How is the Book of Mormon different from the Bible?

To understand the differences between the BOM and the Holy Bible, we first must look at these two volumes of scripture within the context of their similarities. So here is what they have in common:

They are both volumes of scripture written by prophets.
Millions of people study (and believe in) each, though manifestly at least 100X more people accept the Bible than the BOM.
They both have similar objectives: persuade people to believe in God and live peaceful/productive lives.
In terms of theology and doctrine, most of what is in the Bible and the Book of Mormon is unproveable and must be taken on faith.
Both were written over a very large span of time.

Here are the significant points of difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon:

The Book of Mormon contains a consistent theme from start to finish: persuading people to believe and follow Jesus Christ. In the Bible, a similar theme exists in the New Testament, but it's often harder to detect in the Old Testament, and our Jewish friends would presumably conclude that there is no such theme in the Old Testament (Torah/Talmud).
The Bible has numerous sections that are non-doctrinal in nature, such as historical, proverbial, and legalistic. The Book of Mormon has elements of these as well, but is mostly either doctrinal on the surface, or contains doctrinal undertones.
Nearly all Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the word of God and the BOM is not. Nearly all Mormons believe that both are the word of God.
BOM prophetic writers frequently make reference to the Bible, especially to the writings of Isaiah. The Bible makes no direct reference to the Book of Mormon, but Mormons believe there is a veiled reference to BOM peoples in John 10:16..."And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." Mormons believe that Jesus visited the people on the American continent shortly after His ascension spoken of in the Bible.
Nearly everything in the Bible takes place in the Middle East. While the Book of Mormon begins in Jerusalem, describing a family that flees the city into the desert, the vast majority takes place on the ancient American continent (long before the term "America" existed).
The Book of Mormon was translated from a single collection of ancient metal plates, and all within a single year. The Bible was pieced together over thousands of years and translated by many different people.


Are there exactly 12 resurrections in the Bible?

Elijah resurrected the son of a widow in Zarephath (1 Kings 17:7-24).
Elisha resurrected the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:8-35).
A dead man came back to life when he touches Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:21).
Jesus resurrected the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11-15).
Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus, a Synagogue leader from the dead (Matthew 9:18-25, Mark 5:21-43, Luke 8:40-56).
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43-44).
Many saints were resurrected at the death of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27:50-53).
The resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:5-7).
Peter raised a female disciple named Tabitha from the dead at Joppa (Acts 9:36-42).
Paul raised Eutychus from the dead at Troas (Acts 20:6-12).
Paul was revived from a near death condition. There is some possibility that Paul was actually dead for a short time (Acts 14:19-20).
Abraham received back his one and only son Isaac, who was to be sacrificed on the altar. It is possible that Isaac was already dead in the heart of his father, Abraham. There is a strong connection between this story and the death and resurrection of Jesus.  (Genesis 22).


Is repenting the same as it always has been or do we in the New Covenant repent in a new way? (Roman Catholic perspective)

Short Answer: in Roman Catholic belief the dual meaning of repentance is retained from its original sense in the Old Testament.

  In Biblical Hebrew, the idea of repentance is represented by two
  verbs: שוב shuv (to return) and נחם nacham (to feel sorrow).  In the
  New Testament, the word translated as 'repentance' is the Greek word
  μετάνοια (metanoia) ... a change of mind and change of conduct,
  "change of mind and heart", or, "change of consciousness".

From Hebrew Roots:

  In the Greek of the New Covenant, there are also two words used which
  parallel the Hebrew usage.
  1. METAMELOMAI - to have feeling or care, concern or regret which is akin to remorse.
  2. METANOEO - to have another mind, which describes that radical change whereby a sinner turns from the idols of sin and of self to
  God.

  Repentance then is the informing and changing of the MIND stirring and directing the EMOTIONS to urge the required change, and the action
  of the yielded WILL in turning away from sin and to God.

Strong's Concordance

  Original Word: μετανοέω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: metanoeó
  Phonetic Spelling: (met-an-o-eh'-o) Short Definition: I repent, change
  my mind Definition: I repent, change my mind, change the inner man
  (particularly with reference to acceptance of the will of God),
  repent.

Some Roman Catholic teaching on Repentance

  REPENTANCE: Voluntary sorrow because it offends God, for having done
  something wrong, together with the resolve to amend one's conduct by
  taking the necessary means to avoid the occasions of sin. To repent is
  to be sorry for sin with self-condemnation. (Etym. Latin repoenitere,
  to be very sorry, regret intensely.)

  CCC 1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole
  life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of
  sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions
  we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and
  resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in
  the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a
  salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus
  (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).

  CCC 1490 The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance,
  entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the
  firm purpose of sinning no more in the future.  Conversion touches
  the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God's mercy.

The dual nature of the original term is retained.  It is also used in the meta sense that you mention in your question, with a subtle connotation of the hope that all will turn to God, or all will return to God.

  CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning
  away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until
  the end.  In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her
  faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any
  to perish, but all to come to repentance" {a turning to God, a return to God}

The meta sense of repentance is also taught as being enabled by the Holy Spirit.

  CCC 1433 Since Easter, the Holy Spirit has proved "the world wrong
  about sin," i.e., proved that the world has not believed in Him whom
  the Father has sent. But this same Spirit who brings sin to light is
  also the Consoler who gives the human heart grace for repentance and
  conversion.

The RCC uses the parable of the prodigal son as an illustration of both sin, turning away from God the Father, and repentance, a return to God the Father.  The son's sincere sorrow is reflected in his blunt confession: I have sinned against you and against God.

  CCC 1439 The process of conversion and repentance was described by Jesus
  in the parable of the prodigal son, the center of which is the
  merciful father: the fascination of illusory freedom, the
  abandonment of the father's house; the extreme misery in which the son
  finds himself after squandering his fortune; his deep humiliation at
  finding himself obliged to feed swine, and still worse, at wanting to
  feed on the husks the pigs ate; his reflection on all he has lost; his
  repentance and decision to declare himself guilty before his father;
  the journey back; the father's generous welcome; the father's joy -
  all these are characteristic of the process of conversion. the
  beautiful robe, the ring, and the festive banquet are symbols of that
  new life - pure worthy, and joyful - of anyone who returns to God and
  to the bosom of his family, which is the Church.  Only the heart of
  Christ Who knows the depths of his Father's love could reveal to us
  the abyss of his mercy in so simple and beautiful a way.

Summary

In both the personal sense, and in the communal sense, repentance in Roman Catholic belief retains the meanings from the original Hebrew and Greek.  Its importance, as well as its link to salvation, is cited on over 30 articles in the Catechism.

Coda

As noted in some of the passages of the Catechism, Catholic teaching on contrition is strongly related to repentance.

Perfect and imperfect contrition (From the Catholic Encyclopedia)

  Catholic teaching distinguishes a twofold hatred of sin; one, perfect
  contrition, rises from the love of God Who has been grievously
  offended; the other, imperfect contrition, arises principally from
  some other motives, such as loss of heaven, fear of hell, the
  heinousness of sin, etc. (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, ch. iv de
  Contritione).

From your comment:

  This is why I have written that question and because in most modern
  evangelical churches the understanding of repenting is not very deep
  or interesting.

While no reformed theologian that I know of disagrees with how important repentance is, the Reformed positions (originally presented by Martin Luther) on contrition and forgiveness is one significant place where Catholics and Protestants disagree. (This is linked to confession, reconciliation, and gets toward "off topic" for this question, though it may be a fruitful area for another independent question.)

Necessity of contrition(Catholic Encyclopedia)

  Until the time of the Reformation no theologian ever thought of
  denying the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin.  But
  with the coming of Luther and his doctrine of justification by faith
  alone the absolute necessity of contrition was excluded as by a
  natural consequence.  {Pope} Leo X in the famous Bull "Exsurge"
  [Denzinger, no. 751 (635)] condemned the following Lutheran position:

  "By no means believe that you are forgiven on account of your
  contrition, but because of Christ's words, 'Whatsoever thou shalt
  loose', etc. On this account I say, that if you receive the priest's
  absolution, believe firmly that you are absolved, and truly absolved
  you will be, let the contrition be as it may."
  Luther could not deny that in every true conversion there was grief of soul, but he asserted that this was the result of the grace of God poured into the soul at the time of justification...)

This coda was offered in case contrition and repentance are being used as synonyms in your discussion with your Evangelical associates: the Roman Catholic view won't be the same as the Evangelical view, thanks in part to the Protestant roots of many Evangelical denominations.


What Biblical basis do "separation traditions" have to support their beliefs?

It comes from the idea of sanctification.  Sanctification is from the Latin sanctificio, which means "set apart".

This concept is also reflected in the Bible.

  John 17:16-17 (NIV)
  They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

These groups take this (along with other verses) as an indication that they should separate themselves from the world.

One other verses supports this concept:

  Romans 12:2
  Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will

  John 15:19
  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.


How did the disciples of John the Baptist pray?

This is an excellent question.  However, we are given nothing in the Bible that gives us any information about how John taught his disciples to pray, only that he did teach them to pray.  As far as I am aware, there are no surviving documents that give any information either.


Is "the observer on earth" view common among Creationists?

No, it is not common.  The "observer on earth" perspective is common and key to OEC, while it is tangential to the YEC interpretation.

In the Old Earth Creationist view of Hugh Ross, the Spirit's vantage point is key to a literal interpretation of the passage.  The cosmos was created in verse one, which would include sun, moon, stars, earth.  Now you have the Spirit hovering over the waters of an formless, empty, dark, earth which is experiencing accretion of dust . First the Spirit will say, "cause there to appear" light, then later as more dust settles will the sun appear as a distinct object in the sky.

YEC, in contrast has no need to pay special attention to the vantage point of the author.


What is the argument against the imposition of clerical celibacy as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church?

I would like to add a few other Biblical reasons Protestants in general will allow for married Pastors.

  Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they immediately told Jesus about her. -Mark 1:30.

Simon Peter having a mother-in-law necessarily meant that he had a wife. If one of Jesus's own apostles had a wife, then right there is pretty good evidence that pastors today can likewise have wives.

Here's an argument Paul makes about the matter in 1 Corinthians 9,

  3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

As we already know that one of the other apostles had a wife, we can safely say that Paul isn't being sarcastic here, but rather stating a very straightforward argument. The apostles were allowed, among other things, money and the right to marry; however, the apostles would at times choose to give up their rights for various reasons, as Paul and Barnabas did with wives, and others did at various points with money among other things (see 1 Cor. 9:12).

Just because some honorably chose to give up those rights, doesn't in any way mean they didn't have those rights in the first place, as Paul states here.

As Protestants don't follow the headship of the Catholic church, they likewise don't observe the things that the Catholic church claims to have "loosed" or "bound," and the scriptural evidence taken without that external input supports a pastor who has the full right to marry if he so chooses.


Let us answer your question as being about what most Christians believe.

The vast majority of Christians are Trinitarian. They believe that Jesus and the Father are separate (though both persons of God).

The main reason for this is the many occasions where Jesus refers to the Father as separate from himself (e.g. Mt 10:32, Mt 16:17, Mt 20:23, Mk 8:38, Mk 13:32,  Lk 10:22, Jn 1:14, Jn 3:25, Jn 16:32) and addresses the Father (e.g. Matthew 11:25, Mk 14:36, Lk 22:42, Lk 23, Jn 11:41, Jn 12, Jn 17).


Is there extra-biblical evidence for the Exodus?

"I've heard from multiple sources that there isn't even the slightest of (extra-biblical) evidence of the Exodus story or even evidence for the presence of Israelites in Egypt.
If this is true...."
Well, it isn't actually true.
Evidence 1
Manetho was an ancient historian in Egypt and he says the Exodus happened.  Now he could have just been reading the Jewish Scriptures ie the Old Testament.... but he says something else which is significant and really strongly suggests he was using written records (which, I suppose, no longer exist)..  he wrote that the Exodus happened during the reign of Amenophis.  Amenophis is the Greek language version of the name Amenhotep.  There were four Pharaohs called Amenhotep. If we take the Bible verse 1 Kings 6:1 literally and use the High Chronology for the 18th dynasty rather than the Low Chronology then the Exodus clearly happened in 1446 bc in the reign of Amenhotep II (1452-1425) after the death of Thutmose III.
Evidence 2
An important evidence is linguistic: there are many foreign loanwords in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.  In the Pentateuch the most common loanwords are from Egyptian..  in fact the Pentateuch has far more Egyptian loanwords than the rest of the OT.  When recording the wanderings in the wilderness the loanwords are from Arabic.  When recording the events before the time in Egypt the loanwords are from Middle Eastern languages Sumerian and Accadian - eg Adam and Eve, the flood, the tower of Babel - all these do not have Egyptian loanwords, but rather Sumerian and Accadian.
This is circumstantial evidence, but evidence, nontheless.
Really, no one comes to faith in the Bible as the Word of the Living God by finding that one or two things in it can be verified by archaeological evidence... archaeological evidence is nice for believers, its interesting, and often fascinating, but its not essential to faith (John 20:29). Just because the evidence is not there does not mean it did not happen: arguments claiming proof on the basis of absence of evidence are logically invalid.  We come to faith in the Bible as God's Word by reading it and coming to see it is right about things such as sin, righteousness and judgement.  It is right about us, about the human race, about evil.  It is right in its standards of morality, etc.  Once we realise it is from God and could not have been produced by sinners then we can see that what it writes about the Exodus or anything else must be true, even if there is no external evidence.
For more interesting (circumstantial?) evidence see Who was Pharaoh when Moses lived in Egypt?
For more on the foreign loanwords of the Old Testament see Who documented biblical events before Moses?
For evidence of the falling of the walls of Jericho at the beginning of the conquest of the Promised Land in the spring of 1406 BC see:
How do Christians reconcile archeology with the Bible in the account of the Battle of Jericho?
For an account of evidence of Joseph in Egypt see:
Why we do we "know" that Joseph wasn't Hyksos?


I have managed to find an akathist to St. Lawrence in russian, if that helps.


How did Martin Luther's views on Free Will differ from those of Erasmus?

I don't know how abridged a version can be, since it is a very subtle topic. If you really want to understand it in depth, I recommend "Luther: Right or Wrong" by Harry J. McSorley; I consider it one of the best works in the English language on this topic and soteriology in general.  This was a topic that affected me greatly in college and reading this book really revolutionized my understanding of justification and salvation, so I really recommend it. If you want a couple-page overview of the debate, here is a link that provides a lot of the context.

If you want a summary that is so general that people will take immediate exception to it (alas), Erasmus believed that free will played more of a role in salvation than did Luther; Erasmus said free will and God's will played a synergistic role and Luther totally rejected that and said our will is in complete bondage to sin or God.

I will happily add that the different perspectives on salvation were eventually reconciled in the Joint Declaration On The Doctrine of Justification, which heals a lot of this huge theological divide.


Why is the Catholic Church called "The Roman Catholic Church"?

The Catholic Church does indeed usually refer to itself just as "The Catholic Church". That is what it's Wikipedia article calls it (Wikipedia usually names all organizations according to what they call themselves). Many Catholic-related organizations just use the word "Catholic" in their names - CAFOD is an example; Catholic School boards are another.

The term 'Roman Catholic' was originally applied by people who disagree with the Catholic church's claim to be the church (when they were not just referring to it as 'the Roman Church'). Over the centuries the usage has mutated, and term has been applied for various reasons, and is used by many people as if it were the official name of the church. However the history of the usage is extremely complicated. Even the Catholic Church sometimes refers to itself as the "Roman Catholic Church", especially if there is any danger of confusion, or of offence. This Wikipedia article gives some history of the usage of the term Catholic.

Those of you with way too much time on your hands can go and look through the Wikipedia debates on the correct naming of the church in the Catholic Church talk pages.


Who is entitled to partake in the Lord's Supper?

John Gills exposition of the Bible always explained it the best for me:

  The bread and cup are called the bread and cup of the Lord; these may
  be eaten and drank "unworthily", when they are eaten and drank by
  unworthy persons, in an unworthy manner, and to unworthy ends and
  purposes. The Lord's supper may be taken unworthily, when it is
  partook of by unworthy persons.

  This sense is confirmed by the Syriac version, which renders it ולא
  שוא לה, "and is not fit for it", or is unworthy of it, and so the
  Ethiopic version; now such are all unregenerate persons, for they have
  no spiritual life in them, and therefore cannot eat and drink in a
  spiritual sense; they have no spiritual light, and therefore cannot
  discern the Lord's body; they have no spiritual taste and relish, no
  spiritual hungerings and thirstings, nor any spiritual appetite, and
  can receive no spiritual nourishment, or have any spiritual communion
  with Christ: and so are all such persons, who, though they may profess
  to be penitent ones, and believers in Christ, and to have knowledge of
  him, and love to him; and yet they have not true repentance, neither
  do they bring forth fruits meet for it, and so as they are improper
  subjects of baptism, they are unworthy of the Lord's table; nor have
  they faith in Christ, at least only an historical one, and so cannot
  by faith eat the flesh, and drink "


What is the biblical basis against the idea that Jesus descended into hell?

Wayne Grudem is probably the most prominent theologian who has provided a detailed argument on this topic.1  He first disputes the common interpretations of five passages: Acts 2:27, Romans 10:6–7, Ephesians 4:8–9, 1 Peter 3:18–20, and 1 Peter 4:6, and argues that none of them clearly teach any form of the "descent into hell" doctrine.

He then proceeds to his argument against the doctrine, beginning with Luke 23:43, Christ's words to the thief on the cross:

  And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (ESV)

Grudem argues that the word "paradise" here must mean "heaven," the dwelling of the Father, because that's how the word is used elsewhere in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 12:4 and Revelation 2:7).

Grudem also points to Christ's exclamations on the cross: "It is finished" (John 19:30) and "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46).  Both of these, Grudem argues, suggest that Christ expected that his suffering and estrangement from God would immediately end, and that he would be welcomed to the Father.  Grudem also notes the similar words of Stephen in Acts 7:59.

Grudem thus interprets Christ's death and resurrection as similar to his concept of death and resurrection of believers: that the body dies and remains in the ground, while the soul/spirit immediately goes to heaven.  Then, later, the soul/spirit is reunited with a resurrected body.

Other opponents of the clause follow Grudem's arguments.  John Piper's arguments regarding Ephesians 4 and 1 Peter 3 echo Grudem's, and he finds Christ's statement to the thief as convincing evidence that Christ was in heaven between his death and resurrection.2

Grudem, "He Did Not Descend Into Hell." JETS vol. 34, no. 1, p103–13; also available in his Systematic Theology (582–94).
Piper, "Did Christ Ever Descend to Hell?" Interview, 2008-03-03.


What is the Biblical basis for unitarianism?

In John 17:3, Jesus says:

  Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Here, Jesus is speaking of God as the only true God and Jesus as being sent by God, not being God incarnate.

Also, in Matthew 4:10, Jesus himself says to:

  ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’

Other verses seem to emphasis this:

  Mark 10:18 (NIV)
  “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

Also, they take the following verse (Phillippians 2:6-8) and use this to say that Jesus had the form of God (outer appearance), but took on the form of man.  So, (ironically) while it's  central to the concept of the Trinity, it's also used in Unitarianism to show how Jesus was not God:

  Phillippians 2:6-8 (NASB) (emphasis added)
  [... Christ Jesus,] 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross

These concepts make people think that Jesus was not actually God and that only God the Father is actually God.


Doing a reverse image search on Google, it appears to be a painting by Navya Davis, who claims portraying Mary and Jesus smiling is an innovation, and that the Bible 'doesn't say they didn't smile' (according to the article by Sachin Sunny).


Why would God create a world in which there are so many ways to sin and thus be condemned?

I agree with you that humans are responsible for their sins, but your question is based on a seriously flawed premise.  What humans do is NOT dependent on the basic rules of the universe.  You mean like jumping off a tall building and ending your life because gravity is a rule of the universe created by God?  It would be helpful if you explained what you mean by that opening sentence.
The point is that everything God created (time, space, matter, light and all life) was perfect.  Sin did not exist when God created Adam and Eve.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good (Genesis 2:31).

The next part of your reasoning is also based on a false premise, that God allows bad things (like death-dealing drugs), to exist as if to tempt humans to sin.  What humans do with all the wonderful bounty created by God is down to the sin nature inherent in every human.  Drugs (morphine based, for example) are used to stop suffering.   Drugs are not the problem – it’s how drugs are used and abused that is the problem.
Take, as an example, the atom (created by God).  Is it God’s fault that humans devised the means whereby the atom could be split and, as a direct consequence, unleashed horrific suffering and death on men, women and children in Japan?
Why did God create a universe in which so many bad things can happen to us?  He didn’t.  A holy and righteous creator God, who made us in His image, does not control our every action.  He gave us life and lets us get on with it.  We live in a fallen world, and we experience the effects of the fall.   On the other hand:

We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28).

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).

Despite the sinful nature of the people of this world, God still loves us. Jesus loved us enough to die to take the penalty for our sins (Romans 6:23).
People get to choose whether they will turn to God and live according to His holy and righteous purposes, or whether they will reject God and go their own, sinful way.


In which denominations do people consider Mary, mother of Jesus, to be the "Second Eve"?

In Coptic Orthodox text (not sure about other Orthodox Christians), Mary the Mother of Jesus is referred to as the "Second Eve". A quick Google search brought me to this link

  He is the Lover of mankind; she loves her each of children. He is our Father of all; she is the Lady of us all. He is the Good Shepherd; she is the blessed mother. He is the Bridegroom; she, the pure and blessed bride. He is the Light of the world; she is the mother of the true Light. He is the Second Adam and the Firstborn of all creation; she is the Second Eve and the pride of our race. He is the Alpha and Omega; She is the Ever-virgin. He is the Holy One; She is the Panagia. We worship You, O Christ; we magnify you, the holy Theotokos.


What particular action that is in excess to God's Permissive Will did Satan commit in the Garden of Eden?

No one can ever do anything God does not permit
That is what is meant by God's "permissive" will. God's permissive will exists in cosmologies wherein God's sustaining presence is such that without God's present sustaining action literally nothing would happen. Rocks would not fall, people would not be able to move their arms, the earth may or may not (depending on theologian) continue to possess any sort of physical extent or even exist at all, etc.  Literally everything that happens, in this view, must be actively allowed by God because were it not the will of God, permissively, then it could not happen.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that Satan took (or could take) any action God did not or would not permit, but rather and only that Satan did something contrary to the active will of God (viz. the sort of thing God would say He willed/wanted if you asked Him), that is, something which offended God.
Given, then, that there is no sort of 'special' sin being committed here (nor could there be; sin may be greater or lesser in gravity but it is all the same sort of stuff), the apparent difficulty is removed: the 'curse' is no different than any other sort of God-imposed punishment for sin, special in the case of Adam and Eve only in that prior to it they had not yet sinned, and not notable in the case of Satan any more than any other of his multitudinous iniquities.  To ask what the 'this' in 'because you have done this' is is merely to ask what Satan did prior to the statement which was morally wrong, which is pretty evident in the text.


Do Christadelphians believe Jesus is God?

I hope I can help here as I am a Christadelphian. It is correct we don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and our view is consistent with Biblical Unitarianism. This is an important point of distinction as other non Trinitarian denominations may hold a view of 'oneness' or binitarianism as their theology.

In direct answer to your question, no, we do not believe Jesus is completely God or in fact God at all. What we do hold is that Jesus is the Messiah, he is the son of God born of a virgin birth and was sinless and therefore had very much a God-like nature. We also believe that Jesus' teachings were the word of God. We stop short at saying he was divine. Jesus was a sinless man. I think that makes him more special. We know God can't sin. If Jesus was God, the fact he didn't sin would render insignificant.

In answer to the next part of the question. As a consequence of the aforementioned material, we do not believe Jesus was God or at least present in any way before creation. Jesus came into being when he was born to Mary. Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus was the angel Michael in heaven born on earth through the virgin birth. We do not hold this view at all. We are very much in line with orthodox understanding here.

Next part. Jesus never becomes God. He is God's son and has a God-like nature but will never become God. So when did he adopt a God-like nature? Great question. Many others have greater explanations than I. The simple answer is that we can't be sure exactly. The Bible says little of his childhood. We do know that when he went to Jerusalem for the Passover with his family, he stayed back at the temple. He was very learned in scripture for his age. Some say at his Baptism where God professed "this is my son, in him I am well pleased." There is however no doubt that in his ministry, God was pleased in all Jesus did (God resurrected him so he must have been happy).

My sincerest hope I have helped you. There are some brilliant Christadelphian pamphlets on the Trinity. You can order one from the website of 'The Christadelphian' (magazine) or view free copies online or pop into your local Christadelphian Church. Most have these pamphlets and would gladly hand you one for nothing more than a smile.

Here are the pamphlets I'm speaking of

Read the Jesus, God the Son or Son of God pamphlet. This is the common position in Christadelphia and backs up what I've said above.

No matter if one believes in the Trinity or not, we all believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is our doctrinal view which differs.


According to LDS teaching, was Adam the first man created in all the worlds or just this one?

The answer can actually be found in the very next verse:

  35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

If many worlds had already existed and completed their cycle by this point, then clearly Adam was the first man of this world.

He was definitely chosen for a reason, out of all the spirit children of God who were to come to this earth, to hold a preeminent place in creation.  Exactly what that reason was has not been revealed, though there are three passages in the Doctrine and Covenants that refer to Adam as being the same person as Michael the Archangel.  (See D&C 27:11, 107:54, and 128:21.)


What is the basis for Lombard's view that the basis of justification for OT men was different than for OT women?

Full study: Medieval Readings of Romans

But of course, Lombard's view is based on the incorrect assumption that circumcision started with Abraham.

The practice of circumcision predates Judaism by more than 10.000 years. Circumcision is the world's oldest planned surgical procedure, suggested by anatomist and historian Grafton Elliot Smith to be over 15,000 years old, pre-dating recorded history.

The Semites most likely copied the practice from the Sumerians. Abraham is believed to have had circumcision performed on himself and on all male relatives and servants in his household whether of Semitic origin or not, as a mark of the covenant between his God and these people, known thereafter as His Chosen People, the Children of Israel.  Historians date this as around 1800 BCE, clearly long after circumcision was introduced by the Sumerians and Semites.

So just as some have assumed that circumcision started with Abraham, so others like Herodotus have incorrectly suggested that the Children of Israel introduced it into Egypt during their captivity around 1200 BCE.

Evidence exists that ritual circumcision was being performed by the Egyptians as early as 2300 BCE, confirmation of this being a wall
painting from Ankhmahor, Saqqarah, Egypt (dated in the eighth Dynasty, 2345–2182 BCE)

Now that we have established circumcision clearly predates Judaism, it is logical to search for the origin of this dualistic gender-based justification in customs that predate Judaism as well. Egyptian circumcision was used to demarcate a special elite class, very much like in the Abrahamic tradition, it is used to set apart the "chosen". Priests were the custodians of both secular and religious knowledge and they played a significant role in offering sacrifices to the Egyptian gods. Priests were expected to be pure morally and in physical appearance. The presence of the foreskin was regarded as a sign of female sexual organ and impurity and hence it was to be removed. As purity was a status of higher rank and a coveted attribute, the practice of circumcision, which originally was prescribed for the priests, ultimately became adapted by all men.

Priestesses in Ancient Egypt, on the other hand, were not circumcised and usually served in the temples of female deities. Those who served Isis were instructed to perform good deeds every day, such as anonymously donating to the poor. Detailed instructions for daily good deeds, rituals and sacrifices date back to the earliest dynasties.


Are Catholic priests allowed by church law to provide professional counseling and referrals to penitents who come to them to confess?

In essence, care should be taken lest the Sacrament of Confession be confused with psychological counseling. A priest with a degree in psychology should be sure not to confuse the spiritual purpose of the Sacrament with the therapeutic purpose of psychology.

Therefore, the proper procedure would be for the priest to instruct the penitent to bring up his psychological issues outside of Confession. In Confession, what is dealt with is sin and grace (see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1422); psychological counseling regards the cognitive and emotive faculties.

Naturally, if the priest is acting in the capacity of a licensed professional psychologist (outside of Confession, obviously), then he may seek remuneration like any other. He may not, of course, charge for Confession. (See CCC 2121.)

(I do not believe there is any official legislation regarding this issue, but I suggest reading the overview on the Sacrament of Penance in CCC 1422-1470; you will see that psychological therapy does not really belong to it.)

Aside from the theological issues, confusing Confession and counseling poses practical issues: for example, a priest can never divulge anything he has learned in Confession for any reason. (See Code of Canon Law, 983.) Hence, for example, it would be complicated for him (if not impossible) to consult other psychologists, or refer the “patient” to other psychologists.

The proper procedure, then, would be to counsel the penitent to seek psychological counseling (should that be advisable). If the priest is himself a licensed psychologist, he could even suggest that the penitent seek his help outside of confession.

(I think that most priests in this situation, however, would advise the penitent to go to a different therapist or counselor, since it can be complicated to keep track of what has been said under the seal of Confession and what has not.)


Is Christ's love for us greater than the Father's?

It is problematic whenever we attempt to separate the inseparable Trinity, so let us acknowledge that to begin with.

The Bible never seems to suggest that the Holy Triune God has the capacity to love in varying measures.  Indeed, God only knows one way to love.  His love is complete and total--not partial.  His love, like He Himself, does not increase or decrease.  His love does not grow, diminish, expand or contract.

Thus, the fact that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) each love mankind indicates that their love is equivalent and complete.


Was Modalism (or "modalistic language") ever considered to not contradict orthodox trinitarian beliefs?

I would say that this claim is totally bogus. Its more likely that in the second century the Spirit wasn't seen as a person of the godhead at all.  After all, Justin Martyr (circa 140-150 AD) was the great champion of orthodoxy, and in his dialogue with Trypho he spends a great deal of time trying to explain how Jesus could be God (e.g. the analogies of light from light and fire from fire are employed) but he never touches the concept of the divinity of the Spirit.

Another possible issue to grapple with on this is divergent copies of the canonical gospels.  We know from anti-heretical writers like Ireneaus (circa 180 AD) that different sects had different versions of the canonical gospels.  For example, in the text in Mark (3:31-32) where we read the narrator comment "Jesus' mother and brothers were outside seeking to speak with him" followed by "Someone told him, 'Your mother and brothers are outside seeking to speak with you'" some sects had copies that lacked the narrator comment, and they put the interpretation on this that Jesus didn't really have a mother, and/or whoever said this was trying to trick him to test if he was really a prophet.  Its conceivable that some copies of John possessed by some sects lacked the part that identifies the paraclete with the Spirit of Truth, thus enabling them to identify the paraclete as a man, whether that be the Apostle Paul, Marcion, Montanus, or whoever they wanted it to be.

Edit:

Concerning the Tertullian reference which Pelikan doesn't specify, he is referring to Against Praxeas chapter 3. Here is the relevant section from Holmes' 1870 translation:

  The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned, ) who
  always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the
  dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very
  rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the
  one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only
  God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia. The
  numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a
  division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out
  of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually
  supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we
  are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to
  themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One
  God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not
  produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the
  truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of
  God). And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant
  ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose
  their understanding of the monarxia (or Monarchy) was as complete as
  their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce
  the monarxia (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the
  oi0konomia, or Dispensation (of the Three in One). As for myself, however,
  if I have gleaned any knowledge of either language, I am sure that monarxia
  (or Monarchy) has no other meaning than single and individual rule;
  ...

If that's all it means, there are obviously various positions that could be taken, and modalism is only one of them.  If the "simple" were really so simple after all, then modalism is probably the least likely.  A strict view that the Father is God alone and the Son and Holy Spirit are not could just as well be called Monarchianism in that sense, as also could more complicated notions like modalism and "dynamic monarchianism" (i.e. the idea that Jesus was a man who was adopted and then subsumed into God as it were).

In any case, as to Pelikan's claim that modalistic language was considered orthodox in the second century, we have a few issues:

1.) Tertullian is technically 3rd century. (first decade of the 200s)

2.) Its not typical to use lay opinion as the litmus test of orthodoxy.  The fact is that the dominant lay view in every century probably remained about the same (non-Trinitiarian), and completely different from the establishment's views. Orthodoxy is always defined by the establishment in scholarly literature.

3.) "the church" in scholarly literature is always the clergy, not the laity.

One obvious reason for this is the clergy write theological treatises and the laity either do not, or if they did, the clergy destroyed them all.  Its easier to count the written books by the "orthodox fathers" and tally them up and claim such and such is the consensus position of the church, than to count the unwritten opinions of the mass of laity who undoubtedly thought their clerics were crazy.

In other words, the Catholic standard of "what was believed by all Christians at all times" never counted the laity, but only the big writers. And even then, if there was a big writer who disagreed, he was labelled a heretic by the establishment, his books were burned, and then it was as if he had never existed, so all is well for orthodoxy with the  "what was believed by all Christians at all times" criterion once again.


Saying the concluding prayer in the Liturgy of the Hours

In the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours, there are no particular norms (rules) for which ending or formula you may use to conclude the Prayer of the Day with.

That said one is free to use the concluding formula of one's choice. The concluding prayer has several options to end the prayer and although the formula "through our Lord Jesus Christ your Son, who lives and reigns..." is not formally mentioned as an alternative ending, in your edition, this traditional form may still be employed. I personally use the long formula when I pray the Divine Office or the Liturgy of the Hours.

Thus there are four ways to conclude the Prayer of the Day. Whoever recites the final prayer in a congregation has the privilege of using his choice of ending,  whether a priest, deacon or lay person.

Here are the norms for the Concluding  Prayer:

  Concluding Prayer

  The concluding prayer at the end marks the completion of an entire hour. In a celebration in public and with a congregation, it belongs by tradition to a priest or deacon to say this prayer.
  In the office of readings, this prayer is as a rule the prayer proper to the day. At night prayer, the prayer is always the prayer given in the psalter for that hour.
  The concluding prayer at morning prayer and evening prayer is taken from the proper on Sundays, on the weekdays of the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter, and on solemnities, feasts, and memorials. On weekdays in Ordinary Time the prayer is the one given in the four-week psalter to express the character of these two hours.
  The concluding prayer at daytime prayer is taken from the proper on Sundays, on the weekdays of the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter, and on solemnities and feasts. On other days the prayers are those that express the character of the particular hour. These are given in the four-week psalter.


Did Jesus teach separation of church and state?

Richard's answer isn't really teaching for separation of church and state, but rather evidence against fighting it. It shows we are to obey the authorities, but it doesn't say the government cannot be a specific religion. Jesus never taught to keep it separated (that is recorded at least), so it cannot be taken as doctrine. At the same time, he also never preached that the unification is desired.

To have a government that has Christian values would, of course, be desirable (the Bible is considered to be the greatest book of morals ever written by a lot of non-Christians). However, Christianity is about choosing to have a relationship with Jesus. To have a government that forces everyone to be Christian could easily cause a lot of people to conform publicly, but resent Jesus privately. This is why I believe He never tried to make that unification.


Were there provisions for salvation for non-Hebrews in the OT?

I think that the main way God used to lead people to himself was to use the people of Israel as an example, to show his glory, power and love through them, so that the surrounding peoples could see and accept that he is the only God.

One thing you could do, as a heathen of that time, was to convert and implant yourself in the state and people of Israel, just like we do today (though we are not referring to the state of Israel per se).

In the Old Testament, there are a number of people that were definitely people of God, although they were not Israelites. Four of them are Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab and Ruth. Let's examine them, one by one:

Melchizedek was a priest of God and king in the city of Salem. Abra(ha)m was greeted and blessed by Melchizedek when they met. Melchizedek is mentioned in Genesis chapter 14. There is no mentioning of how Melchizedek had heard about God and there are many theories about this.

Jethro is introduced in Exodus 2:16, as a priest in the land of Midian. As far as I know, it is not explicitly stated that he was a priest of God, but in the 18th chapter, we can read that Jethro heard about what God had done for the people of Israel and praised him.

Rahab was a prostitute that lived in the city of Jericho. Before the siege, Joshua sent two spies to the city. For some reason they ended up in Rahab's house and she protected them from their enemies. She believed in God, for she had heard about what God had done for the people of Israel and put her faith in him. She asked the spies to protect her and her family and not let them perish with the rest of the people of Jericho and so they became a part of the Israelites, and Rahab became an ancestor to Jesus, our Savior.

Ruth was married to one of the sons of Naomi, a woman of the Israelites. She is mentioned in the book of Ruth. I think it is fair to assume that she heard about God from her mother- and father-in-law, and her husband. Later, she followed her mother-in-law back to the land of Israel and became a part of the Israelites, and ancestor to Jesus, our Savior, just like Rahab.


How do Christians argue about Jewish objections against Jesus being the Messiah

There is no unique argument from the Catholic Church about those objections, but being myself a Catholic I will offer mine. Since IMV this argument has nothing specifically Catholic about it, I will speak just as a Christian. Sure enough, many Christians may disagree with this answer, particularly with the work on the epistemological foundation.
Core of the argument
Christians do not argue about those objections by answering each of them with the Christian interpretation of the corresponding OT passage, as that would be missing entirely the basis of our faith in Jesus as not only the Messiah but also the consubstantial Son of God Who has assumed a human nature. Because we do not hold Jesus to be the Messiah or the Son of God on the basis of believing that our interpretation of the OT is so better than the Rabbinic one, but on the basis of believing the FACT of Jesus' resurrection. Facts trump interpretations, or as Pope Francis says, reality is superior to ideas. If Jesus in fact rose from the dead, then what He claimed about Himself is true and any differing OT interpretation must be discarded, period.
Let me hammer the point again. The logic of the Christian argument is not "The Christian interpretation of the OT is really good, therefore the events in the Gospels must be factual" but the other way round: "Jesus' resurrection is factual, therefore Jesus' words and deeds according to the Gospels are true, i.e. both historically factual and truthful, and therefore the Christian interpretation of the OT is correct."
BTW, the answer in JSE that you linked to not only does not even address the issue of whether Jesus' resurrection was factual, but also gets the issue altogether wrong, as it says "Now, many missionaries tell me that Jesus will rise from the dead and do all the requisite things that Messiahs are supposed to do that he didn't get to." Were those missionaries drunk or speaking in tongues? The point is that Jesus ROSE from the dead, not that He "will rise"!
Epistemological foundation
Now, since the answer so far might be countered with the objection that Jesus' resurrection might just be an instance of the "sign or wonder" supporting the claims of the false prophet predicted in Deut 13:1-5, we must start from a solid philosophical foundation in order to be able to discern correctly whether a sign or wonder is intended to lead people to the one true God or away from Him. For that purpose, I define a Revelatory Epistemological Position as the set of criteria that a person holds to be appropriate for determining whether a purported medium of divine Revelation is actually so. (Or in the case of a particular sign or wonder, whether it certifies that the associated revelation comes from God or it does not.) Thus, the logic in the above statement "Jesus' resurrection is factual, therefore Jesus' words and deeds according to the Gospels are true, i.e. both historically factual and truthful," presupposes a specific Revelatory Epistemological Position which consists of the following:
A first postulate based on infinite divine goodness:
P1. God will perform a miracle that requires the exercise of God's own exclusive power (as opposed to allowing an angel to exercise its own natural power) - in scholastic terms, a miracle which can happen only if God performs it directly as its only cause, not as its primary cause cooperating with a natural secondary cause, whether material or angelic, - hereafter called "a miracle which only God can perform", only to lead people to truth and good.
plus two corollaries of P1:
C1. The possible instances of the "sign or wonder" supporting the claims of the false prophet predicted in Deut 13:1-5 do not include miracles which only God can perform, but are limited to the works that an evil angel can perform by its own natural power when allowed by God.
C2. If God performs a miracle which only He can perform through the intervention of a prophet P, God will be certifying in front of everyone that all that P has said and done as prophet so far has God's "seal of approval" and therefore is true and in accordance with God's will, respectively.
plus a second postulate based on metaphysics:
P2. The resurrection of a human being is a miracle which only God can perform, regardless of whether God performs it through the intervention of a human being, such as prophet Elisha (2 Ki 4:32-35).
plus two further corollaries from P2 and C1 and C2, respectively:
C3. The possible instances of the "sign or wonder" supporting the claims of the false prophet predicted in Deut 13:1-5 do not include the resurrection of the false prophet himself to a glorious state.
C4. If God resurrects a prophet P to a glorious state, God will be certifying in front of everyone that all that P has said and done as prophet up to his death has God's "seal of approval" and therefore is true and in accordance with God's will, respectively.
plus a third postulate based on infinite divine wisdom and goodness:
P3. If God confers his "seal of approval" to the words and deeds of a prophet P by resurrecting him to a glorious state, He will also provide the means to ensure that the words and deeds of said prophet can be known with accuracy and certainty along time and across space. Because it would be against divine wisdom and goodness for God to give us certainty that whatever P said and did was true and good while not giving us certainty about what P actually said and did!
Starting from the above revelatory epistemological position and obtaining, through rational examination of historical facts, a certainty about the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, one arrives at the certainty of the factuality and truth of Jesus' words according to the NT.


The answer is both 'yes' and 'no'.  A priest can resign from the priesthood and seek dispensation from his clerical obligations, yet the Church will always regard him as a 'laicised' priest, since ordination is regarded as irrevocable.

Canon 1583: It is true that someone validly ordained can, for a just reason, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. the vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.
Canon 291: Apart from the case mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, loss of the clerical state does not entail a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which only the Roman Pontiff grants.
Canon 292: A cleric who loses the clerical state according to the norm of law loses with it the rights proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of orders, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 976. By the loss of the clerical state, he is deprived of all offices, functions, and any delegated power.
Canon 293: A cleric who loses the clerical state cannot be enrolled among clerics again except through a rescript of the Apostolic See.

GianPaolo Salvini, S.J. says, in 'Priests Who "Desert," Priests Who "Come Back" ', Of the 1,076 priests who leave the ministry each year, 554 ask for a dispensation from the obligations imposed by the priestly state: celibacy, and the recitation of the breviary. Salvini estimates the number of former priests who became married as in the thousands, but concedes that no statistic is available.
This Press Statement was issued online by John Wijngaards in 1998, giving his reasons for resignation from ministry as "Catholic Priest Resigns Due To Conflict Of Conscience".
This Letter of Resignation by Athanasio Dzadagu, giving his reason as the wish to marry, was reproduced by Zim Catholic news in its blog. The letter received both favourable and unfavourable comments.


Ignatius of Antioch: Christophoros or Theophorus?

Ignatius called himself Theophorus, that is, God-bearer.  All seven of his letters begin this way:

  Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus... (Epistle to the Ephesians, cf. to Magnesians, to Trallians, etc.)

Some scholarly analysis of this title is available in Srawley's translation of the epistles, page 41.

But there's at least one sense in which Pagels is correct – Ignatius considers his audience (and presumably all Christians) to be "Christ-bearers," as he writes in Epistle to the Ephesians, IX:

  Ye, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, in whom also I exult that I have been thought worthy, by means of this Epistle, to converse and rejoice with you, because with respect to your Christian life ye love nothing but God only.

The word here is χριστοφόροι (per the Greek text), which is transliterated christophoros.

So if this was indeed an oversight on Pagels's part, it so happens that she is still correct – he did (indirectly) call himself a Christ-bearer.


Why do Solemnities have different readings for the vigil masses?

In a nutshell, the solemnities in the of the old rite of Pope St. Pius V (Extraordinary Form of the Mass) had True vigils of these major feasts such as Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension (where celebrated on the Thursday after the Sixth Sunday after Easter), Pentecost, St. John the Baptist, Ss. Peter and Paul, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother.

In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF) vigils were not anticipated Masses as is found in the Mass of Pope Paul VI (Ordinary Form of the Mass (OF).

  As part of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, the Church gave permission for Mass to be celebrated at night (whereas formerly Mass could only be said in the morning). Furthermore, the Church said that one can fulfill the Sunday obligation by attending Mass on Saturday evening. Some call them anticipated Masses while others prefer to call them vigil Masses.

  Over the centuries, the vigil Mass often took on a somewhat “penitential” character. Vigils for the Ascension, Christmas, and so forth were not as “bright” and “happy” as the actual feast day. - "Anticipated" Mass or "Vigil" Mass on Saturday Night?

In former days a true vigil Mass was celebrated the morning prior to the feast in question and thus did not fulfill one's obligation of going to the particular Feast Day Mass in question.

Vigil masses introduced under Pope Paul VI are in fact anticipated masses for the following day (Sunday or a particular Solemnity). Vigil Masses of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are truly the day before a solemnity are were clearly not an anticipated mass. In fact they were of a different color (Violet) and were often days of fasting.

The Vigil Masses you question about are a remnant of the proper vigils of the Masses of Pope Pius V and thus have different readings than that actual feast day, just as the vigils and feasts had different reading in the old rite.

  A Roman Catholic Mass which takes place the evening before a Sunday or Holy Day is sometimes called a Vigil Mass because it is celebrated within the period of time for the Vigil. The Roman Missal includes special readings for the Vigils of High Feasts: Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension (where celebrated on the Thursday after the Sixth Sunday after Easter), Pentecost, St. John the Baptist, Ss. Peter and Paul, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother. Where there are not special readings assigned to a Vigil Mass, it may also be called an “Anticipated Mass” because the readings are simply anticipating the readings of the next day. Attending a Vigil Mass or Anticipated Mass fulfills a Catholic's obligation for attending Mass for that Sunday or Holy Day. - Vigils (Wikipedia)


What about the story of the "Rich Man and Lazarus" indicates whether it is a parable or not?

One thing that seems to distinguish parables from accounts of actual events is the absence of specific names for the people in the parables.  In the parables we read, "A sower" (Luke 8), "A rich man" (Luke 12, 15), "A man" (Luke 13, 14), "A Samaritan" (Luke 10).

However, in the account of the Rich Man and the Beggar, we are actually given the name of the beggar.  This is quite a distinction from all the other parables.  In addition, Jesus tells us that the rich man saw another specific man--the patriarch Abraham.

So, the fact that the rich man's name is withheld does support the idea of this being a parable.  Yet, the fact that two other specific people are identified by name seems to be stronger evidence to support the idea that this was an actual historical event with actual people.

The significance of this story comes in the reference to someone rising from the dead, as Jesus states that even if someone rises from the dead, some will not believe.  This is fulfilled in the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and even the chief priests of the day continued in their refusal to believe in Him.

For reference:

  19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and
  who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor
  man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with
  what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and
  licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels
  to Abraham's side.The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in
  Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off
  and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have
  mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water
  and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham
  said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good
  things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted
  here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and
  you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass
  from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to
  us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my
  father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them,
  lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said,
  ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he
  said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead,
  they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and
  the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise
  from the dead.’”  Luke 16:19-31 ESV


What are the conditions for removing excommunication of a married priest?

If a man is ordained, he is unable to validly marry in the Church:

  Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 1087)

But he is not (as AthanasiusOfAlex points out) excommunicated by that fact. He is suspended from carrying out his priestly office:

  A cleric who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae suspension. If he does not repent after being warned and continues to give scandal, he can be punished gradually by privations or even by dismissal from the clerical state.

(Canon 1394)

Thus it is expected that the man will separate from his putative wife and presumably get a civil divorce. In some ways he is in a similar situation to one who has civilly divorced and "remarried" (i.e., one who who lives in concubinage). (I've answered a question about that very possibility.)

There is no way to validate the putative marriage by convalidation or radical sanation while still being a priest. He can request an indult (formal permission) from the Holy See to become laicized, and then another to marry after that.

He cannot go on living "as brother and sister" with his putative spouse. This is an option for lay people. But if a priest were to do so, he'd invite scandal, the possibility of leading people into evil (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2284.) In this case, the scandal would be the potential belief that the Catholic Church was actually OK with the man's sin, and therefore that this wasn't a big deal, and maybe that it was not really a sin in the Church's eyes. Thus he will need to leave, and make it clear that he is not married to this woman.

If he is laicized, he can (with permission) validly marry. Even if he remains a priest, though, the man is still responsible for his minor children, and will have to make some sort of arrangement for their welfare. Since the bishop is in turn responsible for him, he will probably suggest that the priest request to be laicized, allowing him to raise a family as if he were a married layman.

Either way, once the man's spiritual situation is regularized (i.e. once he becomes again either an active priest in good standing or a laicized priest validly married), he should confess the sin (of fornication) which he has committed, and return to full spiritual health.


How is the amazement of the Jews explained by those who believe that "Render Unto Caesar" affirmed the paying of taxes?

What lies below is certainly not the only way to interpret this scripture, but it is one way I find extremely compelling, and to my knowledge, provides a reasonable historical understanding.
This passage in scripture is built on a long foundation of culture and history, which is largely lost on a modern audience.
First, a reminder about the immediately apparent context:  Jesus had just entered the temple and driven out the merchants.
Also remember the larger context, that the Jews are living under occupation, and they resent having to pay taxes to a foreign ruling power, and they are eagerly awaiting a messiah to come and rescue them from this oppression--some are expecting a military leader to lead a rebellion against Rome. Practically all Jews are expecting some sort of political leader (there wasn't a clean distinction between politics and religion then, as there often is in our minds today).
So when Jesus was asked about paying taxes to Caesar, it was a loaded question, not really about taxes, per se, but inviting Jesus to take sides on the issue of open rebellion.
But that's not enough to fully demonstrate why Jesus' questioners were amazed.  As N.T. Write explains briefly in Jesus and the Victory of God, Jesus' words "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God" mirrors a revolutionary phrase, which would have been well known in contemporary Jewish culture of the time.
A hundred years earlier, during the Maccabaean rebellion, Mattathais made a famous death-bed speech, which concluded with "Pay back the Gentiles in full, and obey the commands of the law"--a command to, according to the law of God, rebel against, attack, and destroy the pagans.
Jesus mirrored this popular "call to arms" to say, in essence, "Give Caesar what he deserves." But he said it in the context of paying taxes.  Was Jesus demanding that Jews pay taxes? Was he demanding that they rebel against Caesar?
As Wright concludes, He had done neither. He had done both.
This is why they were amazed... and probably incredibly confused.

Here I quote the relevant section of Jesus and the Victory of God, for greater context. I've still edited out a few bits, so as not to make it any longer than absolutely necessary.

The question of tax-money was not simply a trick, designed to frame a charge against Jesus. Jesus' reply, likewise, should not be read simply as a cunning avoidance of the question, still less as a way of shifting the discussion from 'politics' to 'piety'. Tax and Temple, Caesar and God, are the subject-matter.
'We know that you ... show no respect of persons.' This preamble assumes that Jesus is not afraid of Caesar, and so will give the revolutionary answer if that is what he believes. That, at least, is what the questioners assume the bystanders will be thinking.
Jesus' pithy reply encapsulates the larger issues of his own doubly revolutionary kingdom-agenda. He began by requesting one of the relevant coins. This took the initiative away from his questioners, forcing them to reveal their own hand first. The coin bore an image and superscription which were, from a strict Jewish point of view, blasphemous. The image was prohibited (even the cynical Antipas, as we saw, had stopped short of using an image of himself on his coins), and the superscription proclaimed Caesar in divine terms, specifically as the son of a god. Jesus' questioners were thus themselves already heavily compromised by possessing such an object.
Jesus then responded with the famous two-line aphorism: give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God. This has often been taken to imply a neat division of loyalties: state and church, Caesar and God, held in delicate tension. Alternately, the saying has been read as a wry, ironic comment, or, indeed, as a direct challenge to zealotry. But there is reason to suppose that both parts of the aphorism are more subtle, and more closely linked to the issues of Temple, Messiah, and Jesus' whole kingdom-announcement, than those options allow.
Jesus' hearers would have been expecting some kind of signal that he was indeed in favor of revolution. It might be cryptic, but in many political situations coded statements are all that one can offer. I suggest that Jesus deliberately framed his answer in terms that could be heard as just a coded statement, with which he neatly refused the either/or that had been put to him and pointed to his own kingdom-agenda as the radical alternative.
The initial clue is found in a passage probably familiar to Jesus and his audience, if only through the regular celebrations of the Maccabaean heroes at the annual festival of Hanukkah. As the old revolutionary Mattathias was preparing to die, he made a speech to his sons, exhorting them to zeal for the law, and invoking the zealous heroes of old. The speech ends as follows:

Judas Maccabaeus has been a mighty warrior from his youth; he shall command the army for you and fight the battle against the peoples. You shall rally around you all who observe the law, and avenge the wrong done to your people. Pay back the Gentiles in full, and obey the commands of the law.

With that, Mattathias died. The sequel, as we have seen, is that Judas took command, led the revolt, fought the battle, defeated the pagan army, cleansed and restored the Temple, refortified Jerusalem--and established a royal dynasty that lasted for a hundred years. Through Herod's marriage to Mariamne, it was still in existence in Jesus' own day.
Mattathias instructed his sons to give back to the pagans an equal repayment: do to them as they have done to us. The saying is unambiguously revolutionary. The second clause put this in its wider context: obey the command of the law. ... The Maccabaean saying had a double thrust: your duty towards the pagans is to fight them, and your duty to our god is to keep his commandments.
I propose that Jesus' cryptic saying should be understood as a coded and subversive echo of Mattathias' last words. His Temple-action created a context within which his saying would have meant: Pay Caesar back what he is owed! Render to Caesar what he deserves! The words Jesus said would, prima facie, have been heard as revolutionary.
When, however, the words are set in context, they acquire a second layer of meaning. Jesus was not in a classroom giving a lecture, or for that matter on a battlefield urging on the troops. He was facing a questioner with a Roman coin in his hand. Suddenly, a counterpoint appears beneath the coded revolutionary meaning; faced with the coin, and with the implicit question of revolution, Jesus says, in effect 'Well then, you'd better pay Caesar back as he deserves!' Had he told them to revolt? Had he told them to pay the tax? He had done neither. He had done both.


How is free-will formally defined as distinct from determinism, randomness and determinism-randomness hybrid to support moral responsibility?

Julian Baggini has written a book called Freedom Regained: the Possibility of Free Will. In it the idea emerges that Philosophers working on free will and moral responsibility proceed almost exclusively by appealing to intuitions.
Richard Oerton in his book The Nonsense of Free Will gives, I think, a good,
not-too-technical-for-the-average-reader discussion of the incoherence of the
free will idea.  When something is essentially illogical it means that the sort of formal mathematical definition you seek is actually impossible.  That's the thing about free will, it is free of formal definition.  If we could define it it would not be free. It just fills a gap people want to fill. The human will is not free of how God made it or why God made it. We are free to be ourselves but not free to be anything else. We make choices based on who we are. Who we are depends upon how we were made. Nothing has ever made itself. All our choices depend on how we were made. Free will needs a gap between what we are and how we behave. This gap does not exist.


Into whose name should Christians be baptised?

From this article,

  The reason they were baptizing "in the name of Jesus" is not because
  it was a formula, but because the phrase, "in the name of" means "in
  the authority of.

They were baptizing with his authority. They were using his authority to baptize believers into a new life.

Another quote from that same site:

  Therefore, when someone is properly baptized, they are baptized in the
  name of Jesus; that is, by the authority of Jesus.  Therefore, when
  they are properly baptized in the name of Jesus, they should say, "I
  baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,"
  just as Jesus commanded us to do.


What is the Catholic Church's answer to whether one is really Catholic if they don't accept some of the Church's teachings?

The official catholic teaching is that a person who is a Catholic by virtue of having received the Sacraments of Baptism or Confirmation in the Church remains a Catholic unless or until he or she deliberately and voluntarily repudiates the Church. As a separate matter, a Catholic is bound by Canon Law

  to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church. [Can. 212 §1.]

To the extent that they fail to comply, or deliberately violate that to which they are bound, they are in impaired communion with the rest of the church, but remain Catholics. A consequence of the impaired communion may be liability to certain penal consequences as laid out in the Code of Canon Law, and there are some consequences that have automatic consequences. Failing to accept, adhere to, and promote the Church's teaching on abortion, for example, carries the penalty of automatic self-excommunication by the individual. Ex-communication, however, simply bars a Catholic from all sacraments, except confession, but does not mean that the person is considered by the Church not to be a Catholic.

I am not sufficiently familiar with the writings of the Fathers to discuss which of them might have written on this matter, but in general my understanding is that most of the current teaching on this matter developed after the time of the Fathers, and thus, after the time of Scripture. Given my lack of knowledge of the Fathers on this matter, I welcome any who might be able to write definitively on this matter to edit this answer.


Do Mormons still eat meat only in "winter, cold or famine?"

Some ambiguity in interpretation causes confusion. In addition to the passages you cited, I can think of one other in the Doctrine and Covenants with specific reference to meat:

  And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance
  D&C 49:18-19

Some argue that D&C 89 stipulates that meat should only be consumed in special circumstances such as emergencies or shortages, while others argue that D&C 49 specifically states that meat is ordained for man's use and should not be some extreme case.

The commas in verse 13 did not exist in the original text, and thus some have argued that the meaning of the passage is that it pleases the lord to use meat beyond the conditions outlined. Others argue that verse 12 specifically stipulates using meat sparingly, and thus the commas portray the true meaning.

While church leaders have given no specific official interpretation on meat in the Word of Wisdom, various leaders have offered their own interpretations, largely in favor of the latter interpretation above. Lorenzo Snow, the 5th successor to Joseph Smith, opined that members of the Church should become vegetarians. Heber J Grant offered his opinion that his longevity was in part due to his sparing use of meat. Many others emphasized that Latter-day Saints "eat little meat." I was unable to find any opinion supporting the former interpretation, however it is clear that meat is not prohibited based on the time of year or otherwise. Official church functions involving meals often include some meat as well.

Modern medical science has shown that, much like tobacco and alchohol, meat in excess causes a myriad of health problems, heart disease being perhaps the most common. This adds additional credence to the effectiveness of adhering to the Word of Wisdom, a health law predating modern science. Some meat, especially low fat and high protein meat, has shown to have positive health benefits. Perhaps it is for this reason that meat is not strictly prohibited, and indeed appears to be "ordained for the use of man."

Although there is much in Mormonism that is strictly defined, there is also much that is not; and it is left to each individual to determine the degree to which he or she must personally abstain from meat. Mormons believe that the Holy Spirit will guide individuals to know what God's will is for them specifically, not only in this matter, but also in any aspect of one's life.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their "Governing body" will rule the world after "Armageddon"?

Read this article:

  http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/

  This addresses your question specifically.

Often you won't get the same answer when asking random people from their congregations as some are more in touch with modern developments more than others, as you've just discovered.

Another thing is that the interpretations on core modern fulfilments often change: 2013 changed the governing body's role slightly. The "wheat and weeds" understanding also recently changed.

The answer is "No" they do not believe they will exclusively "rule the world", but are part of the 144,000 which serve as Kings and Priests under Christ, obeying him as co-rulers. They presently find themselves to to have a unique role among the anointed, that having changed to "Faithful and Discreet Slave", which dispenses food (teachings) in due season/proper time.


Are there any modern Nestorian or Jacobite systematic theology textbooks?

Answering with respect to the Nestorians/Assyrian church of the East rather than the Jacobites (Miaphysites):
While not exactly a modern text, the Marganitha (13th Century) is a Assyrian (a.k.a. Nestorian) systematic theology in good esteem. There is a fairly readable 19th century translation into English in the public domain provided on wikisource.
Unfortunately, I doubt there would be any more modern examples, especially given the history of the Assyrian church. Before the 20th century, there would be little motivation to write a systematic theology in the English language. During the 1920s, they suffered a genocide under the Ottomans (The so-called Seyfo), and the subsequent emigrations meant that the immediate pastoral concerns of reorganizing a previously geographically isolated church on a global scale (in foreign cultures no less) were of more importance than writing systematic theology. Likewise, recent ecumenical efforts, which by their nature tend to involve looking back at historical theological positions rather than creating new works, may account for the lack of such a systematic theology.
A Modern (2006) Assyrian Catechism (rather than systematic theology) can be found here by C. Klutz and G. Toma. It has a Bibliography which includes the above-mentioned Marganitha, as well as a number of other volumes, which may be of interest, though they do not all appear to be in English.


In 1516 the Catholic priest Desiderius Erasmus obtained the Codex Basilensis from the Basel University Library in Basel, Switzerland.  This Codex contained seven manuscripts of the New Testament (which did not include the book of Revelation) which dated from the 15th Century (x2) and 12th Century (x5).  With these he composed his "Novum Instrumentu" (New Testament). While Martin Luther was sequestered in Wartburg Castle in Eisenach, Germany(1521-1522), he took a copy of Erasmus's 3rd Edition Greek New Testament and translated it into the German language.  Of note, Erasmus's Greek New Testament was used as the basis of translation of the 1611 King James Bible (along with comparisons to the works of the English translations of Wycliffe, Tyndale and Coverdale).  (resource: How We Got the Bible by Neil Lightfoot)


Why does the LDS church believe that alcohol was forbidden, despite being common in the Bible?

Latter-Day Saints agree and understand that the use of alcohol was permitted, and in some specific instances even formally encouraged in worship rituals, in ancient Judaism and Christianity.  The revelation recorded in Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants explains that this is not an eternal principle, but a specific one for our day, given specifically in response to modern conditions:

  1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests,
  assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

  2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by
  revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of
  God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

  3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the
  weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

  4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of
  evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring
  men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving
  unto you this word of wisdom by revelation

  (emphasis added)

There are two important points given here.  First, that the Word of Wisdom was given for "the temporal salvation of [the] saints in the last days," and not generally throughout all of history, and second, that it is given "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days."

The Word of Wisdom covers more than simply a prohibition on drinking alcohol; it covers basic principles of health and good diet, and also proscribes the use of tobacco and "hot drinks," which has been interpreted by Church leaders as meaning addictive beverages such as coffee and caffeinated teas.

Any American who was old enough during the 1990s will probably remember the Big Tobacco lawsuits.  When one considers the evidence that came out then, plus any number of less well-covered issues regarding industrial-scale food production over the past few decades, the manipulations of the "evils and designs which ... exist in the hearts of conspiring men" become plain to see, which really weren't an issue in earlier ages.


According to Orthodox Christianity, did God die on the cross at Calvary?

From the Orthodox POV, the answer is unequivocally yes.

The Orthodox understand John 1:14 literally:

  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (NKJV) [Emphasis mine]

The Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, became flesh. Not had flesh. Not wore flesh. Became flesh. The Orthodox Study Bible attaches the following note to John 1:14

  The Word became fully human without ceasing to be fully God. He assumed complete human nature: body, soul, will, emotion, and even mortality -- everything that pertains to humanity except sin. [Emphasis mine]

The Word assumed even our mortality. This is expressed in the Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed)

  [We believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light: true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; And arose again on the third day according to the Scriptures;

Jesus Christ, true God from true God, ... became man ... was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. It is hard to understand that in any way other than 'God died.' There is no change in subject, no way to separate a god-soul from a man-body. The Only Begotten Son became man and died.

From the Council of Ephesus (3rd Ecumenical Council)

  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.

The flesh is his, the Word of God, own. You asked

  I accept fully that Jesus the man indeed died on the cross, but did Jesus the God die also?

Orthodoxy does not permit this division. There is no Jesus the man and Jesus the God. There is only Jesus Theanthropos, Jesus the God-man. The Council of Ephesus forbade ascribing some attributes to Christ's humanity and other to His Divinity. That is, the mortality that Christ assumed from humanity must be applied, through the Hypostatic Union, to his Divinity as well. Again from Ephesus:

  If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) 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.

As part of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, (the weekly worship service), the priest prays in reference to the Bread and Wine, Body and Blood:

  Tremble, O man, as you behold the divine Blood.
  It is a burning coal that sears the unworthy.
  The Body of God both deifies and nourishes me:
  It deifies the Spirit and wondrously nourishes the mind.

The Body and the Blood are clearly considered divine.

Consider also anathemas of the Second Council of Chalcedon, which the Orthodox accept as Ecumenical and binding:

  Anathema III: If anyone says that God the Word who performed miracles is one and Christ who suffered is another, or says that God the Word was together with Christ who came from woman, or that the Word was in him as one person is in another, but is not one and the same, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and become human, and that the wonders and the suffering which he voluntarily endured in flesh were not of the same person, let him be anathema.

That is, God the Word suffered in the flesh. From the Anathema IV it is clear that the Orthodox consider the flesh of Christ to be united to the Divinity of God the Word:

  But the holy Church of God, rejecting equally the impiety of both heresies, recognizes the union of God the Word with the flesh according to synthesis, that is according to hypostasis. For in the mystery of Christ the union according to synthesis preserves the two natures which have combined without confusion and without separation.  [Emphasis mine]

The Orthodox can say without question that God died. Note, however, that this in no way implies that God ceased to exist or ceased to function. However, He, through the Hypostatic Union, suffered death, having His Soul separated from His Flesh.


Why does a priest say "The Lord Be With You” and a bishop say "Peace Be With You" as a liturgical greeting?

In the context of liturgy (in the beginning of Mass), only the bishop is allowed to say “Peace be with you” in the beginning of Mass. As to why it is so, we can speculate that it’s likely because the bishop has the fullness of the priesthood, and thus being so like Christ in his office, he is thus authorized to say it. I have yet to pore into the rubrics to be sure.

As far as scripture goes, the salutation is from Ruth 2:4 and 2 Chronicles 15:2 in the Vulgate.

In Ruth, the phrase appears in the sentence, "Et ecce ipse veniebat de Bethlehem dixitque messoribus: 'Dominus vobiscum'. Qui responderunt ei: 'Benedicat tibi Dominus'." ("[Boaz himself] came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters, 'The Lord be with you!' and they replied, 'The Lord bless you!'").

II Chronicles recounts that Azariah said, "Audite me, Asa et omnis Iuda et Beniamin! Dominus vobiscum, quia fuistis cum eo. Si quaesieritis eum, invenietur a vobis; si autem dereliqueritis eum, derelinquet vos." ("Hear me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin! The LORD is with you when you are with him, and if you seek him he will be present to you; but if you abandon him, he will abandon you.")

The phrase additionally appears in Numbers 14:42: "Nolite ascendere: non enim est Dominus vobiscum: ne corruatis coram inimicis vestris.”

It is also a clear instruction from the Liturgiam authenticam (De usu linguarum popularium in libris liturgiae Romanae edendis) dated 28 March 2001. The document instructs the requirement that translations of the liturgical texts from the official Latin originals, or Sacred Scripture from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek must be:

  Insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.

More into speculating why only bishops are authorized to say Pax Vobiscum:

  Pax vobis (or pax vobiscum) are the words Our Lord used in John 20:21 to give peace to his apostles and to send them out to give His peace to others. It seems initially to have been used only by the Pope, a usage transfer to the bishops in the middle ages, as more or more areas of the West adopted the "pontifical" Mass. The Missal of bishops is called the Pontifical Missal to this day. This greeting seems appropriate to the Pope and the bishops, as the successors of the apostles.

Pax Vobiscum reserved to bishops


Did Justin Martyr have a personal interaction with Jesus Christ?

Scholars typically interpret Justin Martyr's "old man" historically as a Christian teacher or figuratively as a literary device, and some argue that Justin paints him into the narrative specifically as a figure of Christ.  Andrew Hofer takes this latter approach in "The Old Man as Christ in Justin's 'Dialogue with Trypho,'" and his summary of previous scholarship proves helpful as well.

Scholars preferring a historical old man include Oskar Skarsaune, who claims that "the Old Man may have been a Palestinian or Syrian Christian," and L. W. Barnard:

  Barnard defends his historicity and considers that Justin's account of conversion at the hands of an old Christian "has a ring of truth about it and gives an adequate explanation of his later work as a Christian philosopher."

Others prefer a figurative old man.  Niels Hyldahl draws parallels with similar characters in the writings of non-Christian philosophers and suggests that the old man himself is not a Christian.  J. C. M. van Winden is among those who dispute this:

  [T]he old man is a literary figure.  He personifies wisdom, here Christianity.  He is a Christian, not a 'barbarous stranger', a figure blindly copied by Justin from post-classical literature.  Granted for the sake of argument that Justin followed a literary tradition, he certainly did so in a remarkably personal manner.

Edmond Robillard extends van Winden's analysis and connects the old man with the Ancient of Days of Daniel and suggests "that the old man symbolizes either God the Father or the Word of God."  In turn, Andrew Hofer elaborates on Robillard, and argues that Justin's old man is a figure of Christ.

To defend this thesis, Hofer points to 15 parallels between Justin's story and the Road to Emmaus story of Luke 24, such as the unexpected appearance of a stranger, the teacher's apparent feint of ignorance, and the use of the prophets to teach the truth.  To defend the idea of Christ being portrayed as "old," Hofer points to the biblical connection between Jesus and the Ancient of Days in Revelation 1, as well as other early Christian writings that portray Christ, the Lord of time, as elderly.  Hofer offers many other evidences, some more technical and some merely suggestive, but generally emphasizing the similarities between Christ and Justin's portrayal of the old man as a wise, humble, and authoritative teacher.

Hofer is careful to clarify that it would be excessive to say that Justin physically saw Jesus, as the apostles did.  "Justin need not claim a singular vision," he says, "but a common teaching given by the first-begotten, pre-existing Christ about how to read the scriptures."  He summarizes his position:

  Justin Martyr draws the old man as a figure for Christ.  The pre-existent Son of God has interpreted the scriptures for Justin and given him the grace to understand, just as it was done for the first disciples after the resurrection.