Are the early followers of Christ considered Christians or Jews in today's context? If not, when was the religion created?

For starters, nobody was really a follower of Christ, as such, until he was about 30 years old (sometime from 27 to 30 AD or so).  At that point, Jesus began teaching in the synagogues and healing in public places.  We read about his first followers in several places, including:

  On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. [Miracle elided for space.] For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him.—Luke 5:1-11 (ESV)

Initially Jesus was considered just another rabbi and miracle worker in the mold of Honi the Circle-Drawer, Hanina ben Dosa and others.

By the end of his ministry, Jesus had been recast by his Jewish accusers of being a rebel against Rome along the lines of the Maccabees, Judas of Galilee and Zadok the Pharisee:

  Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.” But they were urgent, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place.”—Luke 23:1-5 (ESV)

However, after his death, Jesus' followers remained undeterred and continued teaching and performing miracles in his name.  But they did not seem interested in starting a rebellion:

  Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. [Details elided for space.] For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.—Acts 11:19-26 (ESV)

It's safe to say that by this time, the followers of Jesus had been rejected by the Jewish authorities and there was considerable confusion about their status among the Roman authorities.  The issue is that Rome tolerated Judaism as a traditional religion.  As a sect of Judaism, Christianity was protected from official persecution.  After the Great Revolt, Jews were generally despised by Romans and it's likely that Christians were implicated by association. In 96 AD, Christians were exempted from the "Jewish Tax", so the split was official at that point.

The various councils (after the Jerusalem Council of course) had nothing to do with the split, which had clearly already occurred.


Is it mandatory for a Roman Catholic girl to convert to Syrian Orthodox if the boy is of the Syrian Orthodox church, in the case of marriage?

According to the Catholic Church's canon law on mixed marriages,

  1983 Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

The Syrian Orthodox are not in communion with the Catholic Church, since the latter considers them schismatic.

According to the Syrian's norms,

  The liturgical minister should be the parish priest of the church where the marriage is celebrated, or his delegate from the same ecclesial communion.

and

  There is to be no joint celebration of marriage by the ministers of both Churches.

and

  Syrian Orthodox partner is to be reminded that he or she has to commit him/herself to imparting to their children proper Orthodox formation, to the extent possible and in agreement with his/her partner.

According to Catholic canon law, the first two points are possible, provided it is a Catholic priest and Catholic church. The last point is even more explicitly rejected in the older, 1917 formulation of Can. 1124 cited above:

  1917 Can. 1060 Most severely does the Church prohibit everywhere that marriage be entered into by two baptized persons, one of whom is Catholic, and the other belonging to a heretical or schismatic sect; indeed, if there is a danger of perversion to the Catholic spouse and children, that marriage is forbidden even by divine law.

Also, regarding baptism, the Catholic Church requires that

  Can.  868 §1. … 2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion…

Thus, although certain things may be permissible on the side of the Syrians, the Catholic Church is very cautious regarding mixed marriages, as they can be very spiritually dangerous to all those involved.


Why do Young-Earth Creationists make such a big deal about the YEC view

Again...  This is not about the validity of the YEC view.  The point of this is not to reveal "Truth", the point is to accurately explain the doctrinal significance of the view, from the perspective of those who believe the view, so that we have it on record on site.

The answer is quite simple, actually, and laid out very well on the Answers in Genesis website.  The short version is that in the minds of Young Earth Creationists, the issue is not whether the earth is young or old.  It's not whether or not we evolved.  Those are distractions from the real question, which is "Can we trust Scripture?", and extending it further, "Was Jesus Himself a liar?"

remember - just explaining the position/doctrinal view, not debating the validity.

Every one of the Young Earth Creationists listed, and those of us that follow are among those that believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God as described here,  here, and in the AIG article I linked to above.  Since the original manuscripts were given by God, it is impossible for them to be erroneous in any way.  And since we have such overwhelming manuscript evidence, we have every reason to believe that the Bible we have today is reliable.
All of them subscribe to a historical-grammatical method of interpretation, which provides guidelines for determining what content is to be taken literally, and where a non-literal interpretation is warranted.  Of course, there is variance in how this is applied, the view held by Young Earth Creationists is that a simple reading of the Genesis account without any external, non-Biblical evidence clearly gives six literal days of creation, one day of rest, a bit of history, and then a global flood. The age of the earth is based strictly on adding up the genealogies (when so and so was x years old, he begat y) and so on.

Since the method of interpretation includes the following:

  Extra-Biblical resources, such as language helps, commentaries, the
  writings of the so-called church fathers, and archaeological and
  scientific evidences, can be useful resources in correctly
  interpreting Scripture. But since they are the words and works of
  fallible men they are not authoritative.

when determining what a passage says, we can't refer to things like common knowledge, radiometric dating, currently accepted geology, paleontology, or any other branch of science.  When determining what Scripture says, only the context given within Scripture can be used. In other words, no "knowledge" of fallible man can possibly equal the revealed Truth given by God in Scripture.

Therefore, the only measurement we have to glean the age of the earth is the genealogies.  Without modern scientific knowledge, there would be no need for a gap theory, or a day-age theory.  That's why they refer to these as "compromise" theories - because they are attempting to use external evidence - man's fallible evidence and make it fit into God's word.

In Kent Hovind's words, "if you gave someone a Bible, with no idea about the controversy, and said 'read this - tell me what this says', not one of them would say 'Oh, there were millions of years between those days.' or gap theory, or anything of the sort.  They'd say 7 days".  Dr. Hovind goes on to re-state that you can't use fallible man's ideas to re-interpret Scripture.

So, for Young-Earth Creationists, the reason they view the Day-Age theory, or the Gap Theory, or anything else that tries to tie billions of years into the Creation account as invalid is pretty straightforward.

But how about the idea that the Genesis account is an allegory?  Plenty of Christians believe that.

Again, back to the "rules" of interpretation:

Scripture is intelligible. God meant for us to understand it.
Because it is infallible, the Bible is internally consistent. it can't contradict itself.
Because God meant to communicate truth, and because Scripture is internally consistent, the words of Scripture have only one meaning in context. There may be multiple legitimate applications of a passage of Scripture, but a passage has only one meaning in context. This is what it means to interpret Scripture according to its literal, or normal, sense.

None of that rules out an allegorical Genesis account, but how did Jesus treat the Genesis account?  Did He speak of it as if it were real, or did He speak of it as if it were an allegory?

Borrowing from the Answers in Genesis article:

  Another way that Jesus revealed His complete trust in the Scriptures
  was by treating as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament
  which most contemporary people think are unbelievable mythology. These
  historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple
  (Matt. 19:3-6, Mark 10:3-9), Abel as the first prophet who was
  martyred (Luke 11:50-51), Noah and the Flood (Matt. 24:38-39), Moses
  and the serpent (John 3:14), Moses and the manna (John 6:32-33, 49),
  the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-32), the judgment of
  Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke
  4:25-27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matt. 12:40-41). As Wenham has
  compellingly argued,7 Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took
  them as straightforward history, describing events that actually
  happened just as the Old Testament describes. Jesus used these
  accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His death,
  resurrection and second coming would likewise certainly happen in
  time-space reality.

So, in summary, for the Young-Earth Creationist, because of the doctrines of an inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, combined with the approach they use toward interpreting Scripture, there is no breathing room left.

Jesus didn't seem to treat the Genesis account as allegorical.  He presented it as actual historical fact.

by extension, if it were not actual, historical fact, then Jesus was either wrong, or a liar.  Both options end up with Christianity being untrue.

The rules of interpretation of the Genesis account provide no reason not to take the creation period as six literal days, with one day of rest.  And there is nothing in Scripture, anywhere else, that provides even a hint that the account is to be taken as allegory.  The only evidence to that effect is external, non-Biblical evidence.  Therefore, per the rules of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, we must accept that the account is a literal one, not allegorical.

Again, this leaves us with two options:  The Bible is wrong, or the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is wrong.

If the Bible is wrong, then we have no reliable record of history, and nothing upon which to base our faith, other than man's fallible teachings, which means Christianity is no more or less valid that Buddhism, or the worship of trees.

If the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is wrong, then we lack a framework for correctly divining the meaning of Scripture, and again, nothing solid upon which to place our faith.

So for the Young-Earth Creationist, all of these doctrines combine to force us into a corner where our only option is to believe in a young-earth view.  Any other view would render the book of Genesis as unreliable. Since Jesus referred to Genesis as real history several times, it would make Jesus unreliable.  Since many of Scripture's doctrines can be traced back to Genesis (original sin, marriage, and others), if Genesis falls, the rest of Scripture falls, Jesus is fallible, and therefore not God, so all of Christianity is a sham.

Again, one last time.  This is not about the validity of the YEC view.  The point of this is not to reveal "truth", the point is to accurately explain the view, so that we have it on record on site.  I am fully aware that not all of Christianity holds these views.  I am fully aware that you don't have to be a YEC believer to be a Christian.  I'm not stating that any other view is wrong.  I am merely presenting the thought process, and doctrinal importance of the Young-Earth Creationist view to those of us that hold this view.


Are there any Saints that have miraculously overcome death (should have died, but did not)?

Yes, St. Polycarp (A.D. 69-155).

The early Church Father St. Polycarp. He was put in fire, yet he did not burn. We read in The Martyrdom of Polycarp:

  This, then, was carried into effect with greater speed than it was
  spoken, the multitudes immediately gathering together wood and fagots
  out of the shops and baths; the Jews especially, according to custom,
  eagerly assisting them in it. And when the funeral pile was ready,
  Polycarp, laying aside all his garments, and loosing his girdle,
  sought also to take off his sandals — a thing he was not accustomed to
  do, inasmuch as every one of the faithful was always eager who should
  first touch his skin. For, on account of his good behavior he was,
  even before his martyrdom, adorned with every kind of good.
  Immediately then they surrounded him with those substances which had
  been prepared for the funeral pile. But when they were about also to
  fix him with nails, he said, Leave me as I am; for He that gives me
  strength to endure the fire, will also enable me, without your
  securing me by nails, to remain without moving in the pile.

  They did not nail him then, but simply bound him. And he, placing his
  hands behind him, and being bound like a distinguished ram [taken] out
  of a great flock for sacrifice, and prepared to be an acceptable
  burnt-offering unto God, looked up to heaven, and said,

  "O Lord God Almighty, the Father of your beloved and blessed Son Jesus
  Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of You, the God of
  angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the
  righteous who live before you, I give You thanks that You have counted
  me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the
  number of Your martyrs, in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection
  of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption
  [imparted] by the Holy Ghost. Among whom may I be accepted this day
  before You as a fat and acceptable sacrifice, according as You, the
  ever-truthful God, have foreordained, have revealed beforehand to me,
  and now have fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise You for all things, I
  bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly
  Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You, and the Holy Ghost,
  be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen."

  When he had pronounced this amen, and so finished his prayer, those
  who were appointed for the purpose kindled the fire. And as the flame
  blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was given to witness it,
  beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved that we might report
  to others what then took place. For the fire, shaping itself into
  the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled with the
  wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr. And he
  appeared within not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that is
  baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we
  perceived such a sweet odour [coming from the pile], as if
  frankincense or some such precious spices had been smoking there.

  At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not
  be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near
  and pierce him through with a dagger. And on his doing this, there
  came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was
  extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a
  difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most
  admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic
  and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in
  Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or
  shall yet be accomplished.


What's the time limit for a Council's sessions to reconvene after a suspension?

There is no time limit. Convening of general or ecumenical councils is entirely up to a pope. Their purpose is to advise a pope, and they authoritatively teach only what the pope ratifies.

Fr. Hardon defines them as:

  Authorized gatherings of bishops for the purpose of discussing ecclesiastical problems with a view to passing decrees on matters under discussion. In Roman Catholic terminology, if all the bishops are called to participate and actually represent the Christian world, the assembly is called ecumenical, which means universal; if only part of the hierarchy is invited, the council is particular. The latter may be plenary or provincial, depending on whether a single provincial area, e.g., the dioceses of Ohio, or a whole country sponsors the gathering. Church councils, even on a provincial basis, enjoy juridical authority in religious questions that is distinct from the legislative powers of individual bishops. In this respect also, councils differ from episcopal conferences, which are not, as such, legislative assemblies.


St. Francis de Sales overcame a temper problem?

Yes, St Francis did struggle with a temper problem for many years but overcame it. The source of this biographical information is presented in Introduction to Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales (Author), Allan Ross (Editor, Translator):

St Francis by the very constitution of his body was of a lively
character and inclined to anger. But having proposed to himself to
imitate that Jesus who had said: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and
humble of heart" (St. Matt. xi 29), he was able, thanks to the
continuous vigilance that he exercised and the violence to which he
subjected himself, to repress and curb the motions of the soul to such
an extent as to become a living copy of the God of peace and
sweetness.

Fr. Alban Buter's biography of him says:

He was indeed naturally of a hasty and passionate temper, as he himself confesses; and we find in his writings a certain fire and impetuosity which renders it unquestionable. On this account from his youth he made meekness his favourite virtue, and by studying in the school of a God who was meek and humble of heart, he learned that important lesson to such perfection, as to convert his predominant passion into his characteristical virtue. The Calvinists ascribe principally to his meekness the wonderful conversions he made amongst them. They were certainly the most obstinate of people at that time, near Geneva: yet St. Francis converted no less than seventy-two thousand of them.

From St. Jane of Chantal's deposition of him for his beatification and canonization, "32nd Point: Gentleness" (ref:1571.7 of The Saint Francis de Sales Collection):

I have never heard that our Blessed Founder was seen to lose his temper. Once I entreated him to be a little roused by some opposition which was troubling our Convent of the Visitation. He answered: “Would you have me lose in a quarter of an hour the small stock of gentleness which I have been painfully amassing for the last twenty years?” It was, therefore, a common saying that he had actually no gall, and indeed, after his death the surgeons found none, but in its place numbers of little triangular-shaped stones, showing plainly the constraint and force which he had put upon himself to conquer the passion of anger. Indeed he told me once, on an occasion of most justifiable wrath and indignation, that he was obliged to rein in his anger with both hands in order to stop it.

That he had been "painfully amassing" a "small stock of gentleness" "for the last twenty years" (since at least the foundation of the Visitation order in his later adulthood, 1610) shows that since until his 30's or so he had not been "amassing" gentleness.


Can Southern Baptists take communion at home alone?

While I am unable to find any evidence that the Southern Baptist Convention definitely supports the practice, there doesn't seem to be any reason for them to do so.  For one thing they/we believe in the "priest-hood" of all believers, so there's no requirement that communion be administered or overseen by an ordained minister.  In their "Basic Beliefs" web page, they state: "The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members … memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming." Here's a link to that page: http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp

Each congregation decides how often they will observe communion as a congregation, and while there is never an implied injunction against extra communion services by "sub-groups," the expectation would be that all who partake are verified members of the church by baptism.
On an anecdotal note, my SB minister of many years would often observe a communion for himself alone before he began bible study.


"Veneration" and "worship" are imprecise terms.  The precise terms are:

Dulia: a theological term signifying the honor paid to the saints.

Hyperdulia: a theological term signifying the honour paid to Mary the mother of Jesus.

Latria: a theological term signifying the honour paid to God.

"Veneration" is commonly associated with dulia and hyperdulia; "worship" is commonly associated with latria, but to be technically precise, "veneration" and "worship" are not formally defined on their own.

Because the English language terms are imprecise, depending on the setting or context it would be best to disambiguate the terminology and use the Latin terms instead, mentioning that certain English words are commonly used in place of the Latin words, but the Latin terms are the precise ones (at least that's how my catechism and religion teachers handled the issue of word selection).

Note: the Catholic encyclopedia's definition of latria is rather weak; pragraph 55 of Pope Paul 6th's encylical Mysterium Fidei implies that latria is worship meant for God alone (emphasis mine):

  Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the
  presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her
  teaching but in her life as well, since she has at all times paid this
  great Sacrament the worship known as "latria," which may be given to
  God alone.


From http://www.lds.org/topics/hell?lang=eng

  Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it
  is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal
  world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who
  were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of
  Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not
  redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

LDS official teaching is that all who have died without the knowledge of truth (LDS doctrine), or that rejected the truth will go to Hell, which is very different than the widely accepted  concept of Hell.

Instead of a place of suffering and torment, it's a temporary prison where they will get a chance to learn about the Truth, and if they are willing, repent and embrace the Truth.

Those who reject it are cast into outer darkness with Satan and his angels, and the "sons of Perdition".


Is Jesus depicted as dead or alive on a crucifix?

It depends upon the crucifix. The Christus Rex crucifix

has Jesus on the cross, reigning in either high priestly, or kingly robes. This is quite apparently the triumphant, risen, living Christ.

On the other hand, the figures on the crucifix with the suffering Christ,

always seem to include a spear wound in his side, and usually a bowed head. Since in John 19, Jesus death is reported in verse 30 ("... he said, 'It is finished'; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." [RSV]), and the report that his side was pierced happens in verse 34, the suffering corpus depicts a Jesus who has died.


As far as I know, Joseph only received the Golden Plates, the Urim and Thumim, and the breastplate to which the Urim and Thumim was connected.

Joseph Smith - History 1:59

  59 At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and
  Thummim, and the breastplate.[...]

The view referred to in D&C 17:1 is the vision that the Three Witnesses saw.

Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

  David Whitmer explained: “We went out into the woods, near by, and sat
  down on a log and talked awhile. We then kneeled down and prayed.
  Joseph prayed. We then got up and sat on the log and were talking,
  when all at once a light came down from above us and encircled us for
  quite a little distance around; and the angel stood before us.” This
  angel was Moroni. David said that he “was dressed in white, and spoke
  and called me by name and said ‘Blessed is he that keepeth His
  commandments.’ A table was set before us and on it the records were
  placed. The Records of the Nephites, from which the Book of Mormon was
  translated, the brass plates, the Ball of Directors, the sword of
  Laban and other plates.” While the men were viewing these things,
  they heard a voice that said: “These plates have been revealed by the
  power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The
  translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you
  to bear record of what you now see and hear.”

The Golden Plates (and the Urim and Thumim) were taken again by the angel, and the other things were never in Joseph's posession, as far as I am aware.


The Torah laws consisted of a great deal more than just the 10 Commandments and ceremonial laws.  The Law of Moses can be loosely divided into several sections that overlap somewhat, but this will help to clarify the discussion.

Ceremonial system - includes all the regulations around sacrifices, temples services, annual holy days, circumcision, the priesthood, etc, etc.
Jurisprudence and civil law - includes regulations around how court cases were to be conducted, how wars should be fought, how foreigners were treated, property laws, tort laws, criminal treatment, etc.
Health and Hygiene laws - includes things such as quarantine laws, some dietary laws, purification laws, etc.
Moral Laws including the Ten Commandments and some others (eg, Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5).
A range of personal ethical laws such as generosity to the poor, attitude to foreigners, respect for authority, the rule of law, safety rules, oaths, tithe, offerings, treatment of animals, treatment of slaves, etc.  Some writers include these laws with the Moral Laws listed above.

Historical Positions

Until at least the 19th century, most mainstream churches taught that the Ceremonial system in the Law of Moses had been fulfilled by Jesus and that the only law incumbent upon Christians was the Moral Law (10 commandments and a few others).  Indeed, the Church of England 1662 liturgy for Holy Communion required the minister to read each of the 10 commandments and the congregation would respond, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.”

King Alfred the Great of England based his original civil code of law on section (2) above - Jewish jurisprudence.  That is, while not adopting the Jewish laws directly, he used them to inform his civil code.

In the history of the Church, there have been several official theological positions regarding the ceremonial laws in the Pentateuch.  Here is a short list (I will ignore such refinements as Adamic Law and Noahide Law as extra-Biblical ideas):

Position #1: The entire Mosaic Law should be kept.

Position #2:  The Ceremonial System should be kept, including sacrifices and holy days, but not the priesthood and temple parts.  The Ten Commandments should also be kept.

Position #3:  Only the Holy days should be observed, and the Ten Commandments kept.

Position #4:  Only the Moral Law should be kept and possibly the personal ethical rules as well

Position #5:  No law should be kept because we "under a covenant of grace".

Position #1 is not possible because the temple does not exist and neither does the priesthood.  If this position had been intended by God, then God would have preserved both the priesthood and the temple.

Position #2 is similarly inconsistent - the Ceremonial System cannot be implemented without the temple and priesthood - the Pentateuch makes this very clear.  Even the Jews understand this.  Many Jews want to re-start the whole ceremonial system but realise that without the temple and priesthood they cannot.  Therefore, they do not do it.

Position #3 is equally inconsistent as Position #2.  The ONLY way to keep the annual holy days is as per the extensive regulations in the Leviticus, including its sacrifices; but all these requirements need the temple and priesthood, and thus cannot be implemented.

Position #4 as stated above, used to be that of most churches.  (Now many are not clear.)  The usual justification for keeping the Ten Commandments as opposed to the ceremonial laws was based on several observations:

The stated purpose of the Jewish ceremonial system was as a teaching device to inculcate the plan of salvation (Heb 9:8, 9, 11-14, 10:1) and had no salvific function (Heb 9:9, 10:4, Ps 51:16, 17, 1 Sam 15:22).  That is, it used symbols to teach about the coming Messiah.  When Messiah arrived and offered sacrifice for sin and the example of the exemplary life, the ceremonial system’s usefulness ceased to exist.
Even in Old Testament times, the ceremonial system had been misunderstood and abused and did not provide propitiation but only symbolised the sacrifice of Jesus (yet to come), eg, Isa 1:10-17, Ps 40:6-8, 51:16, 17, 1 Sam 15:22, Hos 6:6, Prov 15:8, 21:3, Jer 6:20, Micah 6:6-8, etc.  Therefore, in New Testament times, after the reality of Jesus had come, its value was gone.
When Jesus died on the cross, the ceremonial system was finished and the temple curtain diving the Holy from the Most Holy Place was torn in two from top to bottom (Matt 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45, see also 2 Cor 3:13-16) to symbolise this.
No sacrifices were ever offered by the Apostles and no Jewish feasts were celebrated by them .
The council at Jerusalem excused Christians from the ceremonial law requirements except for the prohibition about eating blood (a health regulation!)  See Acts 15:29.
The famous passage in Col 2:14-17 discusses the “handwriting of ordinances” – a clear reference to Moses’ hand-written law (ceremonial regulations + the annual Sabbaths) on a scroll placed outside the Ark of the Covenant (Deut 31:25, 26), while the 10 commandments were written by the finger of God on stone and placed inside the Ark (Ex 40:20).
Jesus encouraged people to keep the moral law (Matt 5:17-19, John 15:10, etc), for example when approached by the rich young ruler (Matt 19:18, 19, Mark 10:19).  However, the 10 commandments are not the only binding requirements that remain as shown by Jesus in Matt 22:36-40 as He listed at least two more.  Therefore, even position #4 is incomplete.

Position #5 is untenable as encouraging lawlessness (1 John 3:4) and anarchy, and is unbiblical.  Paul specifically tackles this problem by saying a number of times that by grace we should uphold the [moral] law (Rom 6:15, 7:7-12, 14, etc).

Thus, there is much debate (still) about what laws are still relevant today.  Some of the plagues of medieval Europe that devastated much of the population were often stopped (at least on some regions) by implementing the hygiene and quarantine health laws in the Torah.  Every church group has a different position that are often historically based rather than really Biblically based.


Has the distinction of the human and divine natures in Jesus Christ been established?

On the contrary, mainstream Christianity has held that the human and divine natures of Christ are not separable. A key point was the third ecumenical council, held at Ephesus in 431 in order to resolve disagreements between Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Nestorius wanted to make a distinction between Christ the person, and the eternal Son: two distinct natures in one body.

Cyril's anathemata against Nestorius, which the
council accepted, express the view that it is impossible to draw a sharp line between the human and divine natures. It's worth unpacking a few of these:

  (2.) If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.

This is an expounding of the hypostatic union idea, whereby the human and divine essences are joined, making Christ simultaneously fully human and fully divine.

  (3.) If anyone shall after the union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.

The union is a "natural union", not an imposition of the divine over the human. This counters the Nestorian position that Jesus was merely the carrier for the Word (the human nature being subordinate).

  (4.) If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

So Cyril says that in talking about Christ, it's wrong to apply separate terminology or titles for the human and divine natures. Again, this counters the idea that some of Christ's actions can be attributed to Jesus the human (such as his eating, weeping, dying, etc.) and others to the Word (responsible for our salvation, all things were made through him, etc.).

Twenty years later, the Council of Chalcedon of 451 adopted a creed that expresses the relationship more briefly:

  We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The two natures are distinct insofar as they are not the same (humanity and divinity are different things), but they are united inseparably in Christ.


Is Obeying a Stay at Home Order Biblical or Not Biblical

The crucial element is to determine the underlying purpose of the various 'stay at home', 'shelter in place' or other restrictive orders.  If the cessation of preaching in the name of Christ is the goal of those orders then Acts 5 is in view.  If the various public health agencies have no such ulterior motive then...Romans 13.  We need not be a kingdom divided against itself (Matthew 12) and teaching, fellowship, and prayer (Acts 2) are all still possible while the breaking of bread together is awkward but also still possible in one fashion or another.

I think that Hebrews 10:25, in immediate context,

  And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
  not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. - Hebrews 10:24-25

is addressing those individuals who are in the habit of avoiding the assemblage of the brethren and, in the larger context, those individuals are in that habit because of the deceptive nature of sin and, even more specifically, the fear of persecution.

  But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. - Hebrews 10:32-36

If believers were not coming together of their own volition because of fear of conviction of sin from within the assemblage or fear of persecution from without then I believe Hebrews chapter 10 might apply.  However the stay at home orders and advisories, the business closures and limitations that have been implemented voluntarily and under order are ostensibly for our own good and the good of those with whom we are limiting contact.  If we gather together we can infect each other within the church and without the church.  Now, depending upon what sort of tinfoil hat one might wear from time to time, one might conceive of an anti-christian power lurking in the shadows of a "stay at home order" and either instigating or taking advantage of this interruption in the Church's gathering together (and one might be correct) but both the 'spirit' and the 'letter' of these human regulations have no obvious connection to the persecution of our or of any particular faith.

If Christians were forbidden to gather while all other groups retained permission then I have no doubt that Acts 5:29 would be a righteous rallying cry:

  And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. - Acts 5:27-29

As it stands, regardless of how opportunistic ungodliness and evil may become, the Christian rallying cry must be something more akin to

  Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. Romans 13:1-5

coupled with the overarching command of our Lord and Savior to love God and love our neighbor:

  “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 22:36-40

We must not respond from a spirit of fear nor of bravado.  Jesus is able to protect and even strengthen and build His church in the midst of difficulty.  Indeed, faith is perfected in fire just as gold is refined and, as so many around us slide into fear and despair, who can say how many will be led toward that narrow gate of salvation in Christ by the spirit of God producing the fruits of the Spirit in us through trying times.  Remaining in Christ, the true vine, is the key to producing fruit that remains and fruit is not for our benefit.

  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. - Galatians 5:22-23

By the grace of God and His provision of technology we can still lawfully 'assemble' in ways that our forefathers could never have dreamed; we can still spur one another on to love and good deeds, and we can study and pray to have an answer ready for any that ask us of the hope that we have.  The one prerequisite is that we must have hope to be inquired.  Be of good courage, brethren, the Lord has gone before us and the battle belongs to Him.


What denominations consider Apocrypha to be heretical?

As a Presbyterian coming from a reformed tradition, we would see the canon of scripture defined by the Hebrew Bible which is received by the Jewish community as the books which represent the "rule of faith" for the community  In addition, we accept the 27 Greek books called the New Testament as the books inspired by God to represent the unchanging teaching of the Apostles.  (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html for discussion of the development of the New Testament can)

The Westminister Confession of Faith which is the doctrinal standard for Presbyterians state:

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and, therefore, are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (Chapter One)

So while these books are not seen as being part of inspired scripture they may as any human books have useful information in them.  Only when statements in these books would make statements contrary to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament would such statements be considered "heretical."  We would not see the whole books as such.

These books, for instance, may provide useful historical information on the thinking of the Jews from the end of the Hebrew Bible to the beginning of the New ( a period of about 400 years. )  So we would not see the entire books as heretical.


Is "Mary Queen of the Universe" a recognized title for the Virgin Mary in Catholicism?

Mary is the Queen of Universe because Christ is the King of Universe.

To understand her Queenship, one must understand how who the Queen of the Davidic Kingdom in the Old Testament Jewish monarchy was. It was the Queen Mother. The Kings had many wives, none of whom could be called Queen. That honor was reserved for the mother of the King. We see this in the role Bathsheba played with respect to King Solomon and the occasions when the Queen Mother acted as regent on behalf of juvenile successors to the throne.

  When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand. - 1 Kings 2:19

Hence by Jewish tradition, the Jews expected the Mother of their King to be the titular Queen. The same holds true for the New Kingdom of God. If Jesus is King of this new Kingdom, then Mary should by tradition be his queen.

In Revelation 12, the Women who brought forth a child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne was seen crowned with of twelve stars. This women is traditionally identified as Mary. And this image of Crown is held to be one of the evidence for her queenship.


The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

It sounds like you think generation of the Son by the Father implies there was a time when the Son did not exist; however, all three Persons are co-eternal.

St. Thomas, in Summa Theologica I q. 27 a. 2 ("Whether any procession in God can be called generation?") c., distinguishes between and compares the two senses of "generation":

  The procession of the Word in God is called generation. In proof whereof we must observe that generation has a twofold meaning: one common to everything subject to generation and corruption; in which sense generation is nothing but change from non-existence to existence. In another sense it is proper and belongs to living things; in which sense it signifies the origin of a living being from a conjoined living principle; and this is properly called birth. Not everything of that kind, however, is called begotten; but, strictly speaking, only what proceeds by way of similitude. Hence a hair has not the aspect of generation and sonship, but only that has which proceeds by way of a similitude. Nor will any likeness suffice; for a worm which is generated from animals has not the aspect of generation and sonship, although it has a generic similitude; for this kind of generation requires that there should be a procession by way of similitude in the same specific nature; as a man proceeds from a man, and a horse from a horse. So in living things, which proceed from potential to actual life, such as men and animals, generation includes both these kinds of generation. But if there is a being whose life does not proceed from potentiality to act, procession (if found in such a being) excludes entirely the first kind of generation; whereas it may have that kind of generation which belongs to living things. So in this manner the procession of the Word in God is generation; for He proceeds by way of intelligible action, which is a vital operation:—from a conjoined principle (as above described):—by way of similitude, inasmuch as the concept of the intellect is a likeness of the object conceived:—and exists in the same nature, because in God the act of understanding and His existence are the same, as shown above (q. 14 a. 4). Hence the procession of the Word in God is called generation; and the Word Himself proceeding is called the Son.


In which year did Chesterton write the 'I am' (what's wrong with the world) letter?

This story is no doubt related to the 1910 publication of Chesterton's book What's Wrong With the World, the dedication to which contains a number of jokes at Chesterton's expense:

  Many a mild lady visitor opened her eyes when I remarked casually, "I have been doing 'What is Wrong' all this morning." And one minister of religion moved quite sharply in his chair when I told him (as he understood it) that I had to run upstairs and do what was wrong, but should be down again in a minute.

It is not entirely certain whether Chesterton did write this letter, although Dale Ahlquist, president of the American Chesterton Society, believes it's likely true. There appears to be no evidence of the letter.

  This story has been repeated so often about Chesterton that we suspect it is true. Also, it seems it is never told about any one other than Chesterton. What we have not found, however, is any documentary evidence for it. It may indeed be from The Times, as the story is usually told, but no one has taken the trouble to go through the back issues and find a copy of the actual letter. It has also been attributed to other papers, but again, no proof.

Source: Website of the American Chesterton Society


The first concordance was undertaken under the direction of Hugh of Saint-Cher and completed in the early 13th century.

Hugh was a member of the catholic Dominican Order, whose founding goals were to preach the gospel and fight heresy. This order was known for its intellectualism; the influential St. Thomas Aquinas was a member of it. While prior to the Dominicans heresy was fought and the gospel was preached in Catholicism, friars were generally expected to stay home. The Dominicans, however, took a more open and intellectual approach to fighting heresy by traveling and establishing missions, and  by preaching the gospel through appealing to the Bible. This clearly gave rise to a need for better tools to study and understand the Bible.

It is for this reason that the order, and Hugh in particular, is credited not only for creating the first concordance of the Bible, but also for creating the first "correctorium", or a collection of various readings and commentary of the Bible. As a result of carelessness or mistakes on the part of scholars who would insert, change, or omit passages of the Bible when transcribing, including adding commentary, there was a great need for a comprehensive work to understand the original meaning of the Biblical text. Thus, the correctorium was created. It even included excerpts of the original Greek.

Hugh is often miscredited for producing the modern division of chapters and verses in the Bible. Chapters had already been established at the time. Verses had not, however Hugh in his concordance used a system in which the chapters were divided into roughly 7 equal parts and the part of the chapter was indicated in the concordance. The basis of the concordance was the Latin Vulgate.

For more information on all of these topics (Mostly from the Catholic Encyclopedia), see:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04195a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_concordance

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07521b.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12354c.htm


Did Jesus ever say in the Bible to preach Christianity or his message to the Non-Jews?

Yes.  While Jesus did tell his followers to focus on the Jews and not the Gentiles during his lifetime, after the Resurrection that changed, quite explicitly:

  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

  --Mark 16:15

Matthew records a slightly different version of this commission:

  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

  --Matthew 28:19

The wording differs between the two passages, but both quite clearly mention the universal nature of the charge to teach the Gospel.


Source of Christian attitudes towards fantasy and role playing games

I have never been heavily involved in fantasy or role playing games, but I've had plenty of friends who were. A couple of them have given it up for one reason or another.

The most applicable of these cases was somebody who was convicted about the usage of their time spent in the gaming world not being productive or glorifying to God. There was no objection on principle to the activities, but they were convinced that there were better things to be doing with their time. Besides ... in light of the grace they received from Christ, they wanted to spend their sharing that grace with others. The real world is hardly a boring place, and the way it comes alive in light of the Gospel is enough to inspire and drive even the most active imagination.

I also have friends (who I respect) that think their time spent in role playing games or fantasy worlds is well balanced and the interaction with people a valuable investment. I don't know enough about the culture of gaming to know how easy/hard/valid/invalid this is, but I have to imagine as a past-time and social activity it doesn't have to be a bad thing.

That being said, the content of what you are participating in needs to be considered. Considering movies as a whole one might conclude that watching films is permissible, but then if all you watch is trash, obviously you've twisted some truth into a lie. If the content of the world you are participating in is not wholesome, as a Christian you would have no business continuing.

I think this might fall under the umbrella of Paul's admonition about meat sacrificed to idols. All things are permissible but not all things are beneficial. That's a judgement call you'll have to make. Is your time spent in gaming or role playing giving the most glory to God that you can give with your life?


I see your confusion and your syllogism is correct as stated but is based on flawed assumptions. The subtly between 'contain' and 'are' should not be read into as much as you are. Think of it this way: the words contained in the Scripture are the Word of God. The connotation of 'contents' simply refers to where they are represented in one volume or work. It both 'contains' God's literal words (actual words He spoke to Moses, Christ's words while preaching, etc.) and 'is' the Word of God (inspired and directed to be written by God, therefore the possessive connotation). These are not contradictory concepts.

"I am who am" = God's actual spoken words

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" = God's word, spoken and written by a human, inspired or directed to do so by God. So not from His 'mouth' so to speak, but we cannot exactly understand how He works through inspiration, so we have to stop thinking of it like He is dictating things to the authors.


According to Protestants, what is the biblical basis of Jesus being "one substance with the father"?

Introduction

In language, words convey a meaning or idea. Much like the word Trinity conveys a theological concept that most protestants believe is found in scripture, the word "Trinity" itself is never found. This word was coined to describe an idea which previously had no accurate descriptor.

Similarly, while the word ὁμοούσιος (homooúsios) which means in greek "Of similar substance" may not appear in scripture, the idea does. And this is not an altogether uncommon occurrence with words like transubstantiation, rapture, consubstantial, predestination and many other theological terms not actually being found in scripture that instead may (or may not) be found as concepts only.

Background: The Arian Controversy

So where does this word come from?  As it turns out, while the idea may come from scripture, the term that was selected to encompass this idea in the early church was a response to a specific teaching being most famously made by a priest named Arius. Arius taught that Jesus was a creation, stating

  If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.

In short, Arius was teaching that Jesus was ὁμοιούσιος (Homoioúsios) or "of a similar substance" to God. These teachings began to drive a rift in the Church, so emperor Constantine, who had legalized Christianity in the Edict of Milan convened a council to settle the matter.

Concerns of the Council

The use of the root -ὅμοιος (oúsios) clearly had philsophical/theological significance within Roman culture, which was undoubtedly influenced by platonic discussions of metaphysics and creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia, and creatio ex deo. In other words, this council was discussing how to formulate their theology in the context of the conversations and epiphanies of Roman philosophers. But, to extend the allegory of Plato's Cave, the terminology used - ὅμοιος (oúsios) is merely a shadow cast by ideas that are in scripture - the jargon are not the source of the idea itself.

For modern readers the question then is: Did Jesus claim to be

The same as God (The same substance)
Something like God (Similar in substance)
Nothing like a god or God at all (Of an altogether different substance)

And accordingly, within the council there were three major viewpoints:

ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios), the position of Athanasius of Alexandria, writer of the Athenasian Creed which was similar to the Nicene Creed. He and his followers adhered to the prevailing view of the council which was reflected in their final statement, the Nicene Creed.
ὁμοιούσιος (Homoioúsios, note the one letter difference) (True Arianism) and ὅμοιος (hómoios) (the Acacians sect of Arianism). †
ἑτεροούσιος (Heterooúsios), the position of The Anomoean sect of Arianism

As you can see, the three viewpoints correspond to the three possible conclusions on the deity (or lack thereof as it may be) of Christ. Essentially, this just comes back to the very basic question of the Trinity and the question "Who was Jesus and who did he claim to be". As such, I will not re-hash here the discussion of whether or not the Son is Triune and if there is a Biblical basis for this as this topic has been well covered here on Christianity.SE.

The aftermath

While it is tempting to believe that Constantine influenced the decision of the council so that it resulted in a Trinitarian statement, despite only two dissenters (not including Arius) to the Nicene Creed, the emperor's cousin Eusebius of Nicomedia persuaded the emperor to exile the major proponents of the prevailing view of the council. This indicates the Emperor's disfavor with the result of the council and his opposition to the Nicene Creed.

Furthermore, Emperor Valens, one of the emperors after Constantine was a noted Arianist and the persecution of Christianity was resumed under Emperor Julian until Emperor Theodosius I made Nicene Christianity the official state religion in the Edict of Thessalonica. All of these instances provided opportunities for the church to change to Arian beliefs or revive discussions should the Nicene Creed have been published disingenuously or under coercion.

Conclusion

While the actual word ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios; of the same substance) doesn't have a basis in scripture, adherents to the five solas and Triniteriansm believe that the idea of Jesus being the same as the Father does come from scripture (scriptura) alone (sola).

† Within Ariansim, there were actually three sects, but I have lumped together  ὁμοιούσιος (Homoioúsios) and ὅμοιος (hómoios). These two groups distinguished each other in that the Homoioúsions thought Jesus was of similar substance, while Hómoeans believed Jesus was just similar. They simply didn't buy the philosophy that things had to be created from a substance in the first place, and so their references were void of substance. Functionally however if Jesus is similar to the Father, he is of similar deity of substance ὁμοιούσιος (Homoioúsios) or he is nothing like God and is therefore ἑτεροούσιος (Heterooúsios). As you can see, this clearly breaks down logically, hence why they are lumped together. This helps my second list of 3 correspond to my first list of 3.


Moses' Age when moving to house of Pharaoh?

Most likely just after being weaned from the breast.

  Pharaoh's daughter said to her, “Take this baby and nurse him for me, and I will pay you.” So the woman took the baby and nursed him. When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh's daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, “I drew him out of the water.”  Exodus 2:8-10 NIV

Since the princess was only paying for nursing services and she wanted a son badly, once her milk dried up baby Moses goes back to the new Pharaoh's daughter mommy at the ripe old age of 6 months-ish.


How does Dietrich Bonhoeffer's theology relate to salvation by faith alone?

My answer is a bit long, but I hope it helps.

There are a number of tensions in Lutheranism (Lutherans tend to like theological tensions), some of which I think are pertinent here.  Mainly: Law/Gospel and Justification/Sanctification.

The Law is God's Word which demands; summarized by Christ as Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.  The Gospel is God's Word which forgives on account of Christ; i.e. God's forgiveness for our failure to fulfill His Law.

The Law also has three functions: (1) restrain outward sin, (2) drive us to seek God's forgiveness through the Gospel, and (3) show us what is pleasing to God.

Related to this is the concept of Justification and Sanctification.  God justifies us freely in His sight through Christ; we receive his righteousness as a gift through faith.  Then, once justified, God works through us to sanctify us to conform us more and more to Christ's image. Ephesians 2:8-10 provides a nice summary; verses 8 and 9 basically cover Justification, while 10 covers Sanctification.

The point, then, is that if we are made Christ's people (i.e. we receive Christ's righteousness through faith), then we will want to do the things which please God (i.e. the Law).  We do them not to "earn" our salvation/justification (because salvation is a gift), but rather because that's just "what we do" as Christ's people (i.e. we're being Sanctified).

Jesus' image of himself as the vine and his disciples as the branches is relevant here (John 15): we produce good fruit as Jesus' disciples, because we are grafted onto the vine through faith.

So, that brings us to Bonhoeffer: "cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."

To receive the Gospel as Good News, I must first realize that I am a sinner.  That is, the Law must be preached to me in order to call me to repentance.  Otherwise, the Gospel is not "Good News," but simply reaffirms my sinful behavior; i.e. it's "cheap grace."  That is, if I believe that I am not a sinner, then being told that I am forgiven means nothing to me; I need the Law in order to appreciate the Gospel.  I need to know that my forgiveness actually cost something; it cost Christ's life.  God has already forgiven me through Christ, but in order to know and really understand what this means, I need to know that I actually need this forgiveness.

To be Baptized means to be re-born into the image of Christ and to begin the process of sanctification.  Luther called this a daily dying and rising, though; that is, I will not be perfect in this life, so my entire life is one of repentance.  At times I need someone to point out my sin and rebuke me (e.g. church discipline) so that I do not fall away from the faith.

To receive Communion (i.e. to commune with Christ and his people at the altar), I need to recognize that I go to the altar not because I am worthy to be there, but because Christ has brought me there and reconciled me to him and to the rest of the Church.  I confess my sins and my unworthiness (i.e. I feel the effect of the Law) and I receive forgiveness and reconciliation (i.e. the Gospel).

To receive absolution as the forgiveness that it is, I need to confess that I am a sinner (similar to what I said above).

Finally, if I truly have faith, then I will want to do things which are pleasing to my Heavenly Father and be with Christ and his people.

I've read Bonhoeffer's works and his emphasis tends to be on getting the Church to actually "be the Church."  That is, if we truly believe, then we ought to live as Christ has called us to live.


According to Catholicism, how did Clement of Rome become a Pope?

According to Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Catholic History, He was either the successor of Cletus (aka St. Antecletus) or according to to St. Jerome and Tertullian was the immediate successor of St. Peter (and was consecrated by him).

... as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter
Tertullian - Against Heresies, Chapter 32

Jerome says

Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says "With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life," the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle.
St. Jerome - On Illustrious Men

So there was a discrepancy even back then - it could have seemed to Greeks that he was the Bishop of Rome, when there were actually two between.
Origen thought he was the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philemon 4:3.
His most famous epistle, the letter to Corinth is from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth.  Might make sense for the Bishop of Rome to write a letter like that.  St. Paul didn't write letters from "The Church at X" to "The Church at Y".


How do people who reject transubstantiation interpret these verses?

Side note: The issue isn't really about the doctrine of sola scriptura, but rather about literalism. "Sola scriptura" is a term used by Protestants to mean that we believe scripture is the only ultimate authority, as opposed to Catholic doctrines that the teachings of the Church fathers have equivalent or comparable authority to scripture. But nothing in your question is contrasting a Bible quote to a quote from a Church father. Rather you seem to be saying, "How can someone take the Bible literally and not believe in trans-substantiation?" But anyway, to the point ...

The easy answer is that people who do not believe in trans-substantiation believe that Jesus was not speaking literally, but symbolically or metaphorically.

When I say that I take the Bible literally, I do not mean that literally! Of course the Bible includes many statements that are poetic, symbolic, and so on. Like when I read Isaiah 55:12, "The mountains and the hills Shall break forth into singing before you, And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands", I don't suppose that he means that trees will literally sprout hands and applaud. This is poetic language to describe a joyous day. When people say that we take the Bible literally, we mean that we read the Bible the same way we read any other book: If a statement is presented as describing actual human beings doing things in the real world, then we accept that the writer is trying to say that these actual human beings did these actual things, even if those things are incredible, such as a miracle. We don't mean that we insist that anything that sounds like poetry or metaphor must be a literal physical description. (And yes, we concede the possibility that there may be cases where it is not obvious whether something is intended literally or figuratively. But we insist that's relatively rare. But that's another subject.)

So perhaps more relevantly, Matthew 16:6 "Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” The text goes on how the disciples wondered what he was talking about, Jesus explains, and it concludes, verse 12, "Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

So when Jesus talked about the "leaven of the Pharisees", he was speaking poetically. He was not talking about literal leaven, but using the word leaven as a symbol for their teaching.

Likewise, people who are literalists and who reject trans-substantiation say that when Jesus talked about eating his body and drinking his blood, that he was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Just like when he talked about the leaven of the Pharisees.

I think most literalists would say that it is clear that Jesus was speaking symbolically here because at the time he said, for example, "This is my body which is broken for you", it is clear that the bread was not literally his physical body, as he was sitting right there. When we celebrate the eucharist today, I don't think anyone would suppose that a chemical test of the bread and wine would show it to be literal meat and blood from a human being. So when a trans-substantiationist says that Jesus meant these words literally, he doesn't really mean literally either. He doesn't think that the bread and wine are literally meat hacked out of Jesus's dead body and blood drained from his veins. He means that it becomes the body and blood of Jesus in some mystical, spiritual sense. So, in my humble opinion, the two camps are really not that far apart. Not that this hasn't resulted in a lot of argument.


Is there a canon law for what to do if a hostage situation breaks out while consecrating the Eucharist?

This isn't a matter of canon law, which governs the general conduct and culpability of the people of God; this is covered by the instructions for Mass.

The last Latin Missal (the Missale Romanum of 1962) contained the following instructions. I can't find anything similar in the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

  DE DEFECTIBUS IN CELEBRATIONE MISSÆ OCCURRENTIBUS

  X - De defectibus in ministerio ipso occurrentibus

  Si, sacerdote celebrante, violetur ecclesia ante Canonem, dimittatur Missa: si post Canonem, non dimittatur. Si timeatur incursus hostium, vel alluvionis, vel ruina loci ubi celebratur, ante Consecrationem dimittatur Missa; post Consecrationem vero sacerdos accelerare poterit sumptionem Sacramenti, omissis omnibus aliis.
  Si sacerdos ante Consecrationem graviter infirmetur,
  vel in syncopen incident aut moriatur,
  praetermittitur Missa. Si post Consecrationem Corporis
  tantum, ante Consecrationem Sanguinis, vel
  utroque consecrato id accidit, Missa per alium
  sacerdotem expleatur ab eo loco ubi ille desiit, et
  in casu necessitatis etiam per non ieiunum. Si
  autem non obierit, sed fuerit infirmus, adeo tamen
  ut possit communicare, et non adsit alia hostia
  consecrata, sacerdos, qui Missam supplet, dividat
  hostiam, et unam partem praebeat infirmo, aliam
  ipse sumat. Si autem semiprolata forma Corporis
  obiit sacerdos, quia non est facta Consecratio, non
  est necesse ut Missa per alium suppleatur. Si vero
  obierit semiprolata forma Sanguinis, tune alter
  prosequatur Missam, et super eundem calicem
  repetat integram formam ab eo loco: Simili modo,
  postquam cenatum est; vel posset super alium
  calicem praeparatum integram formam proferre,
  et hostiam primi sacerdotis, et Sanguinem a se
  consecratum sumere, ac deinde calicem relictum
  semiconsecratum.
  Si quis extra huiusmodi casus necessitatis integra Sacramenta non sumpserit, gravissime peccat.

My Latin isn't great, so the following is open to correction:

  OF DEFECTS OCCURRING IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASS

  X - Of defects occurring in the ministry

  If, while the priest is celebrating Mass, the church is violated before the Canon, the Mass is ended; if after the Canon, it is not to be discontinued. If there is fear of an attack of the enemy, or flood, or the destruction of the place where [Mass] is celebrated: before the consecration, the Mass is ended; after the consecration, the priest can speed up the reception of the Sacrament, neglecting all other things.
  If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is left undone. If after the consecration of the body only and before the consecration of the blood, or after both have been consecrated, another priest is to be sent from the place where he left off, and in case of necessity even breaking their fast. If, however, he has not died, but was ill and is still able to receive Communion, and if there is no other consecrated host, the priest who is completing the Mass divides the Host, and offers one part to the sick man, and consumes the other part himself. If the priest has died during confecting the Body, in that there is no consecration, it is not necessary for another [priest] to be supplied for the Mass. If, however, he died during the offering of the Blood, then the other [priest] continues the Mass, repeating the whole form from that place, over the cup: In a similar way, when supper was ended; or the whole formula could be offered over another prepared chalice, and the host of the first priest, and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the cup left half-consecrated.
  If anyone does not receive the whole Sacrament aside from cases of necessity of this kind, he sins gravely.

Paragraph 2 is probably the most relevant. If the priest has not yet consecrated the sacred species, the Mass is ended and he does not continue. If he has done so, then he can omit as much of the rest of the Mass is necessary in order that the sacrament can be consumed.

Archbishop Oscar Romero was murdered at the altar, but I don't know at what point that was in the Mass or what happened afterwards. I understand that Fr Jacques Hamel consumed the sacrament himself rather than let it be desecrated, before he was killed.


Are contraceptives ok to treat other conditions?

I'm intentionally not reading the non-edited version of this question, because if it is more personal in nature @WaxEagle is right, you should ask a priest (one you know is a really straightforward confessor) for advice.
It's not the medication that is treated as grave matter by the Catholic Church, it's contracepting itself.

Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial. She opposes it because it’s contraceptive. Contraception is the choice by any means to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse. In other words, the contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse, and, foreseeing that their act may result in a new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility - Christopher West, The Good News about Sex and Marriage

And as far as being prescribed contraceptives by a hospital, you'll know when you get them at a Catholic Hospital (if your doctor says you need them):

Any cooperation institutionally approved or tolerated in actions which are in themselves, that is, by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end . . . is absolutely forbidden. -#44 Ethical Religious Directives

I'm not a doctor, I'm not a theologian either (but I play one on the Internets), but I've been told by my wife who is still not a doctor, but is a woman, that prescribing contraceptives to young women to treat other disorders is mostly a rouse to get them on contraceptives in the first place.
Furthermore, the harm that contraceptives cause the body may outweigh the benefits.

The medical community clearly understands that there are serious medical side effects from the specific use of the injectable or non-injectable hormones. While some claim that the good outweighs the bad, too many healthcare professionals continue to prescribe and/or assist with birth control and abortion with little concern for the consequences. couple to couple league
Most birth control drugs use a combination of two female hormones, estrogen and progestin, to stop ovulation and thicken cervical mucus, which helps block sperm. For decades many women have reported bloating and mood swings as side effects. Huffington post  12/6/11

So, as a rule, yes, it's the contraception action which is at issue here, not the contraception itself. But if you dig a little deeper and you want to be ever faithful to the teachings of the Church, it's a bridge that is better left uncrossed.

Natural Family Planning Resources

Couple to Couple League

Marquette Model of NFP

Pope Paul VI Institute

Teachings of the Catholic Church regarding Contraception

One More Soul - Check out Dr. Janet Smith's "Contraception Why Not"

National Catholic Bioethics Center

Humanae Vitae (on the regulation of human birth)


What was the stance of the Roman Catholic Church on the Vietnam War?

President Ngo Dinh Diem was a Catholic and brother of the traditionalist Catholic Archbishop Thuc. Diem governed according to Catholic principles, even legislating laws more in accordance with Catholic teaching. He was one of the several assassinated by the CIA coup right before the Vietnam War began. Some consider Diem a martyr much as some French consider King Louis XVI a martyr.

The Vietnam War began over a dispute between the government, run by Catholics (some even say it was nepotism), and Buddhists. Diem enacted a law that said a religious group had to petition the government first before being able to fly a flag for a religious holiday. Diem's brother Abp. Thuc celebrated his 25th anniversary of his episcopal consecration civically and with great pomp, but thereafter the government denied the Buddhists the ability to fly their flags on their religious holiday (6 May 1963), and the Buddhists became violent in protest (hence the memorable pictures of violent Buddhist self-imolations / suicides). Thereafter, there was a CIA coup to assassinate Diem (2 Nov. 1963) because, as Johnson later said, Diem was unfit for governing Vietnam. A few million Catholics regrouped into one region of Vietnam.

Diem had a love-hate relationship with the U.S. and France. France was a colonizer, but France's withdrawal from Vietnam left it unstable. The U.S. could've helped with stabilizing it, but it doesn't seem assassinating Diem helped.

At its core, the Vietnam War began as a religious war of Catholics vs. Buddhists.

Diem had an audience with Pope Pius XII, as mentioned in Miller's Misalliance p. 38.

According to this, in 1966

  Pope Paul VI addresses 150,000 people in St. Peter’s Square in Rome and calls for an end to the war in Vietnam through negotiations. Although the Pope’s address had no impact on the Johnson administration and its policies in Southeast Asia, his comments were indicative of the mounting antiwar sentiment that was growing both at home and overseas.


How is the date of Easter set on the Orthodox calendar?

The Orthodox Churches continue to use the Julian Calendar with the result the equinox is assumed to be 13 days later than it really is. March 21 Julian is April 3 in the Gregorian Calendar commonly used. This is fairly well known, but less known is that the Eastern Churches continue to use the Dionysian tabulation for the dates of full moons, whereas in the West this too was changed,  beginning in Catholic countries in the 16th century.

In the 6th century a 19 year cycle of paschal full moon dates was constructed. If a year is divisible by 19 it has a Golden Number of 1, otherwise the Golden Number is one more than the remainder. 532 was divisible by 19. The Full Moon was April 5th. The next year the moon is said to be 11 days earlier on March 25th. This is because twelve lunar months are about 11 days less than a year. For the year 534 there would be a full moon on March 14 but this is too early, so instead of counting back 11 days to the twelfth moon we count forward 19 days to the thirteenth moon on April 13. This is repeated over the 19 year cycle, going back 11 days, or forward 19. When the Golden Number reaches 19 we get to April 17th and then go back 12 days to start the 19 year cycle again on April 5th.

Starting with years divisible by 19 (Golden Number 1) and going forward the cycle is 1) April 5th, 2) March 25th, 3) April 13th, 4) April 2nd, 5) March 22nd, 6) April 10th, 7) March 30th, 8) April 18th, 9) April 7th, 10) March 27th, 11) April 15th, 12) April 4th, 13) March 24th, 14) April 12th, 15) April 1st, 16) March 21st, 17) April 9th, 18) March 29th, 19) April 17th.

But how accurate is this cycle? Because 19 years can have 4 or 5 leap years, it is better to consider 4 such cycles. In 76 years there are 4 19 year cycles and always 19 leap years ( in the Julian Calendar). This period contains 365.25 x 76 days, which is 27, 759. The 4 cycles contain 940 lunar months averaging 29.530588 days, which in all is 27, 758.75 days, a discrepancy of about 6 hours. After 76 years each full moon actually happens 6 hours earlier, amounting to one day every 300 years (approximately).

By now the real full moon occurs 4 or 5 days earlier than the tabulated one used in the East, or we could express it , the tabulated day is 4 days late.

In 2018 the Golden Number is 5 giving a full moon on March 22 Julian. Because the Gregorian Calendar is 13 days ahead, this works out to April 4th in the Gregorian Calendar,  and so Easter in the East is the following Sunday.

Adjustments to the Western tabulation give the current 19 year cycle as follows: 1) April 14, 2) April 3, 3) March 23, 4) April 11, 5) March 31, 6) April 18, 7) April 8, 8) March 28, 9) April 16, 10) April 5, 11) March 25, 12) April 13, 13) April 2 14) March 22, 15) April 10, 16) March 30, 17) April 17, 18) April 7, 19) March 27.

This tabulation is constructed as for the East, going back 11 days or forward 19, except it starts with April 14th when the Golden Number is 1; and what would work out to April 18 or 19 is instead tabulated 17 or 18 respectively.

Omitting leap years three times ever 400 years should keep the equinox close to March 21 in the West, while in the East Easter moves closer to the Summer.

The lunar tabulation in the West is planned for further adjustment. The date of the full moon s will become 1 day later every time a leap year is missed. But it will be adjusted 1 day earlier every 300 years, starting 2100 , to account for the 76 year cycle leaving the moon 6 hours earlier.

So for Golden Number years 1 the tabulated moon is April 14. in 2100 it would move forward a day, to offset the missed leap year, but also back because of the 300 year rule, so it will remain April 14 until 2200. In 2200 it goes to April 15 and in 2300 to April 16, because 2200 and 2300 are not leap years. in 2400, which is a leap year it moves back to April 15 under the 300 year rule and so on.

All the other Golden Number dates move im tandem.

But in the East no adjustments are planned for sun or moon. In the very long term Orthodox Easter could be any time of year and any phase of month. There has been some talk of an agreed common date, but whether that happens remains to be seen.


Well spotted.  I think you are onto something here.  The number seven is popular in John's Gospel.  There are seven signs, seven "I am" sayings, the woman at the well had five husbands plus one who was not her husband, so the One sitting at the well waiting for her is her seventh Husband, the Seventh Man in her life, her perfect Man and Husband.

This will only go so far, to encourage more thought on the question.

First off, note how the Gospel of John begins with Jesus being "the light":

  In him was life, and the life was the light of men.  The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it (John 1:4, 5).

and

  The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world, (John 1:9).

Now for the occurrences:-

Nicodemus ... "the same came to Jesus by night" (John 3:2)
Nicodemus says unto them (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them) (John 7:50)
Jesus speaking ... "the night comes, when no man can work"  (John 9:4)
Jesus speaking ... "but if a man walk in the night, he stumbles, because there is no light in him" (John 11:10)
Judas Iscariot .. "having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night" (John 13:30)
"There came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight" (John 19:39).
the disciples go fishing... "and that night they caught nothing" (John 21:3)

However, first note that there are seven occurrences of "night" in the Greek Received Text upon which the KJV and NKJV are based, but only six occurrences in the Greek "Revised Version" upon which most modern versions are based.  The difference is that the Greek for "night" does not appear in John 7:50 in the Greek "Revised Version".  So, eg, John 7:50 in the Revised Standard Version has translated the Greek to "Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them...".

With Nicodemus his first coming to Jesus was in darkness, both literally, because it was night, and spiritually because he couldn't see very much spiritual truth; he knew nothing about the new birth, he did not know that faith in Christ is what he needed.  Nicodemus was clever, well educated, knowledgeable in the Old Testament Scriptures, and even a teacher of those Scriptures - but none of these things brought him any light: only faith in Jesus can do this.

The subsequent mentions of Nicodemus show a progressive growth in love for Jesus; first he is willing to come and talk with Jesus, but only secretly at night, then he is willing to stand up for Jesus amongst his fellow religious leaders (John 7:50), and last he demonstrates a clear love for Jesus (John 19:39).  A little biographical sketch of a sinner, Nicodemus, and his progress from very great spiritual darkness into spiritual light is embedded in and throughout John's Gospel.  We must not expect people to go from darkness to light the moment they hear the gospel; we must pray for unbelievers with perseverance.  First the seed of the Word is planted in the heart, then that seed begins to grow secretly in the heart, and finally it brings forth the fruit which is plain to see.

The other mentions of "night" all carry negative or very negative connotations:  "no man can work"; "if a man walk in the night, he stumbles"; Judas Iscariot's betrayal; they caught no fish.

So, perhaps, if we do not have the Light of the World, if we do not believe on him as Nicodemus came to do we will not be able to work; we will stumble, we will betray Jesus, we will not bear any fruit.  There being seven occurrences of the word "night", maybe we could preach it since it implies that, if we do not have all our hope in Christ and Him crucified, we will fail in all these respects on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, etc... ie every day of the week, all the days of our lives. The life of an unbeliever is a continual walking in darkness, and that darkness is very great.

But if we believe on Him who is the Light of the World then we will never stumble, we will always be working for Him, never betray Him, and always bearing fruit.


What is the support or arguments to indicate the age of the Virgin Mary?

What is the support or arguments to indicate the age of the Virgin Mary at Jesus’ birth?
It is slim pickings to find any support or arguments to indicate the age of Mary at the birth of Jesus. But slim, does not mean there are none.

According to the apocryphal Gospel of James, Mary was the daughter of Saint Joachim and Saint Anne. Before Mary's conception, Anne had been barren and was far advanced in years. Mary was given to service as a consecrated virgin in the Temple in Jerusalem when she was three years old, much like Hannah took Samuel to the Tabernacle as recorded in the Old Testament.

Pertinent quote (emphasis added):

And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl.

Some apocryphal accounts state that at the time of her betrothal to Joseph, Mary was 12–14 years old. According to ancient Jewish custom, Mary could have been betrothed at about 12. Hyppolitus of Thebes says that Mary lived for 11 years after the death of her son Jesus, dying in 41 AD.
The earliest extant biographical writing on Mary is Life of the Virgin attributed to the 7th-century saint, Maximus the Confessor, which portrays her as a key element of the early Christian Church after the death of Jesus.
In the 19th century, a house near Ephesus in Turkey was found, based on the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, an Augustinian nun in Germany. It has since been visited as the House of the Virgin Mary by Roman Catholic pilgrims who consider it the place where Mary lived until her assumption. The Gospel of John states that Mary went to live with the Disciple whom Jesus loved,[Jn 19:27] identified as John the Evangelist.[Jn 21:20-24] Irenaeus and Eusebius of Caesarea wrote in their histories that John later went to Ephesus, which may provide the basis for the early belief that Mary also lived in Ephesus with John. - Mary, mother of Jesus

The Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to say on this subject:

It is probably at Nazareth that Joseph betrothed and married her who was to become the Mother of God. When the marriage took place, whether before or after the Incarnation, is no easy matter to settle, and on this point the masters of exegesis have at all times been at variance. Most modern commentators, following the footsteps of St. Thomas, understand that, at the epoch of the Annunciation, the Blessed Virgin was only affianced to Joseph; as St. Thomas notices, this interpretation suits better all the evangelical data.
It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God. -
St. Joseph
Her betrothal to Joseph
The apocryphal writings to which we referred in the last paragraph state that Mary remained in the Temple after her presentation in order to be educated with other Jewish children. There she enjoyed ecstatic visions and daily visits of the holy angels.
When she was fourteen, the high priest wished to send her home for marriage. Mary reminded him of her vow of virginity, and in his embarrassment the high priest consulted the Lord. Then he called all the young men of the family of David, and promised Mary in marriage to him whose rod should sprout and become the resting place of the Holy Ghost in form of a dove. It was Joseph who was privileged in this extraordinary way.
Although we may never know for sure how old Mary was at that time, there are a few hints of possibility here and there.
We have already seen that St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Germanus of Constantinople, and pseudo-Gregory Nazianzen seem to adopt these legends. Besides, the emperor Justinian allowed a basilica to be built on the platform of the former Temple in memory of Our Lady's stay in the sanctuary; the church was called the New St. Mary's so as to distinguish it from the Church of the Nativity. It seems to be the modern mosque el-Aksa. - The Blessed Virgin Mary

Most scholars accept that marriage of first century maidens in Palestine was possible after the age of twelve (12).

Jewish betrothal is not like the Gentile concept of engagement, which is only a promise of marriage. The betrothal stage was also called kiddushin, "sanctification," and meant that from that point the woman belonged to the man. The word kiddushin comes from the same root word as kadosh ("holy"). Just as kodesh (holy things) are forbidden to all but those for whom they are designated, so too does this woman become forbidden to all men but to whom she has now been designated. Betrothal made the woman a legal wife and her status could only be changed by divorce or death. Betrothal was usually accomplished by the groom giving a coin or ring to the prospective bride and her acceptance of the token accomplished kiddushin.
Scripture provides no information on the typical age for formal betrothal. The classification of "virgin" does not denote age. A girl did become accountable to the Torah (Heb. bat mitzvah, "daughter of the commandment") and thus treated as an adult when she became twelve years and a day old (B.K. 87b; Ket. 39a; Kidd. 63b; Nidd. 5:6; Yom. 8:3). Adulthood for a girl was not only determined by age but also by her having passed through puberty, that is possessing breasts and pubic hair (Kidd. 81b; Ezek 16:7-8; cf. SS 8:8). Once a girl had passed through puberty she would be eligible for marriage (Nidd. 45a). Since marriages were often arranged by parents a girl could be selected for her future husband before bat mitzvah. Talmudic literature does speak of the typical age of marriage for males as 18 (Avot 5:21), but marriage might also take place anywhere from 16-24 years of age (Kidd. 29b-30a). - Marriage in Ancient Israel

Further information may be gleaned from the following articles:

Bible: 12 year old Mary married 90 Year old Joseph
Apocryphal Writings on the Life of Mary
Gospel of James (Wikipedia): The second chapter starts when she is twelve years old, and through the direction of an angel, Joseph is selected to become her husband.


Was it culturally acceptable for the sinful woman to enter the Pharisee's house to see Jesus?

Many of the homes of the time had a courtyard around which were situated various rooms.  The courtyard was used for cooking and eating.  In John McCray's book Archaeology and the New Testament, he has some diagrams of typical houses of the period.

The point being that to "enter" someone's house was not like it is today.  The courtyard was open and people could, conceivably, wander in.  In fact, later in Luke's Gospel when Jesus is brought to the high priest's house for questioning you get the sense that there are quite a few people lingering in the courtyard (see Luke 22:54 and following).  For example, Peter is in the courtyard, seemingly uninvited; i.e. he doesn't converse with the high priest, but also denies knowing Jesus.  No one seems to think it odd that he's there, per se.

One other note is the eating position during feasts ("reclining at table").  The participants would have leaned forward on their left arms, eating with their right hands (the left hand being reserved for sanitary uses, which is why it is considered rude in some cultures even today to use one's left hand for food).  The point, though, is that Jesus' feet would have been behind him, making it easy for the woman to anoint them.

A fascinating article about eating customs of the time is at this link.


Is the “Dome of the Rock” the “Abomination of Desolation” spoken of by the prophet Daniel?

I'm not sure I'd limit the application "abomination of desolation" to a single event/place/thing.  Many scholars believe that the references in the book of Daniel (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) refer to the time of Antiochus IV Ephiphanes who made an unclean sacrifice in the Jewish temple (among other terrible things) in the 2nd century BC.

However, in the New Testament (Matt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14) this would be a past event, so would be applied to something else.  If you look at the parallel passage in Luke you'll find something interesting:

  Mk. 13:14 - "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken by
  Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, then let those who
  are in Judea flee to the mountains."

  Lk. 21:20-21 - "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then
  know that its desolation is near.  Then let those who are in Judea
  flee to the mountains..."

And then notice Mk. 13:30:

  "Assuredly I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
  until all these things take place."

So if you take "generation" to mean the people living at that time, then the application here would refer to the time when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies sometime in the first century.  And in fact, we find that the Roman armies did so and destroyed the entire city and temple (70 AD).  The Romans were an abomination that made the city desolate.

Multiple applications seem to make sense because Antiochus IV Epiphanes matches so remarkably well to the descriptions in Daniel, yet Jesus' application had to be different because Antiochus was already past.  They were both abominations of desolation.

Now, as to the "Dome of the Rock" theory.  It is interesting that the Dome of the Rock only exists because the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 AD, so perhaps, in a sense an application of "abomination of desolation" could be made here.

The Scriptures in Daniel and Matthew/Mark/Luke seem to specifically point to the applications I've cited above, but certainly a Jew would view the mosque as "an" abomination of desolation due to its location.