16). Acts 2:38 tells us that repentance comes before baptism, and Romans 10:10 tells us that confession comes after belief.

But let's look at this logically. How could one believe something that they can not understand or even know about? That does not make any sense. That is the reason.

Many other denominations use infant baptism for the parent's benefit. It is a proof that they WILL help their child grow and believe. Then later, in some denominations, the child is re-baptized.

However, the argument against it is simply because the Bible says you must believe before baptism. Those who hold to this belief will follow this standard, and consider baptism invalid.


Jesus didn't, because the word "Christian" only appeared much later. Acts 11:26c:

  The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.


Is a bishop in Roman Catholic tradition equal in authority with the apostles?

Bishops (from the Greek, epi-scopus = overseers) are the successors of the Apostles. Their primary responsibility is shepherding the faith of the people in their diocese. They ordain priests, perform the sacrament of confirmation on the faithful, and serve to teach, provide guidance and support for the faithful. So in that sense, they indeed have the authority of the Apostles. However, a tenet of the Catholic Church is that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.

The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ
Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4

Only apostles had firsthand knowledge of the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, no Bishop can add to public revelation. They may explain or further develop the implications of sacred revelation, whether by Scripture or the sacred Tradition of the Apostles.


"God desires all men to be saved" from a Calvinist perspective?

To be fair to Calvin, why not go straight to the horses mouth. Calvin did not believe this kind of verse (1 Tim 2:3) implied God's desire to save every man. Here is where we discover limited atonement as proposed by Calvin and is various different ways supported by the most eminent Calvinists that have ever lived, including in my mind one of the greatest theologians ever, John Owen. (I disagree with these men that I admire but have some support in Luther, so the balance is even).

  In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life. Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. "If God" say they, "wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the: will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man. But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. (John Calvin's Commentary 1 Timothy)

Even Luther took this approach before Calvin regarding this specific verse:

  “God desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), and He gave His Son for us men and created man for eternal life. Likewise: All things exist for man, and he himself exists for God that he may enjoy Him, etc.39 These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 “everything for the sake of the elect.” For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because He says: “This is My blood which is poured out for you” and “for many”—He does not say: for all—“for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 14:24, Matt 26:28)
  (Luther's Works Volume 25.376)

As a 90-95% Calvinist (If I was a 100% anything this might constitute idolatry!) I am persuaded to agree with Luther and Calvin with respect to these particular verses but at the same time believe that God does love all men beyond the elect and that how this pertains to free will is not as cut and dry as Calvin thought. Luther also used  1 Tim 2:4 to argue about God's general care for all mankind in a separate Volume.

See this post arguing against limited atonement

What is the Biblical argument against Limited Atonement?

I also do not think it was so cut and dry in Luther's mind, see here an argument for God even loving those 'predestined to damnation'.

Does God hate unborn children?

Strictly speaking as a Calvinists I depart from Calvin on this one point. I consider it Calvin's point of weakness and failure. So do many others who deeply identify with Calvinistic theology and who are comfortable being called by that label.


What is the Catholic understanding and explanation regarding Num 11:25?

Eight verses earlier (Num 11:17) has the same "some of the spirit" wording. Fr. George Leo Haydock's commentary on verse 17 says:

  St. Augustine (q. 18,) reads "of the spirit which is on thee;" (Septuagint) referring it to the indivisible spirit of God, so that these ancients received what was sufficient for them, while Moses suffered no diminution. Thus one lamp communicates light to another, without being impaired. (Origen, hom. vi.) Theodoret (q. 18,) also adds, that a person confers baptism on thousands, and yet loses no part of the grace himself.

Haydock's reference to Augustine appears to be On the Trinity, Book 5, chapter 14:

  And I will take of your spirit, and will put it upon them; that is, I will give to them of the Holy Spirit, which I have already given to you.

Cyril of Jerusalem, in Catechetical Lecture 16:25, says regarding Numbers 11:25:

  The seventy Elders were chosen; And the Lord came down in a cloud, and took of the Spirit that was upon Moses, and put it upon the seventy Elders; not that the Spirit was divided, but that His grace was distributed in proportion to the vessels, and the capacity of the recipients. Now there were present sixty and eight, and they prophesied; but Eldad and Modad were not present: therefore that it might be shown that it was not Moses who bestowed the gift, but the Spirit who wrought, Eldad and Modad, who though called, had not as yet presented themselves, did also prophesy.

In other words, it's not that the Spirit was "apportioned" but rather that the power of the Spirit was conferred on more people.


How do we know that Satan, Lucifer, and Devil are the same guy?

The Bible says the devil = Satan in Revelation 12:9

  So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the
  Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the
  earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Regarding Lucifer the Bible says in Isaiah 14:12...

  How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you
  are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

So this Lucifer fell from heaven, and Jesus said in Luke 10:18

  “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

Thus Lucifer = Satan.  Name changes often denote changes in character in the Bible, thus Lucifer the light bearer (once a good angel) had become Satan (the adversary).

Learn more Bible truth at - http://www.amazingfacts.org/


There are some basics which you need to consider here; that change the whole precept of the question.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  God is omniscient!

God knew from before he created the Angels; exactly how all things would unfold for Eternity.

  God is Omnipotent!

God is all powerful, he has the power to alter any particular action at any particular time.

  God is omnipresent!

God is not subject to time and space, God is of the Spiritual realm and as such is everywhere at once.

So if we consider the three things above, our questions should be changed from "why does God allow " to "how does this particular incident fit into God's overall plan". The truth is we mere mortals will never be able to understand God or his ways or his thoughts.

  Isaiah 55:8 and 9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

We then, as mere mortals, must accept the fact that God is so far above us that whatever his plan to is to achieve when it reaches its final conclusion we will never know this side of heaven and possibly not even then. We can however find some clues in what has transpired since God initiated his plan. We can also possibly obtain a few clues from God's word concerning the future.

So let's go back to your original question concerning the serpent in the garden; of the fall and Eve; and all of that. In as much as I can understand: the creation came on the heels of the war in heaven.

  Revelation 12:7 through 9  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And in order for Satan and the rebellious angels to be exiled to earth it would have to have come after Genesis chapter 1 verse 1.

  Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

As to whether the serpent who deceived Eve was only a serpent, or Satan masquerading as a serpent. We are not told, however. According to the apostle Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians, it could have been either.

  2nd Corinthians 11:13 and 14 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

It appears to me, that the real lesson we should learn from this is; that in the beginning God created both the Angels and a man with free will. And that when given the opportunity they both rebelled against God's authority. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden they introduced into mankind what I consider to the "me" concept. What I mean by that is that up until that time. Man was sublimely happy, secure, and at ease in the presence of God. Following man's initial disobedience, we find that man is no longer comfortable in the presence of God as God created him.

  Genesis 3:7 and 8 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Some of my fondest memories, are from when my children and grandchildren crawled up into my lap and felt so secure and well cared for that they just went to sleep. while at the same time some of my most hurtful memories are when those same children and grandchildren rebelled. The reasons for these reactions is because of my love for them. I cannot believe that it would be any different with God. I am sure of this; that when both the Angels and man rebelled against God it hurt him deeply because God is love. I am likewise of the opinion that God had the same feelings that I felt; before that rebellion by either the Angels or man.

However be that as it may, those are my thoughts, and you must come to your own conclusions.

We can use the same analytical logic on any passage in the Old Testament's and try and find out, the role these incidents play in the overall plan of God. For instance we can analyze the story of David and Goliath as depicted in 1st Samuel chapter 17. I will not quote it here for the sake of brevity.

Two questions arise using this type of analytical logic.

  Did God said through his omnipotence direct the stone and from David's slingshot to its final destination in Goliath's forehead?
  Or did God through his omniscience align circumstances so that David could through his own learning be able to so accurately throw the stone that it would hit the exact Mark aimed at.

Whichever of these two God chose, makes very little difference, the point here being that God fore ordained how this particular situation would play out. And the lesson for us would seem to be that man can overcome evil but not without the help of God.

Another example of using this logic in analyzing a passage is in the Story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac.

Genesis 22:1  through 22:13. Again I will not quote them for the sake of brevity, but if you are unfamiliar with it I heartily suggest you read it.

Genesis 22:1  And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham:

Right off the bat and our first question comes up Why does God who is omniscience decide to tempt Abraham, knowing already what Abraham's reaction would be?

There are some questions to which we simply have to answer: because God is sovereign, and this may be one of them. We could on the other hand wonder if God in his great love is verifying Abraham's faith  or not. In view of the following two Scriptures this may seem more feasible.

Genesis 22:7  and 22:8 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

The significance of this passage lies in that Abraham so depended upon God that he believed that even if he were to take the life of Isaac God would replace that life somehow and Isaac would not be lost to him. This compares to the basic hope of Christianity, that being that that even though we have all sinned and come short of the Glory of God, Jesus death on the Cross will bring our Souls back into Eternal life.

So to answer your question:

Was the serpent's temptation necessary for Eve to sin?

The answer to that, in my humble opinion, whether or not the It was necessary for Eve to sin, it was necessary in order for God's plan to unfold as he intended it to.

Although this has nothing to do with the answer to your question I am adding a to help you understand my answer.

Having used this particular analogy trying to understand how God wanted his Scriptures to be understood; for nearly a decade, I have come to my own conclusion that God's overall plan is to restore heaven to it pre-rebellion state. And that Heaven which I feel is described in Revelation chapters 21 and 22 is so desirable to me that it is worth throwing away all other things, all other glories, all of the riches, and any other thing; which would prevent me from being there.

I am so enthralled with this that I'm trying with all my might, to be that little child who crawls up in God's lap and forgets about all other things;

Again those are my conclusions and you must come to your own.


Both Luther and the Rosicrucians have written about what the emblems represent, and the explanations differ quite a bit.

In a 1530 letter to Lazarus Spengler, Luther wrote:

  Such a heart should stand in the middle of a white rose, to show that faith gives joy, comfort, and peace. In other words, it places the believer into a white, joyous rose, for this faith does not give peace and joy like the world gives (John 14:27). That is why the rose should be white and not red, for white is the color of the spirits and the angels (cf. Matthew 28:3; John 20:12).

Conversely, the AMORC's website says:

  There is no religious connotation associated with this symbol; the Rose Cross symbol predates Christianity. The cross symbolically represents the human body and the rose represents the individual's unfolding consciousness.

Most scholars believe that a Lutheran named Johannes Valentinus Andreae (1586-1654) authored the Rosicrucian Manifestos. He also admitted to have done so, but claimed they were satirical, and his later works made occultism and alchemy objects of ridicule. There is also no direct evidence for the existence of Rosicrucianim prior to the manifestos' publication, but that could be attributed to the fact that it was a secret society. But if we read the direct evidence (the manifestos) straight-forwardly, then two conclusions emerge:

Rosicrucianism was founded after Luther's death.
The founding documents were written in German by a Lutheran.

It's not hard, then, to conclude that the shared symbolism is due to the influence of Lutheranism on Rosicrucianism. That, or it could be a coincidence.

Whether you accept these conclusions or not depends on how much weight you give to the direct documentary evidence, as opposed to hypothetical and secret histories and legends.


What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is morally acceptable (when there are no complicating factors)?

I personally disagree with this analysis, but typically, if a biblical basis is given, it is this:

Exodus 21:22 - 23

  22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The crux of the matter here is verse 23.  The question is, does the "serious injury" in verse 23 refer to the child or the woman.  Pro-choice Christians argue that the "serious injury" only applies to the woman - not to the baby who is born prematurely.  And, the prematurely suggests that the child does not survive in the medical conditions of the day. If this is the way it is supposed to be read, this implies that the unborn child is property (and hence there is restitution) and not a full live human being. If life for life were demanded, it would be far less ambiguous.

That said, in the church where I pastored, I got roundly criticized for "politicizing my pulpit" when I recounted the story of how the Roe in Roe v. Wade eventually came to renounce her views.  My congregation thought this to be a matter of personal conscience, and not a theological one.  (Did I say I was a pastoring a very liberal church?) I suspect most Christians who are "pro-Choice" arrive at the position first, then seek to find Scripture to back up the position.


Where did Jesus go after he arose from the grave?

Matthew 28 says he appeared to the two Marys, then to the 11 disciples in Galilee.

Mark 16 says he appeared to Mary Magdalene, then to 2 of the disciples, then to all 11.

Luke 24 says he appeared to 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus, then to the 11.

John 20-21 says he appeared to Mary Magdalene, then to an unspecified number of disciples (specifically not including Thomas, maybe all 10 of the others, maybe not), then to the 11 indoors, then to 6 disciples on a beach.

Ephesians 4 says he "descended into the lower parts of the Earth", which the Apostles Creed interprets as "descended into Hell".

1 Cor 15 says he was seen by Peter, then "the twelve", then "over 500 of the brethren at once", then by James, then by "all the apostles".

Acts 1 says it was 40 days from the resurrection until his ascension.

There may be other references to post-resurrection appearances that I'm forgetting.

None of these claims to be a minute-by-minute of Jesus's activities after the resurrection, so it's not surprising that some mention incidents that others don't. Mark's mention of him meeting two disciples and Luke's mention of meeting 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus are probably the same incident, but it's tough to prove. Apparently he met various groups of the disciples at different times, so figuring out which meetings in different accounts are describing the same event is not necessarily obvious.

As to why: Jesus gives (at least) 2 reasons: John 14:1 "I go to prepare a place for you." Normally understood to mean Heaven or the New Jerusalem. And John 16:5, "It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you."

Why couldn't Jesus stay here and bring the Holy Spirit, or send the Holy Spirit and then come back? I have no idea, but the plain reading appears to be that Jesus said this would not be possible.


The garden of Eden was a physical place. It was believed to be situated south of Lake Van in Turkey. Ancient Turkey.

We cannot know the exact location of Eden because of the flood. The flood could have changed the geography of the whole area. It almost certainly would change how the 4 rivers flowed. Those 4 rivers are really the only way of knowing the exact spot of Eden. You can speculate the exact spot, but nobody knows for sure.

Here is an article from Insight from the Scriptures Volume 1:

  "The traditional location for the garden of Eden has long been suggested to have been a mountainous area some 225 km (140 mi) SW of Mount Ararat and a few kilometers S of Lake Van, in the eastern part of modern Turkey. That Eden may have been surrounded by some natural barrier, such as mountains, could be suggested by the fact that cherubs are stated to have been stationed only at the E of the garden, from which point Adam and Eve made their exit."

  "With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. (Ge 7:11) This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface. The earth’s crust is relatively thin (estimated at between 30 km [20 mi] and 160 km [100 mi] thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62."

So to answer the question, no it is very unlikely. If Eden had mountains everywhere, but east, then Eden was in a small valley of sorts. The genesis account says even the tallest mountains where covered. This means that the valley would have been underwater for quite a long time. It is speculated that the water took almost a year to subside. That is more than long enough to drown any plant life that was in Eden. The site of Eden may still exist, but because of the flood it would be vastly different than what it originally was.


Where to find information about numbers of Mormons in France, Poland, Russia during WW2

That is an interesting question. I too would like to know why you are asking, as I have never thought of this specific time period in church history.  Here is some information I could find by a few searches. I have quotes and I have attached sources as well if you want to dig further.
France

By 1930 there were only forty-seven French Mormons, whereas in the French-speaking areas of Belgium and Switzerland there were 344 and 280 Saints, respectively.
War would again interfere with missionary efforts in 1939 as missionaries were withdrawn from France with the outbreak of World War II. And even with the end of that conflict and the reopening—for the fourth time—of the French Mission in 1946, war still indirectly hampered proselyting efforts: with the Korean War and the need for U.S. soldiers, the number of missionaries available was severely limited.

Source: The Saints in France (Ensign: January 1976)
Poland

In 1928, Selbongen (renamed Zelwagi after the Second World War) became the home of a Latter-day Saint meetinghouse and congregation. Selbongen was ceded to Poland from Germany after World War II. Elder Ezra Taft Benson, then a Church apostle and later United States secretary of agriculture, visited Zelwagi soon after the war. More than 100 members and friends gathered to sing, share testimonies, pray and listen to his counsel. In 1947, authorities ordered Zelwagi meetings discontinued because Polish was the only language the government allowed to be spoken at public meetings. (As former citizens of Germany, the members conducted their meetings in German).

Source 2:

After the war, many of the previous LDS branches in eastern Germany now resided in the realigned Poland, meaning many members soon left or were forced out. The branch in Selbongen – renamed Zelwagi by the government — earned a post-war visit by Elder Ezra Taft Benson in his nearly yearlong European welfare mission in 1946. More than 100 members and friends gathered for a quickly convened meeting.

Source: Poland - LDS Facts and Statistics
Source: LDS Church in Poland has had long, hard journey
Russia
I haven't found anything for that time period in Russia, but if you are interested about general history, there are quite a few articles. Mormons in Russia, The LDS Church in Russia

With the Bolshevik-led October 1917 revolution, atheism became the official religion and the Bible was not widely read or available. The country was closed to all Christianity, which included The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The church wasn't officially recognized until 1991.


In which denominations is naturism unacceptable?

Bibilically speaking, being "exposed" has always been linked with a shaming - from the time that Adam and Eve realized they were naked and after the fall thus ashamed (Gen 3), to Hosea in which a disgraced and conquered foe was stripped naked, etc...  the general tenor of Scripture is that being naked is an undesirable state.

Since naturism / nudism as a movement is a very new phenomenon (springing in the early 20th century), very few denominations would have felt much need to deal with the issue. There are nudist "churches" (I think of the one at White Tail Resort in VA, for example) but by and large the membership isn't sufficient to warrant the attention of most denominations

All in all, my take on it (and its just my take) is this - being a nudist - i.e. advocating that clothing is unnecessary and socially inhibiting in public - is contrary to scripture mostly because it is an attempt to deny the Fall. In a way, it attempts to deal with the "sin" by stating that it is simply man's invention - a stance that would be at odds with an understanding that God defines what is and is not sin.


Why has Mary Magdalene been portrayed as a prostitute?

Traditionally Roman Catholics have identified St. Mary Magdalen with the "woman in the town who was a sinner" of Luke 7:36ff -- that's the Gospel reading for her feast day in the older form of the Roman liturgy. It's true that at face value the Gospel does not identify the nature of her sin but it seems clear that her sin is well-known, at least locally:

  Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." (Luke 7:39, RSV)

And it also appears to go beyond being ritually unclean, for the Lord himself seems to consider it fairly serious:

  And Jesus said to him, "... her sins, which were many, have been forgiven" (Luke 7:43 & 7:47)

So the Gospel text may not establish for certain that she was a prostitute but it's at least a reasonable reading.

Her importance, of course, has less to do with her sin, whatever it was exactly, than with her conversion. Most female saints in the traditional liturgical calendar are identified as virgins or widows, but Mary Magdalen has the unique title of "penitent".


Why are there differences in the "Greeting" of the Mass?

Not just the introductory right, there are numerous variation for prayers all through the mass. There are 13 Eucharistic Prayers approved by Holy See for use in the United States.src

Why are there three options?

Because even though all Mass are same in essence, people are invited to meditate upon a certain theme in each mass. Prayers differ depending on the theme of the mass.

Which authority determines which option to use? Is this the presider's choice alone, or does one in authority above the presider make this determination?

Answer is both. Mostly it is the presider's choice. But he has to follow the guidelines in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal Chapter VII. The bishop can make changes but all changes have to be approved by Congregation For Divine Worship And The Discipline of The Sacraments


What is the significance of the Bible to Christianity?

This may be redundant, but from a Sola Scriptura/Biblical Literalist/Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist view...

  Is Christianity defined by the Bible?

  If so, is belief in the Bible the most important (or foundational) belief in Christianity?  Is it the basis of Christianity?

Yes.  Christianity is the faith in the God of the Bible.  If we believe in a god, any God other than the God defined in the Bible, then by definition, we are following a god that either we made up to suit ourselves, or one made up by men. Either way it's called idolatry.

  If not, what is it exactly that makes a person a "Christian"?  (Can an Atheist call himself a Christian and be counted as a Christian?)

According to the rules of this site, anyone can call themselves a Christian, and we act as if that is the case.  So for the purposes of this site, yes.

But: Scripture says otherwise.  It teaches of false brethren, false converts - people who think they're Christian but aren't.  It speaks of false teachers.  It defines Christians as those who have accepted the free gift of salvation through faith in Christ alone.

  Can you be a Christian and not believe in the Bible?

Again, per the rules of this site, yes, but in reality, I don't think so.  See the first portion of my answer.  Further, if God is who the Bible says He is, and if the Bible is truly God's word, then to disbelieve the Bible is to disbelieve God - to think that he is either mistaken (and therefore not worthy to be called God) or a liar (also not worthy of the title.)

  Can you be a Christian without ever having been taught from the Bible?

The people saved in the New testament didn't have the Bible.  It wasn't completely written yet.  They were taught what would later become Scripture. So it is possible to become a Christian without having someone physically open the Book.

But:  the people who were saved in the early Church were told about Christ, they were told the gospel message (as described in the book of Acts) so in essence, they were taught what the bible teaches.  They were just taught it before it was recorded.

  If so, why is the Bible important to Christianity?

N/A.  "If so" clearly isn't the case.  The Bible is essential to Christianity today.  The events described in it happened thousands of years ago, and if we didn't have this Book of history, recorded exactly the way God intended, and preserved to the present day, we'd have no solid foundation for our faith.  We'd have a million different views on God (as we do today) without the one source of Truth that the Scriptures provide, as a plumb-line against which to measure the truth of the various teachings.

In other words, without the Bible, we could know nothing about God.  We would have no basis for our faith, other than to base it on our own suppositions and the suppositions of those in authority who came before us.


Are Iraqi Chaldean (Suraye) related to the Chaldean mentioned in old testament?

Bruce Feiler says, in Where God Was Born, page 199-200, the Chaldeans of the Old Testament were an Arabic tribe that migrated northward into central Mesopotamia in about the ninth century BCE and eventually seized control of the kingdom, forming what became known as the neo-Babylonian Empire.

Wikipedia says the modern Chaldean Catholics are in fact Assyrians, originally from northern Iraq, northeast Syria, northwest Iran and southeast Turkey, an area that does not overlap well with the more southern homeland of the Old Testament Chaldeans.  Rome initially named the new diocese, formed by those Assyrians who broke from The Assyrian Church of the East and entered communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Assyria and Mosul.  Some 128 years later, in 1681, this was changed to The Chaldean Catholic Church, despite none of its adherents having hitherto used the name 'Chaldean' to describe themselves or their church.

In conclusion, the 'Iraqi Chaldeans' are not ethnically related to the ancient Chaldean people. The name 'Chaldeans' was chosen by the Catholic Church in Rome, although there was no precedent to support this usage.


According to the Catholic Church, who taught Moses the Law?

TL:DR: Regarding the old law, God gave the law to his people.

In the case of delivering the Law to Moses at Sinai, Exodus 19-24 is pretty clear on who delivered what.

For a longer answer to your question, @Marc has suggested Covenant and Kinship by Scott Hahn.  I second that recommendation, because as Marc points out (in a comment) the answer to your question is related to Covenant theology.

Who gave the law to Moses?

Beyond the scripture cited in the TL:DR, the Catechism of the Catholic Church articles 1949 - 2051 discuss divine law, moral law, the old law, and the new law.  Within the discussion of the old law it is pretty clear that the simple answer is that God gave the law to Moses.  That is the teaching of the church.

I recommend reading those articles to take your understanding of the Church's stated belief beyond a sound byte.  It's a shorter read than Hahn's book, but it's not as in depth.  Each page and each article have footnotes indicating the scripture, theologian, or church father supporting a presented belief.  That notation is very helpful, as it provides fertile ground for further reading and understanding of the position.

The law in general:

  1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them
  interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural
  law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of
  the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

  1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus
  Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law,
  for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the
  end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4
  (Romans 10:4)

The Old Law

  1961 God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose Israel for himself to be his
  people and revealed his Law to them, thus preparing for the coming of
  Christ. The Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to
  reason.  These are stated and authenticated within the covenant of
  salvation.

  1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral
  prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of
  the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in
  the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God
  and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a
  light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and
  ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

  God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their
  hearts.1

Notes:
Since you did not provide a source for "what the Jews teach" in terms of angels delivering the law, I will not address that.

1 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 57, 1: PL 36, 673.


How is the divinity of Jesus defended in light of Philippians 2:9 ("God exalted him") and Matthew 28:18?

Paul says of the Son of God, that 'being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God'[Philippians 2:6 KJV] . He is equal to God, in his eternal Being.

The two texts you mention regard the Son of God being exalted in humanity. That is, after incarnation and after his sufferings and death, God exalted Jesus Christ to his own right hand - in humanity.

The first humanity failed. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23.

But Jesus Christ, in humanity, did - always - the will of the Father, John 8:29. Thus has God exalted him, in humanity, to his own throne, Revelation 3:21.


Why aren't Moses, Elijah, and other Old Testament heroes of faith given the title of "Saint"?

Although they are not usually described formally as saints, the Catholic Church does actually consider Old Testament figures to be saints, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  61 The patriarchs, prophets and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church's liturgical traditions.


For how long did the early Christians share all their possessions?

There is an excellent written words in this page on "No one that lacked..." section.

Edit: I took down the link above, as it now redirects to a potential scam site. I do apologize for this. For those who know how to access older versions of sites that has robot.txt, here is the link. To the author of this question: I completely understand if you wish to accept another answer.

  Acts 4:34 says that “there was not a needy person among them” due to distribution of the proceeds of the sale of houses and land.

Now, as stated above, we don’t know how long this arrangement continued. However, by the end of the eleventh chapter, there were certainly many needy believers, many who lacked. In fact the church in Judea had become so impoverished due to a worldwide famine that the Christians in Antioch took a collection to help them.


Where were the two 'thieves' that were crucified at the same time as Jesus, laid to rest?

The following is about Gehenna from the New World Encyclopedia.

  Originally it referred to a garbage dump in a deep narrow valley right outside the walls of Jerusalem where fires were kept burning to consume the refuse and keep down the stench. It is also the location where bodies of executed criminals, or individuals denied a proper burial, would be dumped.

Gehenna or the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom was a literal place outside the city. It served as a garbage dump for the city and a disposal for bodies of individuals considered unworthy for proper burial. These would include criminals of various sorts. Fire was kept going in Gehenna to incinerate the trash and bodies thrown there.

Most likely, the criminals killed next to Jesus were unceremoniously dumped into Gehenna.


What are all the different species of intelligent beings that God has created?

The Four Living Creatures in Revelation are also described in Ezekiel 10, when he has a vision of the Cherubim - which are either heavenly beings and/or angels depending on who you ask:

  And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.

Also, to my understanding (at least in Revelation) these creatures are supposed to represent the Four Evangelists - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Depending on your denomination and what you do or do not consider scriptural, in Mishneh Torah or Yad ha-Chazakh we have the following:

Chayot ha-Kodesh - Ezekiel Chs 1-10 (creatures)
Ophanim - also in Ezekiel Chs 1-10 ("wheels")
Erelim - Isaiah 33:7
Hashmallim - Ezekiel 1:4
Seraphim - Isaiah 6
Malakim - regular angels/messengers; seen throughout
Elohim - "godly beings" (this is why the Lord is typically called Adonai Elohim)
Bene Elohim - the sons of God/godly beings
Cherubim - we see them throughout the Bible.
Ishim - manlike beings in Genesis 18:32 and Daniel 10:5
Nephilim - sons of the fallen angels (sometimes called "Watchers"). They were giants created after the angels exchanged in relations with human women.

*note I used Judaism as the reference for the names


In the parable of the ten minas, why does the king kill his enemies?

This is a parable, so the fact that "a man of noble birth" is third person is rather irrelevant. It's pretty obvious he's symbolizing someone, probably Jesus.
Context. Verse 11 reads:

  As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

I think it's easy to gather from this that:

The parable was being told to show that the kingdom of God would not appear immediately
This parable was about the kingdom of God.

With this in mind, and knowing that the kingdom of God in Jesus's parables often refers to the day of judgement or the end times, we can make a couple of assumptions:

Jesus is the nobleman. He often is, and he goes to "receive for himself a kingdom," something especially reformed scholars says Jesus is doing (receiving a kingdom from his Father).
The followers of Christ are the ten servants.
Those servants that pleased the nobleman with the abundance of minas are those saved by Christ who have lived out their lives "according to their calling."  They have confirmed their faith through works, as James says.
The one who fails to multiply the mina is not one of Christ's followers, but a tag-along; like the seed sown in the rocks.
Point 4 is made more obvious in verse 26, which reads:

  I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Those who multiplied their minas "had" - they had Christ, truly. Alternatively you could say they truly "had" their mina, because then to them more was given. Either way, they had something (salvation) and to them more (eternal life) was given. To the man who hid the mina, he had not (no salvation) and so even everything else he had (life) was taken away (cast into hell).

As to verse 27, notice that the nobleman is still talking within the parable; Jesus is not talking directly. So we're still within the parable, which is happening later (point 2.1). The nobleman (Jesus) will, on the last day, cast into Hell those who did not want him to rule over him, just as he "took away" from the man who failed to multiply his mina. (There might be a difference between what happens to these two groups, maybe, maybe not. Regardless, those rebelled against Christ are being punished).
So no, Christ isn't "ordering open carnage against those who didn't follow the Abrahamic faith", he's sounding a warning that on the last day those who rebelled against him will perish.

N.B This answer, like many, is quite speculative. I've tried to stick to what I've heard preached and the typical Evangelical interpretation of the passage. The beauty of the votes is that they (should, anyways) show if I'm well representing that position.


Do any Church Fathers comment on the merciful Nature of Stoning (Catholicism)?

Do any Church Fathers comment on the merciful nature of stoning (Catholicism)?

The short answer seems to be no. No Church Father seems to have written on the subject of the merciful nature of stoning.

Some have written on the subject of capital punishment, but opinions seem to be a little bit complicated in their analyses of that subject.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers no supporting writings of any of the Church Fathers in its’ article on Stoning in Scripture

  Palestine being a very rocky country, the abundance of stones made it natural to use them as missiles. Stone throwing might be merely a mark of hatred and contempt (2 Samuel 16:6-13), or the means of carrying out murderous intentions against which provision had to be made in the Law (Exodus 21:18, Numbers 35:17). Stoning to death which was at first an expression of popular fury analogous to "lynching", later came to be a natural and legally recognized method of execution. It was this regulated by law as an appointed means of capital punishment (Deuteronomy 17:5-7; Acts 7:58). Death by stoning is prescribed in the Pentateuch as the penalty for eighteen different crimes including Sabbath-breaking, but for one crime only — murder — is it the penalty prescribed in all the codes. The execution of the criminal usually took place outside the city walls, and according to Deuteronomy 17:7, the witnesses in the case were to cast the first stone: "Thou shalt bring forth the man or the woman, who have committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned. By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die who is to be slain.... The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to kill him, and afterwards the hands of the rest of the people". (Deuteronomy 17:5-7). Stoning is also mentioned in Acts 7:57-58, as the means by which Stephen the first Christian martyr was put to death: "And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him."

In fact, the Church Fathers have written very little on the subject of the death penalty at all and it seems any reference to stoning is not included.

  How did the earliest Christians view the practice of capital punishment?

  To borrow a phrase from social media: It’s complicated.

  The issue arises in just a handful of documents from the first three centuries, and those few instances are sometimes vague, ambivalent or wavering. They resist the most ardent modern efforts to find consistency.

  In the first century, Clement of Rome lamented the unjust execution of biblical heroes at the hands of wicked rulers (1 Clement 45). “The righteous were indeed persecuted, but only by the wicked. They were cast into prison, but only by the unholy; they were stoned, but only by transgressors; they were slain, but only by the accursed.” He spoke of specific instances of people wrongly accused and killed. But he did not say, or even imply, that the death penalty could never be administered justly, or that only the unjust would execute a death sentence.

  Around A.D. 150, St. Justin Martyr said that Christians of his time “refrain from making war upon our enemies” and would rather die than take a life in self-defense (“First Apology,” 1.39). Justin was, of course, living in a time of persecution, when Christians had neither the means nor the authority to wage war or sentence anyone to death. It is difficult to say whether he intended to claim absolute pacifism as a perennial norm for Christians. If he did, he would have placed himself outside the mainstream of Christian thought.

  Perhaps the strongest and clearest early-Christian statement against the death penalty comes from Athenagoras of Athens (around A.D. 177). Responding to those who accused Christians of ritual murder, he said: “We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly. … How, then, when we do not even look on, … can we put a man to death?” (“A Plea for the Christians,” 35).

  Again, however, the statement is not as binding as it might seem. He was defending the Church against the specific charge that its liturgies included child-murder. His intention was to establish that Christians were peace-loving people. He was not laying down universal moral principles.

  Indeed, in the next generation, Clement of Alexandria, took quite the opposite position: “When one falls into any incurable evil,” Clement said, “… it will be for his good if he is put to death” (Stromata 1.27). And Clement was, in fact, laying down moral principles.

  Yet Clement’s position was not universal. His contemporary Tertullian, a North African, decisively opposed the practice of capital punishment, claiming that the Creator “puts his interdict on every sort of man-killing” (“On the Shows,” 2). Tertullian was (like Justin) a pacifist who believed that Christians should not serve in the military. In this, he found company with Hippolytus, a Roman priest who urged pastors to deny baptism to any soldier whatsoever. “A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out” (“Apostolic Tradition,” 16.9).

  Yet we know, from the graves in the Roman Catacombs, that the early Christians were amply represented in all the branches of the military. Pacifism may have been the ideal of men like Tertullian and Hippolytus. But in the time of Marcus Aurelius, there was an entirely Christian unit in the Roman army.

  As the third century turned over to the fourth, Lactantius, a prominent Christian intellectual, opposed capital punishment, as it was the cause of death for many of his co-religionists during the Diocletian persecution. And Lactantius held this position as long as Christians were vulnerable. Yet, later — once Constantine, a Christian, had taken the imperial throne — the same Lactantius spoke in favor of the emperor’s right to impose the death penalty.

  The early Christians’ treatment of capital punishment differed essentially from their condemnation of certain other forms of killing — abortion and infanticide, for example, and the blood sport of the gladiatorial games. In each of those cases, the judgment was consistently straightforward, unhesitating and unequivocal.

  But when modern scholars survey the first Christians’ positions on the death penalty, they come to vastly different conclusions.

  Cardinal Avery Dulles said: “The early Christians evidently had nothing against the death penalty … [T]he Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment.”

  The great Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries — Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine — recognized the right of the state to execute criminals, but urged rulers not to exercise that right. St. Ambrose told a Christian judge named Studius: “You will be excused if you do it, but you will be admired if you refrain when you might have done it” (“Letter,” 50).

  Ambrose’s disciple, St. Augustine, characterized the good Christian ruler as “slow to punish, but ready to pardon” (“City of God,” 5.24). He justified capital punishment when there was “no other established method of restraining the hostility of the desperate.” Then, he said, “perhaps extreme necessity would demand the killing of such people” (“Letter,” 134).

  Augustine recognized the state’s right to wield the sword, but he hoped that lethal use would be extremely rare. “As violence is used toward him who rebels and resists, so mercy is due to the vanquished or the captive, especially in the case in which future troubling of the peace is not to be feared” (“Letter,” 189).

  The later Fathers synthesized the various testimonies of their predecessors and concluded that mercy should predominate among Christian peoples, and life should be spared in all but the rarest cases. In this they speak with the same voice as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, St. John Paul II (Evangelium Vitae, 56) and indeed all the recent popes, the bishops of the United States and all the bishops’ conferences that have issued statements on the subject.

  In this matter as in most matters, we see consistency between the earliest Fathers and our current leaders and teachers — and greater clarity with the passage of time. - The early Church and the death penalty

Although the Church Fathers write little on to subject of capital punishment, the subject of stoning is obviously lacking. No obviously Church Father writes about the merciful nature of stoning as a form of execution at all.


Scriptural/theological reasoning for renaming: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

In his monograph entitled The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Dr. Richard D. Patterson observes that in the pivotal event in Israel's history when Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, Elijah invoked the formulaic or motivic words you have drawn our attention to:

  “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your bidding. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.”

Dr. Patterson then makes the following observations:

  God sent a fire that not only consumed the sacrifice, but
  the altar itself and everything surrounding it. The use of the
  patriarchal formula not only reminded the Israelites of who was their
  God, but also demonstrated that those who are faithful to the Lord
  could call upon him and have their prayers answered (cf. Ps. 102:1-2.
  James 5:16-18). It is noteworthy as well that in the formula utilized
  here the patriarchal name Israel occurs rather than Jacob. For like
  Jacob of old, the Israelites of Elijah’s time (i.e., during the reign
  of Ahab and his wife Jezebel) needed to hold fast to the Lord if they
  were to experience his favor and blessing (my emphasis).

In other words, if Dr. Patterson is correct, the Israelites as a nation, and at that point in their backslidden condition, needed to cling to the LORD just as Jacob did on the night the LORD appeared to him and wrestled with him. I suggest, therefore, that by implication Dr. Peterson is saying that Jacob as Jacob was a grasper of the heel of Esau (see Genesis 25:26), but Jacob as Israel was one who held on to God and would not let Him go until God blessed him. At that point, God changed his name from Jacob to Israel, meaning "one who has striven with God and man and prevailed" (Genesis 32:24-32).

On Mount Carmel, then, Elijah is in effect telling Israel to keep holding on to God if you truly want to experience the LORD's blessing and prevail over the priests of Baal.

As for the other appearances of the formula, "Abraham, Isaac, and Israel," I'll leave them to another person who chooses to build upon my modest foundation of an answer!


Do mormons have a doctrine of afterlife preaching and repentence?

Not only is this belief held by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is one of the core tenets of their faith as outlined in the Four-fold Mission of the Church.

Mormons believe that after physical death the spirit is separated from the body and enters the Spirit World. The spirit is then places in Spirit Prison or Spirit Paradise, based on the person's words and deeds during their life. A primary reference for this belief can be found in Alma:40 in the Book of Mormon.

Mormons believe that when Christ was in the Spirit World prior to his Resurrection he organized a ministry among the righteous dead assembled in the Spirit Paradise and bridged the gulf between Spirit Paradise and Spirit Prison. This can be found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 138.

Hand in hand with the belief of the ministry to the dead is the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead. Members of the LDS church observe the practice of Baptism for the Dead in which they are baptizes as proxy for their ancestors. This gives those in Spirit Prison who accept the gospel posthumously a chance to receive the necessary saving ordinances to enter into Spirit Paradise. Baptism for the Dead is only done within Temples and is seen as a very sacred ordinance. More about the Baptism for the Dead can be found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 127 and 128.


Why are many protestants hesitant of the reappropriation of symbols?

Perhaps this could be better understood by looking at the most popular holiday of the world, specifically Christmas. Christmas is supposedly, or commonly celebrated or a celebration of the birth of the Christ Child, Jesus. Now, let’s find in the Scriptures where God instructs us to celebrate the birth of His Son.  There is not one place in either the Old or New Testament telling us to honor our Savior’s birth each year. As a matter of fact, Jesus Himself tells us to remember, His death (Luke 21:14-20; I Corinthians 11:23-26)! Undoubtedly, it is important that He was born, but the fact that He died and how and why He died has farther-reaching and more eternal consequences!

What most people do not fully realize is that Satan has deceived this whole world (Revelation 12:9). Many of the comfortable, familiar customs and traditions of this world have, indeed, been imitated from utter paganism and have nothing to do with proper Christianity. God tells us to prove all things (I Thessalonians 5:21). Before we accept any ritual, we should always inquire into its origins. We must assure ourselves that it does not transgress any of God's laws and that it follows the traditions and practices of the early New Testament church. So, is the sign of the cross really an emblem of true Christianity or is it something far different? Therefore, Christians saying they are saved by the power of the cross is also symbolic of the Power of the Blood of Christ in its inherent purity as it was shed on the cross. As to the shape of, or whether or not the cross had a crossbeam, or was just a stake for torture, is actually irrelevant.

SYNCRETISM //
In Romans 1:18-20, Paul declares that things inclusive of God's existence, power, and nature are clearly seen, but men tend to squelch the truth. What God wants man to know; man freely ignores and squelches through the adding of beliefs, customs and traditions that cloak the truth. The truth is still there, hidden behind a screen of falsehoods that most never attempt to remove.

Theologians call this method syncretism. According to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, syncretism is "the combination of different forms of belief or practice." Syncretism might perchance term in other arenas, like philosophy, but scholars use it most singularly in religious contexts. Syncretize, the verb form of the word, is very illuminating. It means "to attempt to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity." In other words, those who syncretize will often attach one belief or tradition to their religion without trying to determine whether it is correct to do so.

Hope this is of help towards answering the question of why some Protestants hesitate to be accepting of symbols or symbolism when it comes or relates to Godly things. Otherwise outside of the bible I am not aware of any universal Protestant doctrine.

I have no degree, however I did two plus years of biblical studies at Toccoa Falls Bible College in North East Georgia, and I have been born again since March 1985. My answer is from those, and my own studies of scripture and many other text and many websites where I researched. I have tried to be as fluent as I could. I am somewhat novice to putting my words out as such.


How does the Catholic Church handle documents worldwide nowadays?

Baptism, in the Catholic Church, is sometimes called "the gateway to the Sacraments":

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments.
Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1213

and

Baptism [is] the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation...
Code of Canon Law 849

You can't, for example, be confirmed without being baptized, and you can't be ordained without being confirmed—and of course you can't be married or ordained if you've already received either sacrament. So it's crucial to be able to see whether someone was baptized or not.
For this reason, records of baptism are very important in church life, and are required by canon law to be kept at the parish and diocesan levels. The Code of Canon Law has a whole chapter dedicated to the record-keeping process. Central to this is canon 877, section 1:

The pastor of the place where the baptism is celebrated must carefully and without any delay record in the baptismal register the names of the baptized, with mention made of the minister, parents, sponsors, witnesses, if any, the place and date of the conferral of the baptism, and the date and place of birth.

The Code doesn't specify exactly how quickly "without any delay" must be, but 24 to 48 hours seems reasonable in most cases.
The parish records are to be communicated to the diocese:

A diocesan bishop is to take care that the acts and documents of the archives of cathedral, collegiate, parochial, and other churches in his territory are also diligently preserved and that inventories or catalogs are made in duplicate, one of which is to be preserved in the archive of the church and the other in the diocesan archive.
(Canon 491, Section 1)

There's no need or legal requirement for these records to be copied to the Vatican. The Church is less centralized than many people think in that regard.
As far as whether someone could look up to see whether you were married, for example: briefly, yes. Before receiving a sacrament, you (or your guardian) has to provide the parish with your baptismal certificate. Because of the diocesan reporting requirements, you can find this even if you don't know what parish you were baptized in.
Once you are married, or have your First Communion, or whatever, that is noted in your local parish records, and a note is also sent to your baptismal parish. They in turn will annotate your baptismal certificate with a record of the sacrament. That way, if you're receiving a new sacrament, you just need your original baptismal certificate. You don't have to go looking for everywhere you might have had a sacrament administered.
There's only sacramental information on the certificate, though. The Church needs to know what sacraments you've been administered. They don't need to know whether you've gone to Catholic school, or whether you're in the Knights of Columbus, or anything like that.
So: Any parish where you have received a sacrament will have a record of that event. So will the diocese of that parish. And your baptismal parish and diocese will have records of all the sacraments you've ever been administered (including First Confession and First Communion). The Vatican won't have any records of any of these. And no one will have records of non-sacramental actions of yours.


According to the Catholic Church, why is God called “Father” (and not, say, “Mother”)?

The short answer is that, from the Catholic Church’s perspective, God did not merely choose to reveal Himself as Father. Rather, He is Father by nature, in two respects: through the eternal generation of the Son in the Holy Trinity, and in His act of creating, especially the creation of those creatures that are “in his image” (see Gen. 1:26). Therefore, human fatherhood is best viewed as a partaking in the Divine Fatherhood of God, one that, by God’s design, is most apt for understanding Divine Fatherhood.

The use of the term “Father,” therefore, is not to be viewed as a concession to the patriarchal culture of the time, but as revealing the very nature of God.

Divine Fatherhood in the Scriptures.

As the question says, the Scriptures—both the Old and the New Testament (the New more explicitly than the Old)—take great pains to reveal God as Father.

In the Old Testament, God is referred to numerous times as “Father,” although the name of Father never clearly acquires a meaning beyond the metaphorical. For example, there is Deuteronomy 32:6:

  Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you? (ESV).

or Isaiah 63:16

  For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.

(For quite a good overview of God the Father in the Old Testament, see “The Fatherhood of God” on http://biblestudytools.com.)

In the New Testament, of course, it is well known that Jesus calls God his Father and instructs us to do the same. (See, above all, the Lord’s Prayer,
Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4; also John 20:17.)

Notably missing—in either Testament—is any reference to God as “mother,” despite the fact that God clearly has attributes that might be considered “maternal." For example, God comforts His people as a mother comforts her child (Isaiah 66:13); like a nursing mother, He will never forget His people (Isaiah 49:15); He longed to gather Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks (Luke 13:34). (See my source for these examples.) There are also multiple references to God’s “tender compassion” (e.g., Luke 1:68-79).

Is the reference to the Father necessary, or merely a cultural concession?

Having established the fact that God revealed Himself as “Father,” the question now is establishing why.

The reason comes from the very nature of the Holy Trinity. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) puts it,

  Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (No. 240, quoting Mt. 11:27).

God is Triune—that is, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—by nature from all eternity. The Fatherhood of God is not simply a “persona” that God assumed; it is He very Being. (He is also Son and Holy Spirit, of course.) He is also “Father” in the sense that His act of creating resembles the generation that is proper to human fatherhood (strictly speaking, as I mention below, it is more a question human fatherhood resembling God’s Fatherhood).

As the Catechism explains, human fatherhood is an image of or participation in God’s Fatherhood:

  By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children (No. 239).

It is clear, therefore, that God is Father by nature, and calling Him so does not depend on merely cultural considerations.

Order of being, order of knowledge

At this point, it is useful to distinguish two aspects of this problem: there is an ontological order (the order of being), which deals with things as they really are, independently of our knowledge; and there is the order of knowledge, which deals with how we come to know that reality.

It should be noted that God is perfectly ineffable; that is, we are able to know Him only to the degree that He reveals Himself to us (either through His effects in creation, or through Revelation). As the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) puts it,

  We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple (Canon 1; translation from CCC 202).

Jesus revealed that within the Godhead there is a unique relationship between himself and the Father. Trinitarian theology teaches that the relations from Father to Son and Son to Father (and, of course, from the Holy Spirit to Father and Son) are identical with the Persons themselves:

  252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others (No. 252; also St. Thomas Aquinas describes the Persons as “relations subsisting in the Divine Nature”; see Summa theologiae Ia, q. 30, a. 1 co.)

The relation proper to the Father is called generation (see CCC No. 254) or Fatherhood. This type of fatherhood is, of course, the very first in the order of being, and all creaturely fatherhood partakes in this one.

However in the order of knowledge, the question becomes, “What means did God have at His disposal in order to reveal His Divine Fatherhood to us”? God, as I have mentioned, is ineffable; hence even when He reveals Himself to us, He must make use of those aspects of reality that resemble Him. Indeed, things resemble Him precisely because they are effects of His creative power. (As Aquinas puts it, omne agens agit sibi simile, every agent produces an effect similar to itself; for instance, fire makes other things hot. See, e.g., S.Th. Ia, q. 44, a. 2 arg. 3.)

In other words, when Jesus called God “Father” (and based on that, the Church Fathers called the relation of the Father “generation”), he was employing human fatherhood as an analogy, so that we could have a glimpse into the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity.

The name “Father” signifies the essence; the maternal characteristics are attributes.

I mentioned that God does possess many attributes can be expressed by maternal images. As the Catechism says,

  God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood (No. 239).

Nevertheless, as should be evident from God’s ineffability, God greatly transcends human reality:

  We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father (No. 239).

However, when Jesus revealed God as Father, he did so in a way that signifies the very essence of God (namely, the Father as eternally begetting the Son, and God as the creator of all things). “Father,” therefore, is appropriate as a name for God, especially since man knows about the Fatherhood of God only by analogy with human fatherhood.

On the other hand, the “maternal” attributes of God do not signify the essence. (Yes, in the ontological order, God’s attributes are identical with Himself; but we, human beings with limited intellects, are compelled to distinguish between the two in our minds—that is, in the order of knowledge.)

This distinction explains why Jesus commanded us to call God “Father,” as I mentioned above, but not “mother”. This must not be understood in any way as a denigration of human motherhood: rather, human fatherhood and motherhood, from our point of view, signify different aspects of our understanding of God.

The related question: why did God make human fatherhood resemble His own?

The question thus is better reformulated in this way: why did God create human fatherhood to resemble His own Fatherhood? Any attempt to answer this question will necessarily enter into the realm of speculation, but presumably, it is in order that human beings, through human fatherhood, would be able to learn something about Divine Fatherhood—since that is the only way we could know about it.

However, God’s Fatherhood, in the order of being, is eternal and independent of His creatures.


I think Jude is encouraging his readers to fear the temptation of the flesh, which explains the following statement "hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.". Look at how it's phrased in the New Living Translation:

  Jude 1:20-23 NLT But you, dear friends, must build each other up in your most holy faith, pray in the power of the Holy Spirit, and await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will bring you eternal life. In this way, you will keep yourselves safe in God’s love. And you must show mercy to those whose faith is wavering. Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.

Instead of the fear, it's saying the word caution. This is similar to the passage in Galatians 6:

  Galatians 6:1 NLT Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself.

It looks like it is a cautionary fear.


According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying “Least of these commandments "?

There is surely a hierarchy of commandments. It begins with our duty toward God and goes on to speak of our duty to our fellow man; by definition, that is in an order of greater importance to less, inasmuch as God is more important, quite simply, than man. Moreover, keeping the latter are worthless unless the former are kept as a basis - not committing adultery will do no good if God is not treated as God, or His name is taken in vain: for "without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him" (Hebrews 11:6). Likewise, if you don't not murder your brother, how can you do him the justice of not stealing from him? Back to God - what use is not taking God's name in vain, unless you first acknowledge God to be the only God, and refrain from idolatry?

As for whether Jesus means more than the Ten, this is highly unlikely. The phrase "the Commandments" seems to have referred to only ashreth ha'dabrim (the Ten Commandments), as can be seen from Luke 18:20/Mark 10:19, for example:

  Mark 10:19 (DRB) Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother.

And indeed the fact that even God separated these from the rest by terming them The Ten Commandments in the Old Testament):

  Deuteronomy 4:13 (DRB) And he shewed you his covenant, which he commanded you to do, and the ten words that he wrote in two tables of stone.

("Words" had a wider semantic range than 'single word' in Hebrew, and here refers to the commandments.)

Of interest is that Jesus observes no particular order when listing the commandments. However, this is more likely to reflect the order in which the author listed them, since Luke omits "do no fraud," for example. About all we can know is that Jesus listed the latter commandments in some kind of order.


How did Christians get from the biblical feast of Passover to Easter sunday?

Easter and Passover are two different celebrations. Passover celebrates the escape of the Israelites from Egypt and the sparing of them from the plague of killing the firstborn. Easter celebrates the much more significant resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. You will find these events described in all four of the Gospels in the New Testament, Matthew Mark Luke and John. The resurrection is foreshadowed by Passover and occurred at the same time of year.

Passover is a strictly Jewish celebration and there is no thought that non-Jews would celebrate it. Easter is a celebration for all people that believe in Jesus, whether Jewish or not. Passover celebrations waned as the church became more and more non-Jewish, and an annual Paschal celebration of the Resurrection was well established by the second century AD.

I hope that helps.