Luke was a Gentile, possibly from a Roman family, and a close companion of the Apostle Paul.  He is thought to have been a physician.  Luke also wrote the book of Acts.
The gospel of Luke was written between A.D. 58 and A.D. 60 and his target audience were Gentiles.  Luke probably wrote his account in Rome, although Achaia, Ephesus and Caesarea have also been suggested.
The major theme is Christ Jesus and Luke gives a detailed account of his public ministry up until his resurrection and ascension.  It’s a life history of the “Great Physician” who had great compassion for the outcasts of society, the weak and the under-privileged, sinners and non-Jews.  Luke emphasises the gospel message Jesus proclaimed, that “the kingdom of God is near you”.
The New International Version Study Bible has this to say about the sources Luke drew upon:

Although Luke acknowledges that many others had written of Jesus’ life (1:1), he does not indicate that he relied on these reports for his own writing.  He used personal investigation and arrangement, based on testimony from “eye-witnesses and servants of the word” (1:2) – including the preaching and oral accounts of the apostles. His language differences from the other gospels and his blocks of distinctive material indicate independent work, though he obviously used some of the same sources.

Here is a brief summary taken from an article which provides more information on Luke’s Gospel:

The Gospel of Luke begins by telling us about Jesus’ parents; the birth of His cousin, John the Baptist; Mary and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born in a manger; and the genealogy of Christ through Mary. Jesus’ public ministry reveals His perfect compassion and forgiveness through the stories of the prodigal son, the rich man and Lazarus, and the Good Samaritan. While many believe in this unprejudiced love that surpasses all human limits, many others—especially the religious leaders—challenge and oppose the claims of Jesus. Christ’s followers are encouraged to count the cost of discipleship, while His enemies seek His death on the cross. Finally, Jesus is betrayed, tried, sentenced and crucified. But the grave cannot hold Him! His Resurrection assures the continuation of His ministry of seeking and saving the lost.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Gospel-of-Luke.html

P.S. It is possible that your question will be closed because you have not shown any evidence of research.  Please read the following articles: How to ask a good question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask
What topics are allowed: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic


The Armenian Orthodox Cathedral in Etchmiadzin, Armenia claims to be in possession of a relic of a piece of wood that was part of the ark made by Noah, however it is mostly based on legend.

  There are many legends that the mountains could tell about the time when Noah and his family descended from the Ark into the valley. One day the Christians of the area decided to retrace Noah’s story by climbing Mount Ararat and finding the Ark. On that day Bishop Jacob of Nisibis grabbed his staff, crossed himself and set off on his journey.

  However, he found it very challenging—on his first attempt he stopped to rest and was so exhausted he fell asleep on a warm boulder. When he awoke he found himself standing at the foot of Mt Ararat, staff in hand. He crossed himself again and began to climb once more.

  Three times he tried to climb to the summit of Mt Ararat to see the Ark, but each time he became so exhausted he fell asleep and awoke standing at the foot of the mountain.

  Finally God saw his efforts and sent him an angel who told him there was no reason to climb the mountain because the Ark could not be found. Instead, in reward for his faith and patience, God gave him a piece of the Ark.

  When Bishop Jacob woke he could feel something hard under his head—it was wood from a Shittah tree. According to scripture, Noah, the forefather of all humanity, built the Ark from this wood.

  Jacob thought it was best not to question God, and he returned to the people with his recount of what had happened. That sacred piece of Shittah wood was framed in gold and has been displayed in Etchmiadzin cathedral since. - The Legend of Noah’s Ark Relic


How do those who believe in salvation by grace, and in works being the fruit of salvation, explain Galatians 6:8-9?

I think the key thing here is understanding what it means to "sow to flesh" and "sow to the Spirit".

The difference (referencing Bob Utley's commentary) is the key difference between the two basic approaches to being right with God: our own effort, or God's free grace.

The former (sowing to flesh) refers to trying to be right by God by trying to work for it.  The latter (sowing to the Spirit) refers to trying to be right by God through his free grace.

In other words, Paul is strongly warning the Galatians to not attempt to be right with God through their own effort.

In verse 9, he goes on to encourage the Galatians to continue in their works.  We are not saved by our works, but saved unto works.  You see this same thing in Ephesians 2:8-10:

  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your
  own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no
  one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
  for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in
  them.

So the interpretation here should be a strict admonition to not mock God by attempting to hold up your good works as a sign of your deserving eternal life, but rather that you would abandon your good works as an effort towards salvation, and instead, embrace good works gladly as a privilege given to those who have ceased their striving to be justified through those same good works.


According to Catholicism, when is the Scripture source of infallible doctrine and when is it not?

A few things:

All true doctrines of Christianity are objectively dogma.

Even if Arianism hadn't popped up, that Jesus was fully God would still be true. It would be a true Christian doctrine. Moreover, even if it was only implicitly believed (it wasn't only implicitly believed), that, too, would not mean it was not dogmatically true nonetheless. That it became a dogma centuries after Christ doesn't add to or take away from its truth, simply means that whereas before the Church had not needed to intervene and resolutely sided with and publically adopt to the exclusive of all others a certain theological doctrine, it now has, and the members of the Body of Christ must hear what the Spirit is saying. Thus the distinction between the true doctrine and the dogma is simply in the public status of the doctrine as, unequivocally, the doctrine of the only, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
No doctrine of the Faith is 'based' on Scripture.

While Scripture in its own right, viewed purely in literary terms, or as a book (holy, true, and without error as it may be), is said to promote, condemn, etc. certain ideas and doctrines, whether it 'teaches' something is nonetheless, at the end of the day, subjective. (Just look at the many 'sola scriptura' religions that exist today, disagree, yet have the same authority in saying it is 'just what the Bible teaches.') Therefore, to cite Scripture as 'teaching' something is in every case to invoke or imply a pre-existing theology (i.e. which is true), relying upon whose truth one can show that the Scriptures must be interpreted in such and so a way, and not this other: whether or not it is admitted that a theology comes first, this is of logical necessity the case. As for the Catholic Church, She admits that theology comes first before reading the Bible, for many reasons, but chiefly because the Bible was not yet written in completion when “the faith once delivered to the saints” (James 1:3) was already deposited. Scripture doesn't generate Christian doctrine it informs our knowledge about them. No single Christian doctrine is purely based on a reading of the Bible, as though the Bible authors ever taught something only in one of their writings, or several of them.

So we can use terms like 'grounded' in Holy Scripture, or 'based' on it, but never in the sense that we learned a new doctrine by happening upon it in Scripture—only that it is as firmly Biblical as the Faith given along side it to the same Church. At the very least, we can never say that we learned a 'new' doctrine not already believed in its core essence at least outside of that Biblical revelation.

A historical example of interest (since you raised the point about sacraments) is something said in the Council of Trent in its decrees On the Sacrifice of the Mass:

  CANON II. If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

Now for a non-Catholic whose epistemology is sola scriptura, that seems like an attempt to read something wild into a few words (i.e. what they would consider 'the priesthood being based on the Bible.' But in Catholicism, we don't use a few words to 'prove' anything (i.e. in a way which would imply the belief can be known only by reading words in the Bible, and was not part of the faith once for all delivered to the saints at least implicitly). Supposing the Comma Johanneum is authentic, it wouldn't be what we 'based' the Trinity on (it wasn't, it was by pointing to the faith of the Christian Church before Arius popped up—“how many fathers can you cite for your [novelties]?”)1 On the other hand, it would be legitimate and lawful for the Church to declare, say, 'If anyone denies that by the words, 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost [are] one' the Apostle did not declare the Trinity to be the true and everlasting Godhead, ...' not because it is supposed to be saying that hereby the Trinity was 'undoutedly taught' but that the Church alone has authority to teach on her own Scriptures in this capacity, whence the Anathemas.

The Church isn't saying, 'See?' 'Do this in memory of me explicitly and uneqivocally teaches that Christ made them priests!' but rather 'See now, children, this is how I want you to understand my Book; I'll not have disobedient or fallen away children tell me what my own Book means or teach my children likewise.' That is, 'we the Church have the fullness of truth, the faith once delivered to the saints, a part of which is the priesthood, which pertains to the Last Supper, whence the meaning of the words 'Do this' of necessity refer to the priestly office of offering the Eucharist, not to some other heretical thing.'
The Council of Jerusalem defined doctrinal matters (the necessity of circumcision to "be saved")2 and also matters of discipline (which meats you can eat and how to eat them).3 The latter cannot be a matter of faith and morals, per the teaching of Jesus.4 It is rather a matter of discipline, dress, diet etc. 'Don't eat sausages on Wednesdays' doesn't carry the force of a moral doctrine on faith and morals, but it can still be a sin to disobey it, given which authority said it or asked it of you. Whereas 'Don't kill' has to do with the image of God and so forth, and is not something arbitrated, but something intrinsically moral (what goes into your pie hole has nothing to do with morality intrinsically)

Thus 'you need not be circumcized to be saved in the New Covenant' is different from 'we burden you with a commandment not to eat such and such in such and such a way' in an obvious way.
No one who DENIES the Son has the Father

For Catholicism, 'invincible ignorance' is when the truths of Christianity have not been presented to you, so leaving you excusable in that regard. It doesn't actually say what happens to their salvation5, only that such passages as ascribe damnable sin to those who deny Jesus explicitly or willfully by definition do not apply to someone. 'Not believing in the Son' because you favor sin instead is different from 'not believing in the Son' because you don't know who or what such is or means.6 Whence a definition of the statement and dogma 'outside of the Church there is no salvation' is given, namely, 'outside by their own volition' (just as an unqualified 'anyone who doesn't acknowledge me as God' obviously means 'knows me to be such, and does not reform their stubborn, wilfull ignorance and acknowledges me as such').

1 St. Athanasius, The Decrees of the Council of Nicaea.

2 Acts 15:1.

3 ibid. 15:20.

4 Matthew 15:11.

5 Cf. Pope Blessed Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, “... the Catholic Church ... is the temple of God, outside of which, except with the excuse of invincible ignorance, there is no hope of life or salvation.”

6 John 15:22.


Is it possible to be a good Christian and be psychic at the same time?

It depends what you mean by "psychic."  Do you mean a prophet - someone who sees the future just kinda unprovoked, as in "I had a dream that the plane would crash and it did?" Or do you mean a fortuneteller, as in crystal balls/Tarot cards? Or do you mean having other psychic kinds of powers like telekinesis or others? Those are three fundamentally different things, Biblically.

Small Medium At Large

The Bible is extremely against spiritists.  Here's a collection of verses about mediums, necromancers, sorcerers, etc. Probably most to the point:

  “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put
  to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon
  them.”
  Leviticus 20:27 (ESV)

This is because they are seeking answers not from God, but from other supernatural beings.  This is one of those basic "Ten Commandment no-no's."

The Prophecy, Starring Christopher Walken

A prophet is different. God has told them to go do something and/or carry some message to someone. They are sometimes (but less commonly) told of (e.g. Abraham re: Sodom)/granted visions of (e.g. Revelation) the future by God. Those who are posing as prophets but aren't (lying, or getting it from somewhere naughtier but in God's name) are false prophets. Needless to say, discerning between the two is a big deal in Scripture.

Ego Whip

What about a more sci-fi psychic, like Stephen King's Carrie or Firestarter?  Well, not that telepathy/telekinesis/etc. have been shown to exist, but if they do, I imagine Christian opinion would be split since it's not really spoken to in the Bible. If it was simply some physiological/scientific process, then it would be fine, or at least morally neutral, no different from being good at math. If it were truly supernatural power, then the question would become what its source is, and is that source good or evil from a Biblical perspective.


The Bible does not mention the word Gamble or Gambling. It does however, have a lot to say about money and the love of money. While I'm not a fan of posting a link and saying, "Hey, just go read this", the article below is well written and I believe it does a much better job of answering this question than I can.

http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/f/isgamblingasin.htm

Here is a small quote from the article:

  Does the Bible Mention Gambling?

  Although the words "gambling" and "gamble" do not appear in the Bible,
  we cannot assume that an activity is not a sin simply because it is
  not mentioned. Looking at pornography on the Internet and using
  illegal drugs are not mentioned either, but both violate God's laws.

  While casinos and lotteries promise thrills and excitement, obviously
  people gamble to try to win money. Scripture gives very specific
  instructions about what our attitude should be toward money:

  Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is
  never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.
  (Ecclesiastes 5:10, NIV)

  "No servant can serve two masters. [Jesus said.] Either he will hate
  the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and
  despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Luke 16:13,
  NIV)

  For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people,
  eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves
  with many griefs. (1 Timothy 6:10, NIV)

  Gambling is a way to bypass work, but the Bible counsels us to
  persevere and work hard:

  Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. (Proverbs
  10:4, NIV)

*EDIT

About casting lots

The Bible does mention "Casting Lots" but I wouldn't define this as gambling. Proverbs 16:33 says: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. Also, in Acts, the disciples prayed and then cast lots: And they prayed and said, "You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:24-26).

I've always understood that when lots were cast among believers, it was as if they were asking God a question. I believe that it's important to note that lots were cast by the disciples before Pentecost. After Pentecost, casting lots was not mentioned again.

Once you have the Spirit, who needs to cast lots?

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. John 16:13


How do non-reformed theologists argue against "God alone matters"?

Matthew 22:37-40
King James Version (KJV)

  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
  heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

  38 This is the first and great commandment.

  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
  thyself.

  40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I believe it is self explanatory that from the second commandment, we are to love ourselves and others as well.  Therefore, I believe this is a very locked-tight argument that all people matter, not just God.

This answer may not directly answer your actual question, because Reformist Theology may not assume God only matters, so the question may incorrect in its assumptions.  However, it does speak to the matter of whether only God matters.


What is the biblical basis against baptismal regeneration?

One of the best articles on this controversial subject is from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, entitled Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? by Matt Slick. I've included some of the key verses it refers to, and arguments it uses, below.

Romans 5:1 and Ephesians 2:8 show that we are justified by faith (not by faith + something else). Furthermore, Romans 4:1-11 talks of being saved by faith, not by works - including the "works" of the Jewish religious ceremony of circumcision. In particular, verses 9b-10:

  We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as
  righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it
  after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

In other words, Abraham's faith saved him before his circumcision; salvation comes before the religious ceremony, not as a result of it.

As a slight aside, another oft-cited example is the account of Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:40-43) where one of the criminals being crucified alongside Jesus is apparently saved without being baptised. Slick does not quote this, but does make mention of the many people who receive Christ on a hospital deathbed and don't get baptised before they die.

Colossians 2:11-12 links the Old Testament ceremony of circumcision with the New Testament ceremony of baptism; therefore what applied to circumcision (it follows salvation, which is by faith) applies to baptism.

1 Corinthians 15:1-5 says that it is by the Gospel that we are saved, and defines the Gospel as Christ dying for our sins and rising again. We are saved by Christ's endeavour, not our own. Paul emphasizes this earlier in 1 Corinthians 1:17a: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" - clearly the two are different things, and it is the latter that Paul sees as the more important.

There are several other passages that say "if X then you are saved" where X does not include baptism; Romans 10:9 is a good one:

  If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your
  heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Equally, Romans 6:23 describes eternal life in Christ as a free gift - in other words, we do not have to pay, or undergo any religious rite, in order to receive it.

Slick's article then goes on to explain those verses that may seem to say that baptism is part of salvation. That's beyond the scope of this question but I would recommend reading it when looking at this issue, particularly when considering the flip-side of this coin, the question asking for the Biblical basis for baptism as a prerequisite for salvation.


What do Lutherans mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

This is a hard and subtle question.  I am here to tell you, this topic does not preach. If you wanna preach on this, get your hospitality krewe to serve coffee BEFORE your service, not after.

What DOES preach is the surpassing mystery of Holy Communion.  What DOES preach is the idea that we get the same thing those folks got that Thursday night long ago in the night in which Jesus was betrayed.  What DOES preach is the overwhelming spiritual power of those scraps of bread and drops of wine.

What DOES preach is the idea that we are seated all together at one great table, enjoying one great feast, with the whole church through the ages and around the world. We share that table with Peter, who would go on to deny Jesus.  We share it with Judas, who would go on to rat Jesus out to the cops.  We share it with the disciple whom Jesus loved, who would comfort his mother at the foot of the cross.  And, at the head of the table is Jesus, the one who gave of himself so we might have life.  Yes, he is present at the table. He is present in the meal.

Who cares what preaches? Because the Lutheran understanding of the sacrament of Holy Communion is this: Jesus Christ instituted it to give strength and comfort to us human beings (Peter, Judas, you, me) by nourishing our faith and feeding our souls.

Here's a little history and doctrine.  I'm digging this out of my notes from Uncle Tim Wengert's class at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.

The Lutheran Book of Concord is the authoritative source for the doctrine of our strain of Christianity on this subject.  The important historical thing to keep in mind is that the 16th-century reformers who forged those documents (first among them the Augsburg Confession) were caught in a squeeze between two groups.

One of the jaws of that vise was the late-medieval Roman church, and their claim of the time that the Mass was a sacrifice, and that consuming the bread  "worked" on people ex opere operato, that is, as if by magic just by doing it, without any need to touch their consciences.

The other jaw was the Zwinglians of Zürich and their claim that the Lord's Supper is a memorial and a remembrance of Christ.  (The Calvinists of Geneva weren't a factor at the time these documents were forged).

The "in, with, and under" theology of Jesus Christ's presence in the bread and wine is, practically, the way Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, and their colleagues dealt with the vise. The path they chose is effectively a middle way (even though they strenuously claimed it was the only faithful way).

OK, you can wake up now.  Enough church history.

Why do Lutherans believe and teach that Jesus Christ is present in the bread and wine?

He said so. "I am the bread of life."
The idea that Communion is a human work must be refuted, and his presence does that.
The Communion must be powerful enough to be food for the soul.
He is present among us on earth in this moment.

Why is the "in, with, and under" theology different from the Roman theology?

The Augsburg Confession says, "the true body and blood of  Christ are truly present under the gestalt of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper and are distributed and received there."  The Apology of the AC says "Christ commands that it be done in memory of him. The Mass, therefore, was instituted so that the faith of those who use the sacrament should recall what benefits are received through Christ and should encourage and console the anxious conscience."

Another thing Luther said is that we need to take our rational selves prisoner in the face of mysteries like this, and simply allow the mysteries to be part of our lives.   So, to sum up my answer, "I don't know."


What is the justification for applying God's promises to Israel to modern day Christians?

The promises made to Israel were conditional promises. He had plans for them if they obeyed and kept His Holy Commandments. The rest of the nations were supposed to see Israel and come to God through their example.

  'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then
  you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the
  earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy
  nation.'

  Exodus 19:5, 6

Unfortunately, they did not obey, nor did they listen.

  For they have not listened to my words,” declares the Lord, “words
  that I sent to them again and again by my servants the prophets. And
  you exiles have not listened either,” declares the Lord.

  Jeremiah 29:19

As in the Parable of the Tenants told by Jesus in Matthew 21:33-44 the privilege of being part of Abraham's true seed, the True Israel, the Kingdom of God was taken away from those who rejected it and given to those who accepted it, Jew or Gentile.

  “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from
  you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who
  falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls
  will be crushed.”

  Matthew 21:43-44

Jesus was sent for the lost sheep of Israel.

  "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of
  the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of
  Israel.

  Matthew 10:5, 6

Nevertheless, at the stoning of Stephen, he made one final appeal to the Israelites:

  “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still
  uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the
  Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not
  persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the
  Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who
  have received the law that was given through angels but have not
  obeyed it.”

  Acts 7:51-53

And so the gospel went to everyone, and not only the Jew. If we love God, believe in Christ, and obey His Holy Law, as the Israelites of old failed to do, we ARE Abraham's seed. These promises that were made to Israel were conditional promises, and they still are!

According to Paul, we, as modern day Christians are the true Israelites. This is because

  if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs
  according to the promise.

  Galatians 3:29

Now, the kingdom of priests and the holy nation are not physical Israel, but Spiritual Israel, who are those who believe on Jesus and keep His Holy Law.

  But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's
  special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called
  you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

  1 Peter 2:9

These promises can be claimed by those who are in Christ.


What is the purpose of offering a mass for someone?

What is a Mass Intention?

  Mass Intention

  Definition

  The object for which a priest offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice. This intention is distinct from the priest's decision to offer Mass, which is necessary for valid celebration. It is also distinct from the effects of the Mass which benefit those who take part in the sacrifice and attend the Mass. These are called the special fruits of the Mass and extensively are without limit, as are also the effects on the entire Church, called the general fruits of the Mass.

  Mass intentions refer to the particular purpose for which a specific Mass is offered. This may be to honor God or thank him for blessings received. But technically a Mass intention means that the sacrifice is offered for some person(s) living or dead. Also called the application of a Mass, it pertains to the ministerial fruits of the Mass. These fruits are both extensively and intensively finite in virtue of the positive will of Christ. Other things being equal, the more often the sacrifice is offered the more benefit is conferred.

  The intention for which a priest offers a Mass is determined either by the common law of the Church, or by specific precept, or, most often, by the intention of the donor of a Mass stipend, or by the priest's own devotion. Since it is not absolutely certain that the ministerial fruits of the Mass are limited, a priest may conditionally (if the one giving the stipend suffers no loss thereby) offer the Mass for several intentions. It is assumed that the priest does not intend by these second or third intentions to fulfill an obligation of justice by these conditional applications. - Catholic Dictionary

At a concelebrated Mass each priest say Mass for a different intention.

  When a Mass is concelebrated, each priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass. This means that each priest is able to have his own intention. The fact that they are concelebrating i.e., offering their Masses at the same time and in the same location, does not alter the fact that each priest is celebrating Mass. - Canon Law Made Easy

In the end, the organization will have a Mass offered up for your intentions. My guess is that your name will be added to a list of benefactors of this charitable organization and that a special mass will be offered for all your intentions together, perhaps at a special altar or a particular time (Christmas).

This tradition is also seen in St. Augustine’s Confessions (c. 397), where St. Monica (his mother) asks St. Augustine: “One thing only I ask you, that you remember me at the altar of the Lord.”

  Pope Paul VI said, “The Mass is the most perfect form of prayer!” It has immense power and countless miracles and conversions have occurred throughout the centuries by offering Masses for a specific intention or person. Mass intentions are a great treasure of the Church and have a spiritual weight that is incalculable. - What are Mass intentions?


Which non LDS Christian denominations believe in baptism after death?

I love your question and hope others take the time to respond. This is what I found:

Believe in Baptism for the Dead

Early Christian church - Baptisms performed until forbidden by Councils of Cathage in 397 AD (Tvedtnes). See 1 Cor 15:29
Early Judaism - Judas Maccabeus, high priest and commander, performed ordinances in behalf of the dead after the battle of Marisa in 163 BC (Tvedtnes)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Baptized by proxy to provide opportunity to deceased individual. Mentioned in the question.
Community of Christ - Previously done. Documents referencing practice removed in 1990 world conference.
New Apostolic Church and Old Apostolic Church - Baptized by proxy for unknown number of deceased persons.

Wikipedia

Do not believe in Baptism for the Dead

Catholic - Unbaptized individuals are saved through baptism of desire.
Lutherans and Anglicans - Believe in baptism of desire.
Baptists - Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is traditionally a part of membership, though policies vary (Baptists). Salvation comes from faith alone.

Wikipedia

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Baptism for the Dead

You can learn more about what we believe about Baptism for the Dead below:

ChurchOfJesusChrist.org: Baptisms for the dead
AskGramps.org: Is there scripture that supports baptism for the dead? - Not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Note: If you find out more about what other Christian denominations believed please feel free to edit!


Is the book "The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley" a legitimate collection of Wesley's journal entries?

Yes, it appears to be a legitimate compilation from the writings of John Wesley.  I haven't confirmed all of the many stories in Jennings' book, but I selected several and found them corroborated in other editions of Wesley's journals (which are indeed available online).

Page 5, "The Woodseats' Demoniac":

Source 1
Source 2

Page 37, "The Michaelmas-Day Demon":

Source 1
Source 2

Page 87, "Whole House Overtaken By The Holy Spirit's Power"

Source 1
Source 2

You can use Google books to search for the exact wording of any particular story to confirm its origin and find it in an official print edition.  An abridgment of Wesley's journals is also available online.


What is the biblical basis for Antinomianism or extreme Grace?

Another term is "Gospel Reductionism".

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Cor 2:2
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16

There are very few people who openly claim the name Antinomian. But I've met many who were effectively Antinomian in their faith walk.  In different cases, I've seen discussions of sin, social responsibility, and even good works "shut down" by repeating one of the three verses above.
In other words, "there is no condemnation" is read as "no need to examine my conscience."  "Knowing nothing but Christ" is read as "stop talking about knowing the needs of others." "Whoever is baptized" is read as "I'm baptized, stop talking about morality."


Is there biblical basis for the claim that Pilate had no choice?

In short, no.  Pilate had a choice.

In Jesus' conversation with him, He says this:

Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”  John 19:11 ESV

The Jewish religious leaders--not all Jews--were guilty of a greater sin than Pilate, even though Pilate was guilty of sin for perverting justice.  Indeed, God sets up rulers "to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right".  So, Pilate failed in that.

  Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 1 Peter 2:13-14 ESV

Furthermore, Pilate himself made the following statement:

  “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”  John 19:10 ESV

Pilate certainly may have wanted to appease the crowd, but with all the might of Rome at his disposal, he certainly was not subject to the Jewish religious leaders in any way.

In reality, Pilate had already had Jesus flogged at this point.  He could very well have said that Jesus had already been punished and than they needed to shut up and go home.  He was the ruler--they were his subjects.

So, Pilate most certainly had a choice.  The Jewish religious leaders did all they could to influence Pilate in his decision.

Edit: Even if some of the Jewish leaders and the Jewish people of that day could be held accountable, they are all dead now.  People of Jewish descent today can not be held accountable for anything any of the ancestors did hundreds and thousands of years ago.

Finally, all of this was in God's plan, so it is unbiblical, immoral, and ungodly to hold the Jews in any way responsible or guilty for the death of Christ.  I'm the guilty one, and Christ died for my sin.  I am the one to blame.


What arguments have been advanced against "Angel Therapy"?

You are right to be very skeptical:

This section contains a list of Certified Mediums who have completed the Mediumship Mentorship Program facilitated by Doreen Virtue.

See what Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says about mediums. The Catholic Church has a document on "New Age" that talks about exactly this phenomenon:

2.2. What does the New Age claim to offer?
2.2.1. Enchantment: There Must be an Angel
One of the most common elements in New Age “spirituality” is a fascination with extraordinary manifestations, and in particular with paranormal entities. People recognised as “mediums” claim that their personality is taken over by another entity during trances in a New Age phenomenon known as “channeling”, during which the medium may lose control over his or her body and faculties. Some people who have witnessed these events would willingly acknowledge that the manifestations are indeed spiritual, but are not from God, despite the language of love and light which is almost always used.... It is probably more correct to refer to this as a contemporary form of spiritualism, rather than spirituality in a strict sense. Other friends and counsellors from the spirit world are angels (which have become the centre of a new industry of books and paintings). Those who refer to angels in the New Age do so in an unsystematic way; in fact, distinctions in this area are sometimes described as unhelpful if they are too precise, since “there are many levels of guides, entities, energies, and beings in every octave of the universe... They are all there to pick and choose from in relation to your own attraction/repulsion mechanisms”.(22) These spiritual entities are often invoked 'non-religiously' to help in relaxation aimed at better decision-making and control of one's life and career. Fusion with some spirits who teach through particular people is another New Age experience claimed by people who refer to themselves as 'mystics'. Some nature spirits are described as powerful energies existing in the natural world and also on the “inner planes”: i.e. those which are accessible by the use of rituals, drugs and other techniques for reaching altered states of consciousness. It is clear that, in theory at least, the New Age often recognizes no spiritual authority higher than personal inner experience.

I'd guess that other churches would have a similar view. If you're interested, you can read through more of the document or have a look at the table of contents (see the list of Resources and the General bibliography).

Of course, Doreen gives all credit to God and the angels.

"Of course". I wonder where all the money goes.


No. God's ways and thoughts are so much above ours it's difficult to understand.

  Isaiah 55:8-9 (NLT)
   8 “My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord.
        “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
   9 For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
        so my ways are higher than your ways
        and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.


What rationale do KJV-1611-Only give for not recognizing the apocryphal books of that version?

Interesting question (which gets an up-vote from me), and although I am not a “King James Version Only” Protestant, I was curious enough to go looking for a possible answer.  Here is part of what I found...

King James (VI of Scotland and I of England) authorised his translation in 1604 and it was completed in 1611, 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). In the preface to the 1611 edition, the translators of the Authorized Version, or King James Version, state that is was not their purpose “to make a new translation . . . but to make a good one better.”

While many people claim that the 1611 KJV is the only “true” translation, rarely are they actually in possession of the 1611 Authorized Version of the KJV.  Rather, they have the more readable 1769 Oxford version.  This version does not contain the Apocrypha.

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors.  However, it seems that the Apocrypha included in the 1611 version came from a different source:

  “Although the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text), the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.  In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/King-James-Version-KJV.html

It is worth noting that not all of the books of the Apocrypha are included in Catholic Bibles and that it was not until the Council of Trent in the mid-1500’s that they were officially added.  Here is a brief extract from an article on this subject:

  ”The books of the Apocrypha include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, as well as additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Not all of these books are included in Catholic Bibles.  The Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

Two possible reasons, then, why the KJV Only movement may reject the Apocrypha even though it was included in the original 1611 version:

First, they may not be attributed to Erasmus and the Textus Receptus.    Second, it wasn’t until the mid-1500’s that the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha to the canon.

However, since I am not a KJV Only advocate, I can’t speak for them.  All I can do is present some background information that may have a bearing on your question.


From the Preterist (fulfilled eschatology) perspective, who was "the prince that shall come" of Dan. 9:26?

According to preterist interpreter Philip Mauro, the only answer is Titus.

  WHO IS "THE PRINCE THAT SHALL COME"?
  At this point we are confronted with a question which very seriously affects the interpretation of the prophecy. Taking the words according to their apparent and obvious meaning (which should always be done except where there is a compelling reason to the contrary) it would seem quite clear that "the prince," whose people were to destroy the city and the sanctuary, was Titus, the son of the then emperor Vespasian, he (Titus) being the "prince" or "leader" who was in actual command of those armies at the time. In fact we are bold to say that the words of the prophecy, which are the words of God sent directly from heaven to Daniel, do not reasonably admit of any other interpretation.

Preterist Archive


According to the Catholic Church, does the spiritual sense of scripture change with the times?

I am not a philosopher; nor am I familiar with Gadamer. Nonetheless, this excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy may help clarify Gadamer's meaning:

As Gadamer comments in Truth and Method, ‘application is neither a subsequent nor merely an occasional part of the phenomenon of understanding, but co-determines it as a whole from the beginning’ (Gadamer 1989b, 324). Theory and application do not occur, then, in separation from one another, but are part of a single hermeneutical ‘practice’.

Perhaps we could apply this teaching in an orthodox manner to Biblical interpretation by stating that the Bible must both illumine the intellect and guide our behavior in concrete situations. Nevertheless, to avoid a descent into subjectivity, we must bear in mind the teachings of the First Vatican Council.

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.


Yes, you can - as in it is possible - but you must consult with your pastor

  So now, can you get a Church marriage done for the second marriage??

In my time in the RCIA ministry, I saw any number of cases similiar to what you describe.

Have you spoken to a pastor yet?

If not, get off the internet and go see the pastor.

Each case must be dealt with on its own merits.  You need to discuss the details with your pastor, and perhaps the chancery at your diocese.

Example: A couple in our church who had a civil marriage only, both raised Catholic, had what was termed a "short form" process ... but their case and yours may not be identical.

You need to see your local pastor about this. The process you are asking for may amount to a convalidation.  (Please review the Q&A at the link, it appears to be related to your question).

The only valid answer to this question is: go and see your pastor.
Details matter.

As Geremia pointed out, confession (the sacrament of penance and reconciliation)  will be a part of the process.


Does Ecclesiastes give an example of a time to tear and a time to mend?

There are various ways of tackling the book of Ecclesiastes, with the example you give being a method I had never considered before; taking “chapter 3 as a sort of index into the rest of the book.” I know and appreciate the worth of taking an entire book of the Bible as needing to be read within its own context, detecting the writer’s style and paying attention to his repetitions, but that the rest of the Bible may also speak to the matter, giving further insights (either before that particular book was written, or after). I had never thought to examine chapter three’s 14 pairs of opposites, expecting to find additional reference to tearing (vs. 7) within Ecclesiastes.
Upon examination, the 14 couplets cover every range of human activity, beginning with life and death (vs. 2). Then come three creative and destructive activities (vss. 2-3) followed by human emotions both public and private (vs. 4).  A move is made to friendship and enmity. Apparently, in that era, stones refer to filling up your neighbour’s field with stones or gathering the stones they throw and using them to build something), and a time to say hello and a time to say goodbye (vs. 5). The next two have to do with possessions and our resolutions concerning them (vs. 6). Finally, a return is made to the various creative and destructive activities of man (vss. 7-8). The key point in all such affairs is the element of time – seasons – life’s rhythms. Ignore that and you suffer burn-out. But if we place our times in God’s hands, we will find balance and, at the end, God’s purpose which is detailed in the last chapter.
You referred to 1 Kings 11:10-13 as a possible connection. However, I do not know if God warned Solomon of tearing the kingdom away once it had been given to his son prior to Solomon collating all those wise sayings.
It seems likely that his collection was a life-time’s work with formation into a structured book happening after much consideration. Given how Solomon states the conclusion of the whole matter of the vanity of life in its last chapter 12, showing that it has purpose in obediently fearing God, who alone can break through the brassy heavens above us, I’ve viewed his last chapter as key to unlocking all that went before. And it speaks of the ultimate physical rending: the breakdown of the ageing body as death gets a grip as in 12:6-7:

“Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or
the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the
cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the
spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

That is why 12:5 speaks of the mourners going about the streets. Old age and impending death have a way of focusing our minds, to expose vain thoughts and to seek God’s mind on matters to heal all the damage of a merely physical life.
Back to 3:7. One translation says, "A time to rend, and a time to sew". [Y.L.T.] Rending was a term used in the Bible for showing great grief, when garments would be torn and sack-cloth worn instead, and ashes placed on the head. But the writer of Ecclesiastes, a rich powerful ruler, would never be engaged in sewing (repairing) such rent garments! However, he would be very involved in the showing of grief at times of mourning. Indeed, there would be times of national crisis when he would be expected to lead the nation in public demonstration of rending his fine clothes, to then wear sack-cloth and ashes.
That is why I think chapter 12 is a fitting link to 3:7. The whole chapter points to impending death, and when that time inevitably comes, it would be better for young people reading his wise sayings to have taken to heart its counsel, and to have sought God early. Only those who do that will no longer find the heavens as brass, “under the sun”, but know the satisfaction of living to honour God, before it comes time to die.


Why does the apostle John write far more clearly about the deity of Christ than seems to be the case in the other gospel accounts?

"I am not asking for a comparison between John’s gospel and the others"; nevertheless, a brief comparison is necessary:

Tax collector Matthew's Gospel is very organized (e.g. written in 5 sections).
Its intended audience is Jews (expectations of the biblical messiah), and Jesus is presented as a Ruler, to lead them.

Servant by tradition Mark's Gospel is very concise (it's the shortest).
Its intended audience is Romans (very practical and efficient), and Jesus is presented as a Servant, to get the job done.

Physician Luke's Gospel is emotional (includes nativity and other non-doctrinal events).
Its intended audience is Greeks (art and beauty), and Jesus is presented as Human, to be one of them.

John's Gospel is precise (detailed and told in chronological order).
Its intended audience is everyone, and Jesus is presented as God, to save them.

The first three Gospels were written to make it easier for Jews, Romans, and Greeks to understand and be converted to Christianity.
They told the story in ways that were best suited for their specific audiences, stressing what would be important to them, and glossing over details that wouldn't.
If Matthew had lead with "Jesus is God", the Jews would have literally killed him, so he had to present Jesus as the promised Messiah.
If Mark and Luke had lead with "Jesus is God", the Romans and Greeks would have thought: "Oh, not another one".
John's Gospel was written well after the others, for the benefit of all Christians.
The Christian community was growing, and was ready to accept the concept of Jesus as God.
By providing missing details and chronology, John complements what the other Gospels say and makes them easier to understand in context.
Even though written last, John's Gospel is the one that should be read and understood first; then the others can be better understood in his context.
The real question should have been: "Why did the other gospels write less clearly than John?".


Did the ante-Nicene Church fathers write in uncials?

It's impossible to tell whether the original manuscripts (the autographs) of any given sacred text were written in one hand, or the other, since as far as we are able to tell, none have survived unharmed to the present day. The earliest manuscripts we have in our possession, though early, are certainly already copies, and a copyist may change the hand of a document as they will.

That being said, in Late Antiquity, uncial was the formal hand for writing documents when you wanted them to be widely readable, from Ireland to Dalmatia (and beyond to Egypt, if you switched to Greek uncials), so that's what we get in manuscripts from that era — or at least those which were composed with enough quality and treated well enough that they managed to survive to our day.

So most of the earliest documents do, indeed, use uncial and not minuscule, which was reserved for private notes and letters. Given that, some of the earliest letters might have been indeed written in minuscule, but because they didn't survive, we can only speculate.


Books of NT written after the assumption of Mary

All of them.  Jesus was 33 when he died.  If she were 12 - 20 years old at his birth, then she would have been 45 - 53 years old at his death.  Which is quite old for people at that time.  The earliest known books of the New Testament were written around 45-55 CE.  This would have her age between 57 - 75 year old - which would not be consistent with the average age of humans in the first century.  I am assuming year 0 for Jesus' birth.  However there are reasons to suspect that his birth was as early as 6BC which would make her that much older.

Furthermore, it would have been highly unlikely that at Mary's age and potential fame, would have survived the First Jewish-Roman War. Please consider reading this article which dates the assumption no later than 70 AD.


How do YECs interpret waters above the expanse in Genesis 1?

In 1968, at the age of seventeen, I read Morris and Whitcombe's 'The Genesis Flood' and found the explanation of a 'water canopy' very satisfactory and discovered that many others, at that time and previously, had also found it logical. During my twenties I learned Advanced Analytical Chemistry and in my thirties I became a Licentiate of the Royal Society of Chemistry and in my forties I worked with radioactive isotopes and with DNA components, training further in Molecular Biochemistry.

The earth is protected by the gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn, whose combined gravitational field, together with the gravity of the moon, keep us - largely - protected from asteroids and comets, except in rare cases (Tunguska, 1908, and Chelyabinsk, 2013) when significant events (I would call them judgments) bring material to our planet at high speed causing kiloton or even megaton explosions in the atmosphere and causing damage on earth. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is where the collected items orbit after gravitational capture.

The Kuiper belt and the inferred Oort cloud are also protective 'layers' at further distances from Earth.

But what is missing is protection from cosmic radiation, the high energy radiation which affects airline cabin crew (whose lifetime radiation dose is about two or three times more than the general population) and affects every dweller on earth.

  And God ... divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And God called the firmament 'Heaven'. Genesis 1:7,8 KJV.

Spiritually, this has profound meaning regarding creation, as such. It is a profound expression regarding 'waters' which elsewhere are called 'seas', the imagery conveying spiritual truth. The words also have bearing on what happened on earth, subsequently, by the judgement of Almighty God.

  ... by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: II Peter 3:5

My own understanding is that water descended from above in the days of Noah which, as water vapour above the planet, had protected earth from cosmic radiation. The loss of this 'water canopy' explains the subsequent rapid decline in human longevity, as detailed in Genesis 11, from almost a thousand years to barely two hundred.

The antediluvian climate would have been mild, temperate and humid, all conducive to human good health and longevity, the loss of which was, also, deleterious.

Cosmic radiation is gamma radiation and x-rays from such sources as neutron stars and is highly damaging, genetically and physically.

But there is another judgment, apart from the water loss and the significant alteration in climate - a judgment that is unseen.

  God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (tartarus, the abyss) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment ... II Peter 2:4 KJV

Principalities in the heavens, who had rebelled, were not spared and were deposed. But their very existence is that which holds the creation together. And their subsequent deposing had physical effects on matter itself.

God spared them not and God relinquished part of the order within creation which had subsequent effects on humanity. It was another, consequential, effect of the necessary judgment on antediluvian humanity and on the 'sons of God', Genesis 6:1-4, who had 'left their first estate', Jude 1:6.

My understanding is that their enforced confinement caused a loss of material control and caused the instability within matter which we call 'radioactive decay'. That is why isotopic abundance cannot be used to determine time events before the Flood. And further explains the reduced longevity of humanity exposed to radiation at ground level (as well as cosmic radiation from space).

As a Licentiate of the Royal Society and as a Christian I find these statements quite logical. But I do not probe into mysteries. It is not my place to do so.

I find it better, and safer, to be obedient, in faith, and only to go as far as the word of God permits in understanding, and in stating, truth.

As commented, there is the matter of 'the fountains of the great deep broken up', Genesis 7:11, but I have not covered that as it is not in the question, as stated.


Seeking a richer Catholic understanding of passion vs intellect as it applies to our first parents

The short answer to your question is to review the Haydock Commentary of the 3rd Chapter of Genesis.

I feel like I should add more, but I'm not smart enough to top the incomparable Haydock commentary. Here are a couple short, relevant snippets:

  Ver. 1. Why hath God? Hebrew, "Indeed hath God, &c." as if the serpent
  had overheard Eve arguing with herself, about God's prohibition, with
  a sort of displeasure and presumption. St. Augustine thinks, she had
  given some entrance to these passions, and the love of her own power,
  and hence gave credit to the words of the serpent, de Gen. ad lit. xi.
  30. She might not know or reflect that the serpent could not reason thus, naturally; and she had as yet, no idea or dread of the devil.
  (Lombard, 2 Dist. 21.) This old serpent entered into the most subtle
  of creatures, and either by very expressive signs, or by the motion of
  the serpent's tongue, held this delusive dialogue with Eve. Moses
  relates what happened exteriorily; but from many expressions, and from
  the curse, ver. 15, he sufficiently indicates, that an evil spirit was
  the latent actor. (Haydock) --- Of every tree. Satan perverts the word
  of God, giving it an ambiguous turn: in doing which, he has set
  heretics a pattern, which they follow. (Menochius)

  Ver. 5. God. The old serpent's aim is, to make us think God envies our
  happiness. (Haydock) --- Or he would have Eve to suppose, she had not
  rightly understood her maker, who would surely never deprive her of a
  fruit which would give her such an increase of knowledge, as to make
  her conclude she was before comparatively blind. (Menochius) --- As
  gods, Hebrew Elohim, which means also princes, angels, or judges. It
  appears, that our first parents had flattered themselves with the
  hopes of attaining a divine knowledge of all things. (Calmet)


Historically, how did Protestantism first arrive at a consensus?

The Reformation beginning in the 16th century was actually three different movements consisting of: (a) Calvinism (b) Lutheranism (c) Anabaptists.  There were conferences between these groups but the only things they were united upon were:

Opposition to the authority of the Catholic church largely due to its excesses and abuses
Salvation by faith alone (the five "solas" actually came later)
Doctrine based on Scripture

However, there were numerous fights between these groups.  For example, Calvin persecuted Lutherans and Anabaptists by having some executed, etc.  Conferences between Luther and Zwingli ended in stalemates.  There were on-going debates particularly about how communion should be practiced and what it meant, which persist today.

As time progressed, further subdivisions emerged such as "enthusiasm" (the basis of the charismatic movement) and many more.  Thus, the reformation was never truly united.

Good overall summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism


The Messiah and Joseph's genealogy?

Both Matthew and Luke record the genealogy of Yeshua from different perspectives. Matthew's gospel gives us the legal lineage of Yeshua, while Luke gives us the bloodline.

Matthew's focus is on Yeshua the son of David, the son of Abraham; thus the lineage of Yeshua in Matthew's gospel runs forward from Abraham, through DAVID, down the line of the kings of Israel (Solomon, Rohoboam, Abijah, etc.) down to Joseph who is of the royal lineage of David.

Luke's gospel, however, begins with Yeshua and moves backward to the man thought to be his father, Joseph, then to Heli (Mary's father), back through the bloodline to one Nathan, who also was a son of David, but was never the king. This genealogy continues all the way back to Adam.

Though this Nathan was of the royal household (also a son of DAVID), he was not of the royal line of those who sat as king over Israel. As it turns out, in the royal lineage, the line of kings through DAVID was cursed by God owing to the sinfulness of one Jehoiachin (a.k.a., Jeconiah, a.k.a., Coniah). God swore that, after Jehoiachin, there would be no offspring of that line to sit upon the throne of DAVID (see Jeremiah 22:24-30).

Even though the royal lineage of DAVID was now permanently barred from sitting on the throne of David to rule over Israel, there is no mention of the bloodline itself being barred from such service. Enter Nathan...

Nathan was one of four (4) sons born of Bathsheba in Jerusalem (see 2 Samuel 5:14 and 1 Chronicles 3:5). Precious little is known of Nathan other than those two blurbs in the OT and Luke's account of the genealogy of Yeshua. But one thing is for certain, Nathan never sat upon the throne of DAVID, thus, he was never the king, thus he is unaffected by the kingly line being cursed. If you are not the king, you are a servant. You may be a high-ranking servant, but a servant nonetheless.

Nathan provides the perfect nexus between the prophecies that Messiah will sit upon the throne of DAVID, and that default of Jehoiachin. While Satan had worked so tirelessly to bring the line of DAVID to an end, God had, from the beginning, prepared a flanking maneuver whereby Messiah would come, strong and hard, through the line of DAVID, via Nathan, the son of DAVID and Bathsheba.

I find it interesting (simply as a side note) that Messiah is often referred to as God's servant. This, too, is in perfect keeping with Yeshua coming through DAVID via Nathan (a servant, not the king). Yeshua's time of being a servant is fulfilled. When next he appears on the scene, it will be as King of kings, and Lord of lords; the Sovereign of the universe.


What is the Roman Catholic stance on levitation?

Skip to the "however" toward the end to avoid a lot of build-up.

I'm not finding anything official, and my favorite source is coming up inconclusive, but leaning toward "It's either bogus or of the devil, not of God.".

A search for "Levitation" on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia site returns exactly four results.

The first is an article called "Impostors", which recounts various, well, impostors.  Excerpt:

  More to our purpose are a number of feigned or deluded ecstaticas who
  often traded upon the popular credulity in countries like Spain that
  were ready to welcome the miraculous. Amongst the most famous of these
  was Magdalena de la Cruz (1487-1560), a Franciscan nun of Cordova, who
  for many years was honoured as a saint. She was believed to have the
  stigmata and to take no other food than the Holy Eucharist. The
  Blessed Sacrament was said to fly to her tongue from the hand of the
  priest who was giving Holy Communion, and it seemed at such moments
  that she was raised from the ground. The same miraculous levitation
  took place during her ecstasies at which time also she was radiant
  with supernatural light. So universal was the popular veneration, that
  ladies of the highest rank, when about to be confined, sent to her the
  cradles or garments prepared for the expected child, that she might
  bless them. This was done by the Empress Isabel, in 1527, before the
  birth of Philip II. On the other hand St. Ignatius Loyola had always
  regarded her with suspicion. Falling dangerously ill in 1543,
  Magdalena confessed to a long career of hypocrisy, ascribing most of
  the marvels to the action of demons by which she was possessed, but
  maintaining their reality. She was sentenced by the Inquisition, in an
  auto-da-fé at Cordova, in 1546, to perpetual imprisonment in a convent
  of her order, and there she is believed to have ended her days most
  piously amid marks of the sincerest repentance (see Görres, "Mystik",
  V, 168-174; Lea, "Chapters from Relig. Hist. of Spain", 330-335). A
  large number of similar cases have been discussed in considerable
  detail by Lea both in his "Chapters" just cited, and also in the
  fourth volume of his "History of the Inquisition of Spain", but Lea,
  though indefatigable as a compiler, is not to be relied on in the
  conclusions and inferences he draws.

Score:  Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):1

The second, "St. John of the Cross" doesn't actually mention levitation.

Score remains Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):1

The third:  "Spiritism"

I'll spare you the quote, but levitation is listed as one of the phenomena associated with Spiritism, which is seen as not of God, but of the opposite.

Score:  Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):2

The fourth, "St. Gerard Majella" also doesn't actually mention levitation.

Score remains Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):2

Other searches:  "Levitate" returns similar articles, plus a few Latin verses, but in these, the word "levitate" is translated to English as "light", "lightly" or "lightness" consistent with the normal translation.  Example, 2 Corinthians 1:17

However...

Some other sites that look less official to me suggest otherwise.  There are several seemingly legitimate cases reported, which are seen as genuine miracles, and seem relatively accepted.

Frustratingly, I cannot find an official statement at all.  The most plausible I've found to an official stance is in an un-cited, un-referenced answer that sounds entirely plausible and consistent with all the "noise" I've found.  It is CatholicCulture.org's article on Levitation.

  According to Benedict XIV, in order to verify genuine levitation it is
  first of all necessary to make a thorough investigation to eliminate
  any chance of fraud. Then he states that a well-authenticated
  levitation cannot be explained on merely natural grounds; that this
  phenomenon is not, however, beyond the power of angels or demons; and
  that with the saints it is a kind of anticipation of a prerogative of
  glorified bodies.

This same statement can be found on many sites, and appears to be commonly accepted as a valid assertion.


Why did Daniel feel the need to pray towards Jerusalem, even at the cost of his own life?

I can think of at least one good reason why Daniel faced towards Jerusalem while praying.

Solomon made this prayer as part of the dedication of the temple -

  "And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant and of thy people
  Israel, when they pray toward this place; yea, hear thou in heaven thy
  dwelling place; and when thou hearest, forgive" - 1 Kings 8:30


What is the Christian (or commonly used) term for "god of relativism" (small g) in Tim Keller's book Hidden Christmas?

I believe that there is actually no set Christian term (as of yet) for the phrase "god of relativism" as bruised reed seems to suggest in his comment. The subject of relativism is slowly becoming a more popular item of discussion in many Christian circles. I am sure that the term god of relativism fits in quite well in Tim Keller's book.

I have heard the phrase “Tyranny of Relativism” as an expression for relativism.

Here is the most common expression that I am aware of involving the subject of relativism. Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) seems to have made the following expression about relativism rather popular in Catholic circles at least: dictatorship of relativism.

  In his homily at the Mass preceding the conclave that quickly elected him Pope Benedict XVI, then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that "relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching,’ looks like the only attitude [acceptable] to today’s standards." He warned: "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires."

  Relativism comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. For example, cultural relativism holds that "truth" is merely the creation of a particular culture and what is "true" for for one culture is not necessarily "true" for other cultures. There is moral relativism, the belief that morality is a subjective social creation of a particular people in a certain time and place–and that morality can be changed as desired or needed.

  Situational relativism asserts that what is "right" and "wrong" depends on the specifics of each situation–not upon objective, transcendent morality. And cognitive relativism is the philosophical belief that truth, rationality, and knowledge are relative–there is not such thing as objective, definitive truth. - Relativism 101: A Brief, Objective Guide

A quick google search of the phrase Dictatorship of Relativism will procure the following results.


What is the biblical justification for allowing only male pastors?

1Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB) says pretty clearly that women shouldn't be pastors:

  12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a
  man, but to remain quiet.

  13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

  14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being
  deceived, fell into transgression.


What evidence exists to support church traditions regarding the deaths of the following apostles?

Foxe's Book of Martyrs used to be considered a standard textbook on the matter, but whether it is still considered so to be, I wouldn't know. It is certainly an excellent source.

It is said (I don't know how true it is) that in England (I assume this refers to the seventeenth century, or so) there were fireplaces in homes that had two niches in them, one each side of the fire.

One niche was for the Authorised Version of the Bible and the other niche was for Foxe's Book of Martyrs.


Is this quote actually in the Gospel of Mark?

No, the only women who talk in the Gospel of Mark were:

Woman with hemorrhage
Herod's sister-in-law
Maid asking St. Peter if he knew Jesus

If this is just someone being philosophical, but not specifically Biblical, I'd imagine they're talking about the first person, whom Jesus healed when she touched "the hem of His garment".  As Jesus said "her faith has healed her".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5&version=NASB


When Esau lost his birthright, he lost a greater ownership of his father's property, as well as the position of leader of the family (thinking of family as a whole tribe of people). Jacob may have prized the birthright out of greed, but it's worth mentioning that God spoke to Rebekah in Genesis 25:22-23 and told her that the younger of her sons would rule over the elder. While it doesn't say that this is the case anywhere in the Bible, If Rebekah had told Jacob of this, perhaps he felt he was doing the will of God. This might also explain why Rebekah helped him in deceiving his father (Genesis 27). Again, this is only speculation on my part. You can read more about the Hebrew birthright here: http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BIRTHRIGHT/


Variations in the Hail Holy Queen (Salve Regina) prayer

I would call the vale/valley question inconsequential -- they both mean the same thing in English and are both accurate renditions of the Latin valle. But I suppose there's an official translation of the Salve in the Liturgy of the Hours, since it's the standard post-Compline anthem for most of the year. So that could settle the question, in a sense.

On the other hand, using 'advocate' as a verb would be fairly inconsistent with the Latin:

  Eia ergo, advocata nostra, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte

advocata nostra ("our advocate") is a noun phrase in the vocative case -- it's the person being addressed. The verb in the sentence is converte, which is usually rendered "turn".

That said, even in "the Latin" there are variants. Carthusians, for example, open the prayer thus (IIRC):

  Salve Regina misericordiae vitae dulcedo et spes nostra

I.e., "Hail Queen of mercy, life's sweetness and our hope" -- where the standard Roman edition has:

  Salve Regina mater misericordiae vita dulcedo et spes nostra

I.e., "Hail Queen, mother of mercy, our life, sweetness, and hope".

So it seems like organic variations that don't do violence to the prayer are well-warranted in the tradition.


What role does the Vatican play in marriage annulments?

My understanding has always been that this is handled by a Diocese's Marriage Tribunal.

On looking it up, it appears that when you request a Declaration of Nullity in Canada, an investigation and judgement are made by the Diocesan Marriage Tribunal, then all decisions are reviewed by a Canadian Appeal Tribunal, which issues the final Declaration (or not.)

This pamphlet (pdf) from the Toronto Archdiocese has a good explanation.


How literally do you take and universally apply what Jesus said?

First off, Jesus was speaking to a single archon - the "rich young ruler."  Jesus told Peter to come out and walk on the water, but that doesn't mean I need to do the same :) There is nothing in the text to indicate that this is a generalized principle.

Jesus was speaking to one person, and it is interesting how the exchange goes:

  If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
  18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
  Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
  20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Notice that Jesus seems to know what is going on with this guy.  Of the last six commandments (typically called the "Second Table" because they talk about how man is to relate to man instead of how man is to relate to God in the "First Table"), Jesus only mentions 5.  The missing commandment is significant -

  Thou shalt not covet

It is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus knew this was the archon's problem - he was obsessed with wealth. Knowing this young man's problem, he can focus on that.

Also, positionally, this pericope occurs as Jesus is going to Jerusalem to give everything up. Taken from this point of view, it also be taken to show that Jesus himself is totally Good, because Jesus alone is going to be the only one who can truly fulfill this.


How is the command to "Take it to the Church" interpreted in light of Protestant Ecclesiology?

As a baptist we refer to this as the Authonomy of the local church. We don't believe as the catholic in a hierarchical universal church, but we see the church as an assembly of saved and baptized bible believing based on the pattern of the family. We believe that the purpose of every local church is to evangelize (Acts 2:47), teach (Tit. 2:1-5), pray (Acts 2:42), ministry (Eph. 4:11-16; 5:19-21; Tit. 3:8, 14), worship (Acts 2:47), baptize (Acts 2:41) and disciple members (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:5-11).

Every Local church is independent following the teaching in 1Pet 5:1-3 and  Acts 14:23 In which it is suggested that the pastor should look out for his flock.

In conclusion we don't believe in a higher up institution that will apply discipline but we believe that every local church apply discipline to its own members. As a family: You would not discipline the sons and daughter of your neighboor would you?


Does God create some people Heterosexual and others Homosexual?

As homosexuality is a sin, it is safe to conclude that God did not "create them this way". Just like God didn't create thieves as such, murderers as such, liars as such, etc.

It is as a byproduct of the fallen world in which we live that Romans 1:26-27 was written:

  For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Whether there are genetic mutations (errors resulting from Adam's first sin) that contribute to some people's homosexual tendencies may be debated. But as to it being God's purpose, intent, or design? No - He did not create them that way.

Genesis 1:26-27 also indicates that it is not God's intent:

  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.


There are several ideas about the atonement that can come under the heading of Christus Victor. Ultimately, the term could apply to any account of the atonement that accords with:

  The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death and the devil. 1

One of the reasons why it is a bit hard to pin down is that it is basically a narrative viewpoint  - it's a way of telling the story of the atonement, in order to bring people to Christ, and it doesn't necessarily propose a coherent, propositional account of the "mechanics" of atonement. It therefore contrasts, both in style and content, with the satisfaction viewpoints: these not only paint a different picture of the atonement, but they're also more driven by the attempt to give an account that is both rationally justifiable and theologically defensible.

Under the general Christus Victor theme, the Aslan story follows the Ransom Theory of the atonement. This can be traced to the early Fathers, including Origen and Augustine in particular. There is some historical doubt about whether the ransom theory came first, and alternative Christus Victor explanations accreted around it in response to its flaws, or whether ransom theory is one particular systematization of an earlier, more nebulous collection of Christus Victor ideas. In any case, the theory proceeds something like this:

Due to sin, human beings were in bondage to Satan.
Jesus offered himself as a substitute. Since Jesus would be a better prize, Satan accepted; we then become free of his domination. Jesus is the ransom paid to Satan.
But Jesus could not be held by Satan - he escapes death and is resurrected to eternal life.

In Narnia, we see step 1 by the Witch's statement,

  "You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey, and that for every treachery I have a right to a  kill." 2

and step 3, as told by Aslan, is

  "Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. [...] when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and death itself would start working backwards." 2

There are some points to criticize about ransom theory in particular (without necessarily invalidating the Christus Victor view in general).

It puts some sort of legitimacy on Satan's claim to us: God appears to be required to pay the ransom. Anselm objected to this.
God wins through trickery, like offering fairy gold that disappears in the morning. This is also hard to square with the legitimacy point: if Satan isn't going to be truly paid, then why bother with the charade of paying the ransom?
Augustine used the metaphor: "The cross of the Lord was the Devil's mousetrap; the bait by which he was caught was the Lord's death" 3, which to some sounds rather impious.
The resurrection is no longer an essential part of the atonement, but more like an added bonus. We are freed as soon as Christ is accepted as a substitute, so he doesn't need to come back to life in order to complete the atonement.

The standard contrasting view is the satisfaction doctrine. Here, the debt is due not to Satan, but to God himself, and it is God's justice (demanding a penalty for sin) that must be met. Christ is the perfect sacrifice, substituted for us, and so justice can be satisfied. This theory has its drawbacks, too. It can make God look tyrannical and bloodthirsty, and there's no obvious link to the life and teaching of Christ - it's all about his death and resurrection. A Christus Victor account places the gospel as part of the victory, according with the central idea of Christ's defeat of sin.

1. Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor, 1931 (trans. by A. G. Hebert from the Swedish Den kristna försoningstanken, 1930).
2. C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, 1950.
3. Muscipula diaboli, crux domini; esca qui caperetur, mors domini. - Augustine, Sermon 263, beginning On the fortieth day, the ascension of the Lord.


Did God's curse on Cain extend to only Cain, Cain's descendants or to everyone?

I think you're talking about two separate curses in your question.

The first curse, the curse on the ground, God inflicted on the entire earth because of Adam's sin:

  Genesis 3:17-19 And to Adam he said,“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Whereas before Adam and Eve were meant to be alive forever and till the beautiful garden, now they must work the ground with sweat and toil. This is the first curse and applies to the entire earth.

The second curse is the one meant for Cain when God says that the ground will never produce food (strength) for him

  Genesis 4:10-12 And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.”

It's important to note how God describes Cain's new forced way of life as one of a fugitive or wanderer, the Hebrew being nuwa and nuwd which both mean a kind of aimless wanderer. If the ground that he would toil would never bring forth food for him then he will be forced to wander endlessly for sustenance.

Regarding the reference to the cursed ground in Genesis 5:

  Genesis 5:28-29 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.”

It's natural to assume that Lamech is referring to first curse brought forth by Adam, not the curse that God had applied specifically to Cain.


Biblical significance of the gifts given to Jesus

Biblical References to Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh:
Gold is a highly valued commodity – not just for its beauty and use in jewellery and decorations, but also for its status.  The Bible describes the wealth of King Solomon and how the Queen of Sheba gave Solomon 120 talents of gold (about 4 tons).  Solomon also received 666 talents of gold every year – that’s 22.5 tons of the stuff!  Check out 1 Kings 10:10, 14 and 2 Chronicles 9:1-12.  In the Bible, gold is a symbol of royal status and of kingship.
Frankincense is a very expensive aromatic resin used in incense and in perfumes.  It comes from the Boswellia tree which is found in India, Somalia and Ethiopia and in the Middle East.  In today’s currency, 15 ml. of the oil would cost about $90.  This exotic ingredient may have been used by the priests in temple worship in Jerusalem (see Exodus 30:1, 7-9; 40:5).  My NIV Study Bible notes that the fragrant smoke of the incense symbolised the prayers of God’s people.  Revelation 5:8 says the golden bowls full of incense are the prayers of the saints.
Myrrh is an aromatic resin which comes from various shrubs widely used in the ancient Near East.  It was used by the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans as perfume, as incense, and for medicinal purposes.  It was also used in royal (2 Chronicles 16:14) and Jewish burials.  Nicodemus brought a large quantity of myrrh and aloes and spices and cloths in which to wrap Jesus’ body (John 19:39).  No expense was spared for this royal burial.
Is there any spiritual significance to the gifts the Magi brought?  Returning to Matthew 2:7-12, we see how the magi bestowed honour and status upon the child as implied by the value of the gifts they presented.  It is possible that the gold, frankincense and myrrh were chosen for their special spiritual symbolism about Jesus himself—gold representing his kingship, frankincense a symbol of his priestly role, and myrrh a prefiguring of his death and embalming.  After all, there was nothing accidental in the time, the place and the manner of the birth of Jesus, and in the arrival of the magi who were searching for this new-born king.  Their gifts were not accidental, either.
Christian references to the symbolic meaning behind the gifts: Coincidentally, an old hymn was played at yesterday’s church service.  It is attributed to John H. Hopkins (1820-1891):

We three kings of Orient are, bearing gifts we travel afar, field and fountain, moor and mountain, following yonder star.

Born a king on Bethlehem’s plain, gold I bring to crown him again; King forever ceasing never, over us all to reign.

Frankincense for Jesus have I, God on earth yet Priest on high; prayer and praising all men raising, worship is earth’s reply.

Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume tells of death and Calvary’s gloom; sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying, sealed in a stone cold tomb.

Glorious now, behold Him arise, King and God, and sacrifice!  Heaven sings out ‘Alleluia!’, ‘Amen!’ the earth replies.

No doubt there are earlier Christian references to the symbolism of the gifts, but this one puts it beautifully.


Can a Christian marry his deceased brother's wife?

The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England has a Table of Kindred and Affinity which lays down prohibited degress of relationship where a marriage may not be contracted. A similar table is included in the doctrinal books of other Anglican Churches.

Marrying a husband's brother is not prohibited, possibly because it was advocated in the bible. Marrying a husband's son is prohibited, even though there would be no blood relationship between the son and his step-mother.

Catholic Canon Law (Canons 1091–1094) uses descriptions of what prohibits marriage, rather than individual workings-out of those impeding relationships as the Reformation Church of England did. It appears to me that the effect of the Canons produces a table very similar to the Church of England's.

In the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church, the question of whether a woman already has children from a previous marriage is immaterial in deciding whether it is permissible for her to marry another man. Once a marriage is ended by death, it is indisputably over.


How do Mormons interpret Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:41-45?

Before going on, note Article of Faith 8 (doesn't necessarily apply to this verse just keep in mind when getting a Mormon's interpretation of a Bible verse):

  We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

From Psalms 110:1 (KJV on LDS site)

  The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Besides Matthew 22:41-45 this Psalm is also referenced in Acts 2:32-36 and Hebrews 1:13.

The LDS believe that LORD (uppercase) is used in place of printing Jehovah, who we believe to be Jesus Christ, during the translation process. 1,2

Lord (in lowercase) refers to a heavenly ruler but is not a substitute for the name Jehovah. 2

There are at least 3 instances when LORD applies to Heavenly Father, not Jesus Christ and this verse is one of them. 2 ftnt 3 So the verse is really saying:

  The LORD [Heavenly Father] said unto my Lord [Adona/pre-incarnate Son], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

So in Matthew Jesus is showing that he understands 'the LORD' refers to Heavenly Father and 'my Lord' refers to the Son of God and Messiah. 3

Acts 2:36 also backs this up

  Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

1 The Living Christ

2 2002 Ensign article

footnote 3:

  In at least three Old Testament passages it appears that LORD applies to Heavenly Father, not Jesus Christ: Ps. 110:1; Ps. 2:7; Isa. 53:10

3 Names of God in OT article- highly recommend for a much better in-depth explanation, you can start half way down where it talks specifically about Psalm 110

Abinadi on the Father and Son mentions the Acts2:36 reference to the Psalm


What did Christians write about Muhammad during his life?

The most notable early Christian writing that I am aware of was by John of Damascus (676-749).  In Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin he claims that the basis of Mohammed's fundamental teachings came from an Arian monk:

  There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day
  prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the
  Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham
  of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and
  Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from
  Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the
  angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’  These used to be idolaters
  and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own
  language they called Khabár, which means great.  And so down to the
  time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to
  the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their
  midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments
  and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk,  devised
  his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces
  of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain
  book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some
  ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as
  an object of veneration.

The rest of the text can be found here.

Some say that the iconoclast heresy in Byzantium arose because certain Christians were envious of the material success of surrounding Moslems and surmised that their practices - especially their rejection of depictions of human form - were earning them God's favor.  John of Damascus was one of the most vocal critics of the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian.  Ironically, John wrote his Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images while under the protection of a nearby moslem caliph.


Who are the origin of Hebrew people and the land ? Genesis 40:15

Abraham is the patriarch of the Hebrew people. All the other Hebrew people are descended from him, or married into their group, or were attached to them as servants.

Abraham had 318 trained servants accompany him to rescue his brother Lot who was kidnapped in Genesis 14. This site (https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/difficult-sayings.html?article=509) claims that Abraham had a retinue of about 2,000 people, including his children and servants.

The only land that Abraham owned was what he purchased as a grave site for his wife. He was a nomad, but often stayed among the Canaanites.


What was the language that Enoch spoke and did the Book of Enoch get written 3000 years BC is there any proof or carbon dating of that?

Just because it's called the Book of Enoch doesn't mean it's written by him.  It's considered one of Pseudopigraphical book, literally "false attribution" (See: Pseudepigrapha (Wikipedia).

The subsequent description was taken from the IVP Dictionary of New Testament Background, Entry: Enoch, Books Of.

1 Enoch consists of 5 distinct compositions:

Book of the Watchers (Chapter 1-36) : oldest Aramaic fragment is Dead Sea Scrolls dated first half of the 2nd century BC.  Scholars believe the book took shape in the 3rd or early 2nd century BC.
The Similitudes (Chapter 37-71) : no fragments have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Some scholars suggested it was a late 3rd century AD Christian composition, but some dated it to the early 1st century AD prior to 70 AD.
The Astronomical Book (Chapters 72-82) : oldest Aramaic fragment have been dated to the 3rd century BC.
The Book of Dreams (Chapters 83-90) : scholars believe it was written at the time of the Maccabean revolt (167 BC)
The Epistle of Enoch (Chapters 91-105): scholars have dated it to the early 1st century BC; others dated it to the early 2nd century BC

Almost all of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection is housed in the Shrine of the Book (part of the Israel Museum) in Jerusalem: Dead Sea Scrolls.  See the wikipedia article about Radiocarbon and Paleographic dating.


Are there any Christians who understand Daniel 10 implying that there is an evil spirit prince over each country?

To the question

Are there any Christian traditions that speak of single nations being under the protection of an angel?

The answer is yes. There is the common view among Church Fathers, consistent with Jewish Rabbis, that angels are entrusted to the spiritual care of kingdoms/nations.

This article NATIONS AND LANGUAGES, THE SEVENTY: | Jewish Encyclopedia says:

  According to the Rabbis, each of the seventy nations is placed under
  the protection of a special angel, except Israel, whose protector is
  God Himself (Gen. R. xxxvii.).

And this article Angels | New Advent says:

  Such appearances of angels generally last only so long as the delivery
  of their message requires, but frequently their mission is prolonged,
  and they are represented as the constituted guardians of the nations
  at some particular crisis, e.g. during the Exodus (Exodus 14:19;
  Baruch 6:6). Similarly it is the common view of the Fathers that by
  "the prince of the Kingdom of the Persians" (Daniel 10:13-21) we are
  to understand the angel to whom was entrusted the spiritual care of
  that kingdom, and we may perhaps see in the "man of Macedonia" who
  appeared to St. Paul at Troas, the guardian angel of that country
  (Acts 16:9). The Septuagint (Deuteronomy 32:8), has preserved for us a
  fragment of information on this head, though it is difficult to gauge
  its exact meaning: "When the Most High divided the nations, when He
  scattered the children of Adam, He established the bounds of the
  nations according to the number of the angels of God".

I do not know when the guardian angels of the nations got their commission to explain some fallen angels being princes of certain nations.

Endnote

The Jerusalem Bible Popular Edition note on Dan 10:13 has:

  Michael ('Who-is-like-God?') is the guardian angel of the people of
  God.


Traditionally, and not just in the Church, the right hand was considered more "noble" than the left, probably just because there are a lot more right-handed than left-handed people.  As a result, the Church's traditional rubrics specify that some ceremonial actions be performed with the right hand, even if the person performing them is left-handed. For example, I believe priests are supposed to distribute communion with the right hand.  This also applies to some actions that are not strictly governed by rubrics; for example, even though I'm left-handed, I make the sign of the cross with my right hand.

Until fairly recently, this sort of preference for the right hand was much more visible in secular society too.  For example, my father, who was (like me and two of my four siblings) left-handed, was forced, as a child, to learn to write with his right hand.  The preference also shows up in the English language, not only in phrases like the ones you mentioned in the question, but also in single words like "dexterous", "ambidextrous", and "sinister".

Finally, to answer the original question: No, I'm not a servant of the devil.