What does "Tres Personae" mean in Tertullian's "Una Substantia Tres Personae"?

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity provides a brief overview of the evolution of the Latin term persona (plural personae), which Tertullian is famous for introducing into discussions on the threeness of God.  It begins with the secular meaning, and then moves to Tertullian's use of the word:

  In addition to the classical meanings of the term persona (role, person and individuality), Latin theology from the very beginning knew of a technical meaning.  [...] Borrowing from secular exegesis that distinguished persona grammatically and aesthetically (dignity or personal character), and under the influence of the legal tradition, [Tertullian] applied a realist meaning to the term (persona = res). (3:153)

Res is the Latin word for "thing" or "entity," which while pointing us in the right direction, perhaps still feels insufficiently specific.  We can turn to J. N. D. Kelly, who writes in Early Christian Doctrines:

  The primary sense of persona was 'mask', from which the transition was easy to the actor who wore it and the character he played.  In legal usage it could stand for the holder of the title to a property, but as employed by Tertullian it connoted the concrete presentation of an individual as such. (115, emphasis added)

So we might say then that the personae of Tertullian are "persons" in the sense of "individuals" or "entities."  But Kelly warns us against anachronistically reading modern understandings of "person" onto Tertullian:

  In neither case, it should be noted, was the idea of self-consciousness nowadays associated with 'person' and 'personal' at all prominent. (115)


How does open theology interpret 1 Peter 1:2?

1 Peter 1:2 KJV  Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace,
be multiplied.

This not a reference to an individual salvation but the plan of salvation. Obviously, God had foreknowledge of his own plan which was through the "sanctification of the Spirit" which we obtain when we obeyed and believed on our Lord's sacrifice. So, God foreknew, foreordained, predestinated, that all who would believe on His Son would be saved.

I am not sure this is the right question to respond with a definition of the different theological positions on foreknowledge, but I will be looking for one.


Is 1 Corinthians 7:26–40 not the 'Word of God'?

One of the things it is important to realize about the Bible is that the authors did not sit down to 'write the Bible'. Books of the Bible have to be taken first as what they were intended by their authors to be - a biography of Jesus, a history of the early church, or a letter to one of the churches. Yes, God did inspire those authors to write something that would be infallible and of eternal value, but he did not simply dictate a message for all people for all time which Paul or whoever then wrote down. It's highly likely that Paul did not realize that he was writing Infallible Scripture when he did it. He certainly wrote other letters that are not included in Scripture.

Because of this we find things in the Epistles which are of unclear value to those of us who read them 2000 years later. Paul asks the church to greet specific people that he knows. That isn't God instructing us to greet those people, it's Paul sending a greeting to people he knows. It's part of God's awesome power that he can use those writings to instruct us, without making everything a direct commend from him.

In other words, God inspired Paul to write those words in his letter. The fact that they are Paul's opinion (but a divinely inspired opinion) are unimportant. They are meant to be there, and they are just as inspired as every other part of the Epistle. The Bible also contains many other things that are not the direct command of God - stories of people who did less-than-righteous things; opinions offered by characters that do not necessarily reflect God's opinions

Why did God cause Paul to write his own opinion as part of Scripture? A good questions, which I don't have a definitive answer for. Maybe it was to draw attention to the fact that Christianity is not just a set of written rules, but sometimes calls for us to use the Holy Spirit that he gave us to work out what the right thing to do is. But I speculate. The answer here is that there is no conflict between Paul writing something that is his opinion, and the fact that God inspired him to write exactly that.


Does God forgive those who take his name in vain?

The only place in the Bible where any sin is mentioned as being unforgivable is in Matthew 12:

  Matthew 12:31-32 (NLT)
  31 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.

Now the question is if taking God's name in vain is blasphemy or speaking against the Holy Spirit. Personally, I say that it is not because you are not targeting the Holy Spirit, so to speak. I don't quite have Scriptural backup for that, but this answer and that answer on this question generally indicate that the answer to that new question is "no".


Mark 15:7-15

  7 And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. 8 And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them. 9 And he answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 10 For he perceived that pit was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” 13 And they cried out again, “Crucify him.” 14 And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

As Mark's version of this event emphasizes, the crowd was driven to cry for Barabbas by the chief priests who were at the root of the push to have Jesus killed. Why would they choose Barabbas as their alternative to prevent Jesus' release? The biggest factor, of course, is that Jesus was a problem for them - he spoke against them repeatedly, criticized their teaching and their ways, and taught many things that contradicted what they taught.

But on the specifics of why the chief priests would choose Barabbas, I think there's a pretty easy answer to reason out, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly detail it. Barabbas, as John mentions, was a revolutionary. That meant he was trouble, but not for the chief priests. He was trouble for the Romans. He wanted to resist Roman occupation and authority in the name of Jewish freedom. It's not hard to get an oppressed people to cheer for someone who wants to end their oppression. This would have been a win-win in the eyes of the chief priests, because they were getting rid of a man who threatened to compromise their authority in exchange for a man who threatened to compromise the authority of their oppressors.


The most common interpretation oft this is that God is referring to himself, the three-person Trinity making up one God.


Is there any evidence to support a preference for second-career pastors coming disproportionately from IT?

I emailed Cynthia Woolever of The Parish Paper and got this response:

  The statistics come from the U.S. Congregational Life Survey (Wave 2)
  conducted in fall 2008 and spring 2009. Almost 700 pastors (693 to be
  exact) completed an extensive survey about their background,
  education, and current experiences. These pastors had to be currently
  ministering in a congregation as the solo or senior pastor to be
  eligible. Therefore, ministers in specialized positions (like hospital
  chaplain) were not in the survey. Much of the details are on the U.S.
  Congregations website. Further details are reported in our book,
  "Leadership That Fits Your Church: What Kind of Pastor for What Kind
  of Congregation" published by Chalice Press (2012).

  I remember from reading the "raw data" (actual returned surveys) that
  some pastors had been in IT work before working in a local
  congregation. However, we did not use this as a specific category when
  we coded the responses. Here are some of the relevant categories:
  Lawyers, judges, or legislators (3%) Teachers and professors (12%)
  All other professionals (28%) Managers and administrators (24%)

  Clergy who had previously been in the IT field would have been coded
  in the "All other professionals" category. Those in this category were
  also grouped by denomination or faith group. For Catholic priests--39%
  of those had a full-time occupation before entering ministry were
  coded as "all other professionals"; For mainline Protestant
  pastors--31% were coded as "all other professionals"; and for
  conservative Protestant pastors--20% were coded as "all other
  professionals."

  The entire dataset is available on the Association of Religious Data
  Archive.


Common arguments in support of the partaking of the divine nature being possible only through Eucharist

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78
  "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the
  Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and
  thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the
  Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The
  only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity,
  assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81 CCC 460

"by entering into communion with the Word": since the Word is capitalized, it means the Eucharist.

I think this quote above explains it nicely. I encourage you to read the whole section.


What are some sources of March, 25th being the date of the creation of the world, or of the creation of Adam and Eve, or of their disobedience?

To get a better understanding of this, one must realize that in the Middle Ages people more willingly accepted tradition as being true. Pious traditions or legends were told from time immemorial were simply believed.

It seems that the number one source of your pious legends comes from the Golden Legend by Blessed Jacobus de Voragine (1230-1298).

  Blessed Jacobus de Varagine or Voragine (Italian: Giacomo da Varazze, Jacopo da Varazze; c. 1230 – July 13 or July 16, 1298) was an Italian chronicler and archbishop of Genoa. He was the author, or more accurately the compiler, of Legenda Aurea, the Golden Legend, a collection of the legendary lives of the greater saints of the medieval church that was one of the most popular religious works of the Middle Ages. - Wikipedia

March 25 according to the Golden Legend is rich in symbolism:

  According to this legend, the Creation of Adam, the Fall of Adam, the murder of Abel, Melchisedech's offering of bread and wine, Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac, the Annunciation to Mary and Conception of Christ, the decapitation of John the Baptist, the Crucifixion of Christ, James' killing and Peter's escape all occurred on March 25th. - Davidlol

Please feel free to peruse the entire Golden Legend when and if you have the time to do so from the Medieval Sourcebook: The Golden Legend (Aurea Legenda)
Compiled by Jacobus de Voragine, 1275 Englished by William Caxton, 1483.

Some “Historical” Dates in Medieval Liturgical Calendars from England may be of interest to you even though some of these dates are not the same, but are relatively close. For example, the Creation of Adam was on March 23.

  He also notes the dating of the creation to 25 March as well:

  The symbolism attached to the Julian date of the spring equinox was not limited to the Passion or Resurrection of Jesus. The Alexandrian monk Annianos, for instance, dated the creation of the world and the incarnation (or conception) of Christ on 25 March as well. The vernal equinox was associated with the creation as early as the third century, but opinions differed on the day of the week of the creation on which 25 March had to be placed: some preferred the first day (Sunday), when God separated light from darkness, others decided in favour of the fourth day (Wednesday), on which God created the so-called luminaries, i.e., the sun, the moon and the stars. ...

  The idea that Jesus was born (or conceived) and crucified on the same calendar day, and thus lived a perfect number of years, is first attested in the Easter table of Hippolytus of Rome (AD 222). - “Historical” Dates in Medieval Liturgical Calendars


What should a Catholic know about Pilgrims Progress?

As you pointed out, Pilgrim's Progress was and is a very anti-Catholic book.  Seeing as its author, John Bunyan, was a Baptist writer serving time in jail for opposing an Anglican church in England at the same time England was living in fear of the even-more hierarchical Roman church, you can understand why he might be anti-Pope.

The basic tenant of the book - that the Christian life is a journey that must be accomplished on one's own, is as about as Baptist / Puritanical as it gets.  Like all Puritans, he celebrated rather than suppressed emotion, and wanted to ensure the "personal relationship" with Jesus took center stage. (Yes, Puritans were not the dour people popularly portrayed.  Want to read a theology that celebrates sex between man and wife? Look to the Puritans - not the Catholics!)

These two biggies - the unmediated experience and the anti-hierarchical church polity - are probably the biggest bugaboos for a Catholic.

Beyond that, the book presents salvation as an act of free will, and seems to completely discount election or predestination.  These issues may also cause some interesting discussions.

That said, this is the second best selling book of all time, just behind the Bible. Even if a good Christian were to disagree, I'd suggest it is edifying to read and think.  The praise of Acts 17:11 comes to mind:

  Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

As a Baptist believer in soul competency, Bunyan himself probably wouldn't have wanted you to accept his opinions without considering them against scripture. His genius was to rehabilitate allegory from static symbolism and push the metaphor into dynamic journey and learning that could be used to direct a believer's life.


What are origins and when did the tradition of the Yule Candles come into existence as a Christian tradition?

One potential answer: It may have been popularized at Oxford.

On [Christmas Eve] our ancestors were wont to light up Candles of an uncommon size, called Christmas Candles*[...]
*In the Butter of St John's College, Oxford, an ancient candle-socket of one still remains, ornamented with the figure of the Holy Lamb. It was formerly used to burn the Christmas Candle in, on the high-table, at supper, during the twelve nights of that festival.

--Observations on Popular Antiquities: Chiefly Illustrating the Origin of Our Vulgar Customs, Ceremonies, and Superstitions, 1877
But yes, it could be of pagan origin as well.

On the eve of the winter solstice, the Anglo-Saxons burnt a large block of wood, as an emblem of returning light and heat, from whence may be traced the custom of burning a yule-clog on the eve of Christmas. On the introduction of candles, numerous large candles were lighted, to afford light to the in-door festivity, together with the log. Hence the Christmas Candle, and the denomination of the Feast of Lights sometimes given to the Christmas festival.

--History of the Christmas Festival, the New Year, and their peculiar customs, 1843


What's the name of this doctrine and (when) did the Eastern Orthodox Church condemn it?

I believe you are looking for the theology called "Universalism".

I'm not sure that it has been explicitly declared a heresy, but the Catholic, Orthodox many Protestant churches have made formal declarations that are in disagreement with it, so they presumably do consider it a heresy. Look at the 'disagreements' section of the article.


Is this true that before the Quinisext Council it was not allowed to draw Jesus on icons in the form of a man?

Quite early in Christian history the cross (without a human form on it) became a symbol of Christianity and appears to have become a superstitious symbol as well. Heathens recognized this seeming superstitious behavior, so that by the time of Tertullian heathen called Christians cross-worshippers.

You are correct though, from what I can tell. It was not until the fifth century the crucifix began to appear:

  The transition to the crucifix we find in the fifth century in the figure of a lamb, or even a bust of Christ, attached to the cross, sometimes at the top, sometimes at the bottom. Afterwards the whole figure of Christ was fastened to the cross, and the earlier forms gave place to this. The Trullan council of Constantinople (the Quinisextum), A.D. 692, directed in the 82d canon: “Hereafter, instead of the lamb, the human figure of Christ shall be set up on the images.” (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHILIP SCHAFF, Vol 3, Chapt 8, 109)

To answer the question if before this time the human figure was ‘not allowed’ is difficult to answer. Possibly since nobody ever thought of doing it, it was simply not done? We can’t really say it was not allowed unless people were trying to do it and some authority forbade it.


Can Catholics choose to be baptized by immersion?

There is no doubt: Yes, baptism by immersion is permissible.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated, while considering the validity of Mormon baptism:

  I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.

The CDF actually rejected the validity of Mormon baptism, but using immersion was not one of the reasons for the rejection.

It also features in the Catechism:

  1239: Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.


What is the Biblical basis for saying that wives can divorce their physically abusive husbands?

Some Christians would say that the abusiveness of the husband is proof that he is not a Christian, and the wife is therefore able to divorce him based on Paul's words in 1st Corinthians 7.

The key point is in bold.

  1 Corinthians 7:10-15 ESV To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

This is a hotly contested passage in Christendom and there are varying interpretations of what Paul is trying to say, but what is clear is that if a Christian and non-Christian are married and the non-Christian wishes to divorce, the Christian is no longer bound to that person. But, can the Christian initiate the divorce even though Paul's example is about the non-Christian initiating it? If the non-believing spouse claims to be a Christian, can one deduce that is their fruits (i.e, actions) that confirm their Christianity and not them merely stating so?

Those that believe you can divorce a sexually faithful yet abusive spouse would answer both questions with "Yes." This is, I believe, a more liberal interpretation of this passage. Those that hold this view are forced to create a standard by which a spouse's actions needs to be compared to in order to determine their "true" Christianity. What about non-physical abuse, anger, or lack of love? Going down this slope to an extreme could lead one to create a trump card out of most any spousal imperfection and use it to justify divorce for petty (selfish) reasons.

Fortunately, God doesn't work in technicalities ☺. He knows the heart of every divorce initiator and which ones were truly "valid" or not.


What is the Calvinist Perspective on the Tribulation

As a Calvinists and someone who has mostly read books from the 1500 to 1700s I have never encountered any other view beside Christ's second coming as the end of the world.   In other words there is no talk about a rapture other than the final one at the end of the world. (I am not saying there is none to be found, just that among the main Calvanists leaders I have never encountered it). Sorry I have not listened to the audio you linked.

What I have noticed in reading old commentaries for around 30 years now, is that there is a general expectation that we will one day experience a great revival and this will be related to the Jews accepting Christ as their Savior. (Romans 11:25) Not all believe this but it is a strong trend, especially with someone like Jonathan Edwards.  Secondly, I have noticed a general common trend that when Christ does return there will be few Christians on the earth, and that after the revival, their will be a great Apostasy before he comes.  This is typically associated with Christ saying the world will be 'like the days of Noah' during the second coming. (Mathew 24:37)

What this final tribulation means, someone like Edwards is again a good reference and he sees it as the world surrounding the church and ready to persecute it but actually before any real harm is done Christ returns to save the church and judge the world.

In summary a common reformed idea is that a great revival will occur in Christianity most likely caused by the shock of the majority of Jewish people turning to Christianity.  This great time might continue for a long period, but then suddenly the church will fall away during some unknown generation.  This will trigger the world to unite against Christians in the most apocalyptic way, but before any real action is made, Christ returns to judge the living and the dead.

I have not provided proofs to my answer as it would begin to amass a very long post, I am only speaking from the point of being a Calvinists and having read many thousands of pages of Luther, Calvin, John Owen and Jonathan Edwards, which represent very key leaders of Calvinism through the period of 1500-1800.

I am not sure if this is of any help to you, but that is all I can really say about end times tribulation from a traditional perspective. Matthew Henry seems to do a pretty good job in capturing typical views in his commentary on Revelation if you would like more detailed accounts on end times perspectives from standard historical Calvinists.

Note: I should add, once we leave the 'traditional Calvinists' around the late 1700 and early 1800s and arrive at modern day Churches, many who are Calvanistic in their view of salvation do not hold traditional views about a symbolic millennium. In stead many believe in a literal millennium and tribulation with a rapture before or after and whatever other possible combination. In this sense a Calvinistc view can be anything even though Calvin himself thought the idea of a literal millennium as 'too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation'.


Under What Conditions Can a Priest Validly Refuse to Absolve Sins?

  The denial (or delay) of absolution is rare in a typical confession. When it does occur, it usually is because the confessor is not able to observe sufficient contrition from the penitent. As the Catechism teaches: “Contrition is sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again” (No. 1451). So, mere sorrow is not enough; there must be sufficient resolution to avoid the sin in the future.

  A  confessor must do his best to dispose a penitent for absolution. Usually sorrow for sin and a firm purpose of amendment are evident in someone who has sought confession. However, in some cases, a penitent may give no signs of sorrow or may show no resolution to avoid obvious or near occasions of sin. Perhaps a penitent indicates a refusal to restore what is possible to rightful owners. Or a penitent who does not indicate a willingness to end illicit sexual unions or practices. Though they may experience sorrow or feelings of guilt, they cannot or will not supply a resolve to avoid the sin in the future.

  The priest should do what he can to draw both sorrow and a firm purpose of amendment. But if there is no evidence of these, he should deny or delay absolution in a kind and fatherly manner, explaining the reason and also a way forward so that the penitent can return more properly disposed to receive the sacrament.

  Generally, the simple fact that a penitent has sought confession is a demonstration of contrition and amendment. But there are rare times when during the confession something essential regarding contrition is found to be lacking. To simply overlook this does harm both to the sacrament and to the proper care of souls. - Refusing absolution

Thus a priest must refuse absolution if no contrition is present or no willingness to amend one's life of serious sin is present. One not willing to amend a life of adultery for example can not be absolved in confession. Absolution in this case would be invalid.

Another case may be when the penitent is under excommunication.

  Finally, there many possible reasons why Catholic may be "prohibited by Law for receiving" a sacrament. If, for example, he is under excommunication, he is forbidden to receive the sacraments until the excommunication is lifted (c. 1331.1 n.2). He may simply be too young to receive a particular sacrament. - When can a priest refuse to absolve a penitent in the confessional?

Confession while under the sentence of excommunication would not be valid and a priest must refuse absolution in some cases, unless one is in danger of death.

  In some very grievous cases, only the Holy See can lift the ban of an automatic excommunication:  if a person desecrates the Blessed Sacrament or uses it for a sacrilegious purpose (#1367); if a person uses physical force against the Pope (#1370); if a priest absolves an accomplice in a sin against the Sixth Commandment (#1378); if a bishop consecrates someone as a bishop without permission of the Holy Father (#1982); and if a priest directly violates the seal of confession (#1388). - Automatic Excommunication

As for the sacrament of the Orthodox Church this should help:

  “If attending was done in the spirit of ecumenism, would it be ok as long as I still went to Catholic Mass as well?”

  Yes, and the obligation to assist at a Catholic liturgy is not fulfilled by going with the Orthodox family to their church:

  Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

  Can. 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

  Footnote: In regard to canon 1248, an argument could be made that an Orthodox liturgy is “a catholic rite” since the Church herself acknowledges that Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental, plus ACoE) Sacraments are valid. - Is it valid for a Catholic to attend an Orthodox Church service?

Do not forget that both Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I signed the Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965

  The Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 was read out on 7 December 1965 simultaneously at a public meeting of the Second Vatican Council in Rome and at a special ceremony in Istanbul. It withdrew the exchange of excommunications between prominent ecclesiastics in the Holy See and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, commonly known as the Great Schism of 1054. It did not end the schism but showed a desire for greater reconciliation between the two churches, represented by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I. The document and accompanying texts are also referred to as 'Tomos Agapes' ('Document of Love') - Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 (Wikipedia)

In the end a priest can validly absolve any penitent who has been formerly refused absolution (validly) provided that all the requites are in place to have a valid confession.


Early Christians who Defended Licitness of Non-Procreative Sex?

Having read through quite a bit of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, I can't remember ever seeing anyone advocate for non-procreative sex. Rather it was common to advocate for remaining a virgin for life.

I think if anyone in the early church did advocate for non-procreative sex, you are more likely to find them among those whom the Church Fathers debated against and labeled as heretics.

Keep in mind, also, that they didn't have condoms back then or the concept of "safe sex." And there most certainly weren't any church fathers advocating for homosexuality - which would contradict the scriptures (and the early church fathers drew heavily from the scriptures).


Can you explain the conflict between 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Isaiah 43:25?

There is no contradiction when we understand the nature of the "judgment seat" of Christ.  That seat is in contrast to the "great white throne".

  For we [believers] must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

At 2 Cor. 5:10, the word for judgment seat is bema.  This is believers only.  We know this because the context for this is in verse 5.

  Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
  2 Cor. 5:5

Only believers have the deposit of the Spirit unto eternal life.  We will appear before Christ at the bema.  It is not for judgment as sins are forgiven, but for rewards.

"At this bema believers are to be made manifest, that each may "receive the things done in (or through) the body," according to what he has done, "whether it be good or bad." There they will receive rewards for their faithfulness to the Lord."
Vines

That seat is identical to the one Isaiah 43:25 refers.  It is not for condemnation as transgressions are blotted out and sins are forgiven, but for reward.  Of course there may not be reward, but one still is saved as though through fire (1 Cor. 3:15).

At the great white throne in contrast, there is judgment of the dead, not the living in Christ.  Again the living in Christ appear at the bema.  All others, the dead, appear at the thronos (the throne of God) for judgment.

  And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
  Rev. 20:11-12

So, there is no conflict between 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Isaiah 43:25.


When did the concept of οὐσία begin to refer to God's nature?

The earliest use of οὐσία to mean the substance or essence of a thing is by Aristotle in his Κατηγορίαι, though Aristotle attributes its earlier use to Plato. Justin Martyr comments on Aristotle's description of the nature of the Divine, confirming that Aristotle (along with Plato) uses the word in the manner described as early as the 4th century BC. So it appears that the first use was not within the Church, but within Greek philosophy and that οὐσία was used by the Greek Fathers in this manner following the philosophers. This so-called "Pagan" origin had an effect on the later use of the word within the Church.

Tatian and Justin Martyr use the word as early as the second century to discuss the substance and nature of God in the context of the Logos. Consider the following passage from The Holy Trinity: God for God and God for Us, by Chung-Hyun Baik.

  Both Justyn Martyr and Tatian of Assyria went further to hint that the Logos has the same ousia as God the Father. Justin Martyr stated that the Logos, which is invidisible and inseperable from God the Father, was generated from the Father by the power and will of God the Father,'but not by abcission, as if the ousia of the Father were divided' (Dialogue with Trypho, 128). Justin Martyr provided an analogy of human speech, by which it is meant that, though we beget and utter a word, our power of uttering words would not be diminished. He offered another analogy of a fire kindled from a fire; an enkindled fire is distinct from the original fire, but the original fire remains the same undeiminished fire even after it ignites another. Tatian of Assyria stated that the Logos was in God the Foather and came into being 'by participation, not by abcission' (Address to the Greeks, 5). For him, abcission implies a separation of the Logos from the original ousia of God, while participation presupposes no deficiency of the Logos in the original ousia of God. He illustrated this point by the analogy of a torch. Though one torch lights another fire, nevertheless the light of the first torch is not lessened by lighting another fire (Ibid.)"

It is well known that Justin read Aristotle, and in fact uses οὐσία in his comments on Plato and Aristotle in Horatory Address to the Greeks (Ch. 5),

  "For Plato, with the air of one that has descended from above, and has accurately ascertained and seen all that is in heaven, says that the most high God exists in a fiery οὐσία. But Aristotle, in a book addressed to Alexander of Macedon, giving a compendious explanation of his own philosophy, clearly and manifestly overthrows the opinion of Plato, saying that God does not exist in a fiery οὐσία: but inventing, as a fifth1 οὐσία , some kind of aetherial and unchangeable body, says that God exists in it. Thus, at least, he wrote: 'Not, as some of those who have erred regarding the Deity say, that God exists in a fiery οὐσία."

So, οὐσία was used at least as early as the second century by the Greek Fathers, though the use of the word in the manner in question likely follows from Aristotle and therefore predates the birth of Christ and its use within Christianity.

1. Note this "fifth essence"- the first four being fire, water, air, and earth- is the origin of the English quintessence, as well as the identity of the lapis philosophorum, the "philosopher's stone" about which the alchemists wrote, and whom the Christian alchemists identify with the transfigured body of Christ.


The Apostle Paul and the doctrine of forgiveness?

In the quoted passage, the Apostle Paul is not writing about paying back Alexander, but that he trusted that justice will be administered by the Lord.  Paul was consistent with Jesus' command to exercise charity, which is defined by current Catholic teaching as:

  CCC 1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

  1823 Jesus makes charity the new commandment. By loving his own "to the end,"he makes manifest the Father's love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love." and again: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." {John 15:12}

When exploring Section III of the Catechism, an extended discourse on living the Christian life (and thus witnessing for Christ), you will find reference to a number of verses in Scripture that point back toward the exercise of Charity.

  Ephesians 4:32
  (And) be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ.

  Luke 17:3-4
  Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

  Colossians 3:13
  bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.

  Luke 6:37
  Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.

  Matthew 18: 21-22
  Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?"  Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.

The Church does not confine itself to a single passage in Scripture when addressing the need to forgive one another.  A broad range of scriptural guidance is folded into the teaching that forgiveness is an act of Charity.

Some bullet points from current teaching:

  The seven spiritual works of mercy:

  Counsel the doubtful.
  Instruct the ignorant.
  Admonish sinners.
  Comfort the afflicted.
  Forgive offenses.
  Bear wrongs patiently.
  Pray for the living and the dead.

Part of an explanation of the Lord's Prayer.

  Why do we say “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”?  CCC 2838-2839; 2862

  By asking God the Father to pardon us, we acknowledge before him that
  we are sinners. At the same time we proclaim his mercy because in his
  Son and through the sacraments “we have redemption, the forgiveness of
  sins” (Colossians 1:14). Still our petition will be answered only if
  we for our part have forgiven first.

The importance of forgiveness

  How is forgiveness possible? CCC 2840-2845; 2862

  Mercy can penetrate our hearts only if we ourselves learn how to forgive – even our enemies.  Now even if it seems impossible for us to satisfy this requirement, the heart that offers itself to the Holy Spirit can, like Christ, love even to love’s extreme; it can turn injury into compassion and transform hurt into intercession.  Forgiveness participates in the divine mercy and is a high-point of Christian prayer.


Even Mary had the same question in her mind when Angel said to her:

  Luke: 1:31 Listen: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus.

And she immediately asked a similar question as yours:

  Luke: 1:34 Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”

And the answer is:

  Luke:1:35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God.

It is sometime better to reconcile to the fact that,  we do not  have mind of God to understand His ways and so accept some things as Mary did. If we were to know everything God does and how God carry out His business then He would not be any different from us.


If Jesus's death was not eternal, then how can it be substitutionary for the eternal deaths of humans?

N - Assume that the total number of people who will ever live (besides Jesus) is N, a finite number.
ω - Assume that redeeming the smallest sin costs an infinite amount, equal to omega, the hyper-real number.
E - Assume that the most evil person who ever lived committed a number of sins equal to E. Given that our lives are finite, the number of sins that can be committed is finite.
N⋅E⋅ω - Multiply these values together to get the upper limit on the cost of redeeming all the sins of the world. This cost is infinite, but linear in omega.

All Sin ≤ N⋅E⋅ω

Jesus is the "King of kings" and "Lord of Lords". To me, that sounds like at least infinity squared, or ω². Jesus spent between two and three days in the grave (since a part of a day counts as a whole day in Hebrew usage, I am told). Assume the lower figure of two days. That makes Jesus payment equal to 2⋅ω²:

Jesus' Payment = 2⋅ω² >> N⋅E⋅ω ≥ All Sin

Since Jesus' value is so great, the fact that he only spends a finite amount of time in the grave does not prevent him from making a payment greatly in excess of the cost of our sin. This is because for any finite multiplier M, no matter how big, ω² >> M⋅ω. If this makes no sense, read about how to integrate Greens functions and call me in the morning.

For more on the hyperreal number system and how to perform arithmetic, algebra, limits, integration, and differentiation, see:

https://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html

Admittedly, this is not how most supporters of penal substitutionary atonement would answer, but the important point is that the infinity of our sin is smaller than the infinity of his love, and since we have a well-established mathematical framework for comparing materialistic infinities, there must also be one for comparing spiritual infinities.


Does the Trinity share one mind or are there three separate minds?

I asked a similar question pertaining to will within the Trinity.
Given that the Triune God is one in nature and three in person, and that I consider the mind to be a part of the person, I would conclude that each of the three persons has their own separate mind.
However, because they share the same perfect and infinite nature, their is never any dissent or discord among the persons of God.  In a sense, though they are of separate persons each with their own mind, they are of "one mind", in unity of purpose and being.
Also, scripture talks in different places about the "mind of Christ" (e.g. 1 Cor 2:16) and the "mind of the Spirit" (e.g. Rom 8:27), quite distinctly at least implying two distinct minds for those two of the Holy Trinity.

14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Cor:2:14-16
26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Rom 8:26-27


Why do Christians have different books in their Bible?

Most of the books of the Bible were written by different people. An estimated 40 authors wrote the 70 or so books that various Christians accept as "the Bible". Most of these authors wrote independently from each other; if they were contemporaries, they typically did not confer with each other. If they were separated by time, the latter typically did not write with an apparent expectation that what he wrote would be considered scripture even though the former was during his time.

What you are referring to is the Bible Canon. A canon is

  a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council.
  Merriam Webster Dictionary

Basically, many Christians already followed many or even all of these books as scripture, then through councils called by early church leaders, a canon was set, decreeing them as scripture, indeed. These councils also set out to decree some theologies as Christian dogma and others as not Christian dogma. More rarely, some books were explicitly decreed not canon. These typically go by the names Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books, Gnostic Gospels, or Pseudepigrapha. These books were accepted by fringe groups and rejected by the larger majority. This and among real issues (some teach dissonant doctrine) is why they were not included in the Biblical Canon. Most of them were just ignored or so fringe they were unheard of among the council members. 1

Today, there are three primary canons: The Catholic bible canon, the Protestant bible canon, and the Eastern/Greek Orthodox bible canon. In general, there was only the Catholic bible canon until Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Martin Luther had many ideas that radically changed the face of Christianity, including views that led to the formation of the Protestant bible canon, which essentially removed 7 books from the Catholic bible canon and a few portions of some other books, but added nothing. Those books/portions present in the Catholic bible, but not in the Protestant bible are:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4–16:24)
Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)
Additions to Daniel:

Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)

1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
See "Deuterocanonical books - Wikipedia" for more information

The following table helps compare all the major canons. See the footnotes for a comprehensive list of all the books.

Source

There are a few other canons in some much smaller segments of the Christian population, but those are typically very small in their number of adherents. For example, the Church of Ethiopia has a few more books in their canon than the Catholic canon. 2

Summary

The books accepted by any Christian group is called a canon. There are three major canons, one for the Catholics, one for the Eastern Orthodox, and one for the Protestants. The canon was decreed as "scripture" by early church councils, mostly based on the widespread use of these books. Over the centuries, there has been plenty of debate on the actual authenticity of these books, from both historical and theological perspectives. To many theologians and historians, the authenticity of any given book is a matter of independent study of those individual books, and opinions tend to vary widely among theologians, but tend to fall one way or the other among historians.

Sources and further information

Biblical Canon - Wikipedia
Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia
Books of the Bible - Wikipedia

Other Questions on Christianity Stack Exchange
Resources to learn about Bible canonization
How long did it take to form the Biblical canon?
When was the Biblical canon formalised?
How were the books of the New Testament chosen?
What writings are held as "biblical canon" by Swedenborgians? (example of a small group with a unique and heavily trimmed canon)
How many 'Books' never made it to the Bible (Old and New Testament)?
When did the idea of a scriptural "canon" originate?

Footnotes:

Disclaimer: This is a gross simplification of a long and complicated topic rife with historical debate that goes back to the second century and continues today. For example, this brief synopsis implies that Martin Luther is responsible for all of it, but that is far from the case. The differences between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches manifested a thousand years before Luther and came to a head in the 11th century with the Great Schism. Further complicating the issue, what Christians call the Old Testament was part of the Hebrew/Jewish Bible canon which has its own long history of development that for the most part, Christianity just inherited. If you want to have a solid grasp on what actually happened, you will need to read no fewer than 200 pages on the subject.
There are, of course, some modern churches that claim the Christian title that have wildly different canons. The LDS church, for example, accepts the Protestant Canon, in addition to the many books found in the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. There are no other Christians that accept these books as scripture.
Comprehensive list of all the books of "the bible" (Source):

  Hebrew Bible

  All extant manuscripts of the following texts:

  Torah (Books of Moses)

  Genesis
  Exodus
  Leviticus
  Numbers
  Deuteronomy

  The Samaritan Pentateuch is also included.

  Nevi'im (Prophets)

  Joshua
  Judges
  Kingdoms (I - IV)

  Samuel (I & II)
  Kings (I & II)

  Isaiah
  Jeremiah
  Ezekiel
  Twelve Prophets

  Hosea
  Joel
  Amos
  Obadiah
  Jonah
  Micah
  Nahum
  Habakkuk
  Zephaniah
  Haggai
  Zechariah
  Malachi

  Kethuvim (Writings)

  Psalms (including manuscripts containing 151 psalms)
  Proverbs
  Job
  The Song of Songs
  Ruth
  Lamentations
  Ecclesiastes
  Esther (including manuscripts containing The Additions)
  Daniel (including manuscripts containing Susanna, Bel and the Serpent/Dragon, and/or the Hymn of the Three Youths)
  Ezra-Nehemiah / Esdras (I & II)
  Chronicles / Paraleipomenon (I & II, including manuscripts containing the Prayer of Manasseh)

  Care should be taken to clearly refer to relevant sections of the
  Hebrew Bible as chapter and verse sections as well as the order of
  content is not consistent between many translations, manuscripts, and
  critical texts.

  Apocrypha

  All extant manuscripts of the following texts:

  Note that the use of the term Apocrypha as a proper title is
  defined on this site as referring specifically (and exclusively) to
  the following listed texts (and the word should always be capitalized
  when used in this manner on this site). It is known that other works
  such as the Gnostic gospels are commonly referred to as
  "apocryphal" texts, but as per our site standards only the
  below-listed texts constitute the Apocrypha.

  Texts and Additions to Esther and Daniel that are included in Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles

  Tobit
  Judith
  Additions to the book of Esther in Greek manuscripts
  Wisdom of Solomon
  Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach)
  Baruch
  The Letter/Epistle of Jeremiah (6th chapter of Baruch)
  Additions to the book of Daniel in Greek manuscripts

  The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
  Susanna
  Bel and the Serpent/Dragon

  Maccabees (I & II)

  Texts in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles but not in Roman Catholic Bibles

  1 Esdras (in Greek; 2 Esdras in Slavonic; 3 Esdras in Appendix to Vulgate)
  Prayer of Manasseh (in Appendix to Vulgate; included in some manuscripts of 2 Chronicles / Paraleipomenon)
  Psalm 151 (included in Greek manuscripts of Psalms)
  3 Maccabees

  Text in the Slavonic Bible and the Latin Vulgate Appendix

  2 Esdras (3 Esdras in Slavonic; 4 Esdras in Vulgate Appendix)

  Text in an Appendix to the Greek Bible

  4 Maccabees

  Care should be taken to clearly refer to relevant sections of the
  Apocrypha as text/book titles, chapter and verse sections as well as
  the order of content is not consistent between many translations,
  manuscripts, and critical texts.

  New Testament

  All extant manuscripts of the following texts:

  Homologoumena

  Gospels

  Matthew
  Mark
  Luke
  John

  Acts of the Apostles
  Epistles/Letters

  Romans
  Corinthians (I & II, although historically they are believed to be the II & III letters sent to Corinth, the first of which is extinct)
  Galatians
  Ephesians
  Philippians
  Colossians
  Thessalonians (I & II)
  Timothy (I & II)
  Titus
  Philemon
  I Peter
  I John (not to be confused with the Gospel of John)

  Antilegomena

  James
  Jude / Judah
  Hebrews
  II Peter
  John (II & III, not to be confused with the Gospel of John)
  Apocalypse of John / Revelation

  These are the primary texts which constitute 'the Bible.'


What does "therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" mean?

Jesus is making several points here.  We will be helped in understanding these points by unpacking them one by one.

  Imagery:  Wolves prey on sheep. They are fierce, and from a human perspective, pitiless. In observing a wolf attack a sheep, we quite naturally feel sorry for the innocent prey being devoured by the predator. Wolves "gang up" on their prey; even a much larger animal can be brought down when attacked by a pack of wolves.

Application: There is antipathy between preachers and their audiences. The preachers are innocent sheep; audiences are fierce wolves. Later in Matthew 10, Jesus describes ways in which audiences to the disciples' message would react fiercely to it:

They would arrest the disciples (v.17)
They would have the disciples flogged (v.17)
They would turn against members of their own families when some would choose to believe the disciples' message while others would reject it, even to the point of betraying a believing family member to death (v.21)
They would hate the disciples and persecute them, not for any wrong they did, but because the message was an offense to them (vv.22,23; cf. Psalm 35:19 NIV and 69:4, where the psalmist was hated without a cause).

  Imagery: Snakes, too, are predators. They are known for their subtlety and shrewdness. They, unlike wolves, lie in wait silently for their prey, sometimes blending in with their surroundings until their prey unwittingly comes within striking distance. Doves, on the other hand, are harmless, feeding on seeds, insects, and berries, and they are sociable creatures which mind their own business.

Application:  Jesus' disciples were to use sound judgment in their modus operandi.  Open and honest communication is good, but there are also times when too much or inapt communication is not good. Silence, at times, is golden.

  A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver (Proverbs 25:11, my emphasis).

As Christians we are to

  Let [our] conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that [we] may know how to answer everyone (Colossians 4:6 NIV).

In other words, Jesus' disciples must use discernment and wisdom, which at times involves an element of shrewdness. By the same token, however, our lives must also be exemplary and blameless in the midst of a wicked and perverse generation (Matthew 16:4). Our good deeds are to bear witness to our heavenly calling, and they are to glorify our Father in heaven (Matthew 5:14-16).

If in being obedient to our commission to make disciples (or in context here in Matthew to preach "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," v.7) we suffer for righteousness sake, then so be it. It is far better to suffer as our teacher has--since students are not above their teachers in this regard (vv.24,25), than to be well thought of and well spoken of by everyone we meet.

Jesus calls us to be both discerning and wise, as well as innocent and blameless. Even when we are called before kings and governors, God will give us the right words to use, if we prayerfully and humbly allow Him to anoint our testimony for Him (vv.19,20).

shrewdness is not without the elements of preparedness, study, audience analysis, and keen listening skills. Peter encourages us to

  . . . sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who ask you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).

To make a defense and to give an answer presumes, first, we are being asked questions, and second, we know how to respond to those questions, even if that means we become familiar with the arguments our opponents may use against us. To learn in advance how to answer those arguments is at the very heart of apologetics (Peter's Greek word for defense).

Interestingly, prior to sending out the "12" to preach to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," Jesus warned them that not everybody would accept their message (viz., "The kingdom of heaven is at hand"). His words to them:

  As you enter the house, give it your greeting. If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace. Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet (Matthew 10:12-14 NASB).

With his words, Jesus was in effect telling his disciples to recognize when their audience was unreceptive. The disciples were not to keep on preaching to a hostile audience; rather, they were to leave a hostile house or city and allow God to judge the people in his own way and time. Jesus said,

  Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city (Matthew 10:15 NASB).

In conclusion, I ask myself the question, "Am I truly listening to people's questions about the hope within me and responding accordingly, as Peter encourages me to do,  or am I simply delivering a 'one size fits all' message with no attempt to listen first, and then speak?" As James tells us,

  But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger (1:19).

I suspect that becoming angry with a hostile audience and venting one's anger on them will never accomplish the righteous purposes of God. Moreover, it might in fact do more harm than good (see James 1:20)!


This is a pretty important question, so it will take some time to address.

Yes, Jesus refers to God as Father, and the Father did, indeed, send Jesus.  However, Jesus Himself claimed to be God.  This is only reconcilable as we understand the Trinity.

First of all, it should be noted that most Christians do not believe that God (the Father) had sexual relations with God (the Mother) to produce Jesus (the Son).  To most Christians, this is as unthinkable as it is for Muslims.

Understanding the Trinity

The image of God is seen not only in mankind, but in all of creation, as every creation reflects the image of its creator.  This answer reveals something about me.

The Physical Universe is itself a trinity, consisting of 1) Time, 2) Space, and 3) Matter.  The three coexist, and one cannot exist without the other two.
Time is a trinity as well, consisting of 1) past, 2) present, and 3) future.  The past is not the present; the present is not the future; the future is not the past.
Space is also a trinity, existing in three dimensions--length, width, and height.
Matter also consists of three distinct forms--1) solid, 2) liquid, and 3) gas.  Water (H20 - 3 molecules/one substance) coexists as ice, water and vapor.
Mankind is a trinity as well, consisting of 1) body, 2) soul, and 3) spirit.  One's soul is not his body; his body is not his spirit; and his spirit is not his body.

So, creation reflects the image of its Creator, as can be seen in many different ways.  God is understood by most Christians to be a Trinity--Father, Son, and Spirit.

The relationship of "Son" to "Father" does indicate reproduction or time with God, who is beyond time, space, and matter (since He created those).  The Father sends the Son (and the Son sends the Spirit).  So, there is a Divine Order, but not Divine generation.

Even in the Old Testament, God says, "Let Us make man in Our image, in Our likeness."  Genesis 1:26  The Koran affirms that God's word cannot be changed, so both the Old and New Testaments can be trusted.

Jesus is God

John 1:1-14 is fairly explicit.  Here, Jesus is introduced to us with the title "The Word", who was 1) in the beginning, 2) was with God, and who 3) was God.  The Word became a man.  This reveals that it is Jesus who was the Word who became a man and lived among us.
In John 8:58, Jesus identifies Himself by the name with which He introduced Himself to Moses in Exodus 3--the I AM.  The people responded by picking up stones to stone Him, because they knew exactly what He was claiming, and that was not merely that He was 2,000 years old, but that He was God.
Also, the Jews proclaimed that the very reason they wanted Him crucified was that He claimed to be God.  (John 19:7)
In Revelation 1, Jesus also calls Himself "The Alpha and the Omega, the Almighty".

Conclusion

So, again, Jesus is "The Son"--not that He was conceived by a father and mother, but that this is His relationship to the First Person of the Trinity, the Father.

God eternally exists as a Trinity, just as the physical universe itself, time, space, matter, and we ourselves all exist as trinities, reflecting our Creator.

REFERENCES

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3  All things were
  made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was
  made...  14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have
  seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of
  grace and truth. John 1:1-3, 14 ESV

  Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”  John 8:58 ESV

  The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”  John 19:7

  “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”  Revelation 1:8 ESV*

  Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of
  the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over
  every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in
  his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
  created them.  Genesis 1:26-27 ESV

  Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also
  of the tree of life and eat, and live forever”  Genesis 3:22 ESV


Are there any laid down guidelines to enrich and strengthen Christian faith?

Broadly here are a few points which can greatly help to strengthen us in our faith:

Know the steps and daily chores of how to persevere in maintaining and enriching one's own faith. See the link provided in comments from @Wikis.
Teaching skills and imparting an in-depth religious knowledge to defend the faith.
Making known to everyone which are the susceptible areas where Satan would initiates his lure, for making us weak in our faith.
Making aware of the uniqueness, strong points and truthfulness of Christianity.
Teaching the hollowness, deceptiveness and errors in other faith. This aspect has been woefully and foolishly kept out of syllabus of our Catechism classes and we are paying a heavy price for it. On the other hand other faiths are solely dependent on this aspect for their propagation since they hardly stand an in-depth scrutiny of their own faith and prosper by deceptively propagating negative information about our faith.
Imparting training on how to strike a conversation with people of other faith so as to make them aware we are on much stronger ground and where they falter readily.
Teaching and exhorting Christians to live their faith in their daily dealings with outside world, especially with non believers and in public. They need to be taught for not to feel awkward in practicing Christian faith in public places.
Teaching Christians to be good example to people of other faith so that as Jesus said ' world would know that we are disciples of Jesus' and not to give an impression that we are not practicing what has been taught by Jesus as was once commented by Mahatma Gandhi.

I am not aware of any official document on similar lines from any of denomination. It highly probable that something on these lines would definitely be available somewhere.


How do the vestments of the pontiff emeritus compare to those of a bishop emeritus?

Previous popes who abdicated lived in seclusion (in fact Celestine V was imprisoned) so it's highly unlikely that there will be any useful or easily-available records of what they did. As Benedict XVI has said that he will do likewise, any answer must necessarily speculate. It is possible to draw on general rules, though.

The pope's priestly ordination and episcopal consecration cannot be expunged, so he is entitled to wear clothes and vestments appropriate to clergy of those ranks. Thus he will continue to wear a clerical collar and cassock, and can continue to wear a greco (long coat), tabarro (long outdoor cape) and pellegrino (short shoulder-cape). Normally the greco is white for the pope; his tabarro and pellegrino are red; everything is black for all other clergy.

Here's Bl John Paul II in a greco (from Dieter Philippi):

Here's a cardinal in a tabarro and pellegrino (ibid). He's also wearing a black cassock with red buttons and a scarlet cincture. The headgear is called a zucchetto.

Because the Pope Emeritus remains a bishop, he is entitled to the "pontificals" of a bishop in liturgical celebrations. However he does not have jurisdiction over a diocese, so will not use anything which would indicate that, such as the mozzetta (the short cape which is buttoned at the front); nor will there be a seventh candle on the altar if he is principal celebrant.

Here's a picture of a mozzetta (Dieter Philippi again). The pope's is fur-lined or fur-trimmed; other ranks are simply cloth of the colour of their rank. The difference between a mozzetta and a pellegrino is that a mozzetta is buttoned in front.

Thus it may be expected that Benedict XVI will continue to wear an amethyst1 ring, and in liturgical celebrations will wear a mitre, pectoral cross and carry a crozier. I would expect that the crozier will be used "facing backwards" — that is, with the hook facing towards himself — as that is the traditional indication that the bearer has no ordinary jurisdiction in the place. The picture reproduced below shows a bishop wearing a mitre (the hat) with a pectoral cross (on his chest) and carrying a crozier in the manner of a bishop without jurisdiction.

1 Bishops wear an amethyst ring, and purple cinctures, because amethyst in Greek means "I am not drunk". It's a reference to Acts 2:15.


What is the Biblical basis for an Old Earth?

There is a idea, known as Gap Theory, that says that the first few verses of Genesis should be translated as the following:

Genesis 1:1

  1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth [became]* without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

* Brackets denote what some believe is a more accurate translation of the word is.

This is due the the different translations for the Hebrew word "hayah". So, this understanding would indicate that there was an arbitrary amount of time between when God created the earth and when the rest of the creation story occurred.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in Hebrew, so I cannot offer a more technical information this particular word. But here is Strong's Hebrew Lexicon definition:

  1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (Compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

Here is the beginning of the second verse in Hebrew:

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ - ve·ha·'a·retz - the earth

הָיְתָ֥ה - ha·ye·tahm - was (or become)

תֹ֙הוּ֙ - to·hu - (formless)


Is there a difference between celebrating Mass for a living person and for a deceased one?

When Catholics say that a Mass is celebrated "for" something or someone, it just means that the priest offers the Mass—which for Catholics is the very highest form of prayer—for the sake of some intention. It is a kind of intercessory prayer, and Masses can be offered for any kind of intention (for example, for an end to a war or famine, for a recovery from illness, or simply for the sake of the local Church).

When they say that the Mass is offered "for someone," it just means that the priest offering the Mass at the behest of that person (or perhaps even a third party; for instance, a mother might ask a priest to offer the Mass for her son).

When that person in question is deceased, the Mass in question is usually offered for the repose of the soul of that person.

(For those who are not familiar with the doctrine, the Church teaches that it is possible for someone to die in the state of friendship with God, but not completely sanctified or purified. For those persons, a purification is needed after death: what Catholics call "Purgatory." Note that Purgatory is not an intermediate state between Heaven and Hell, but, as it were, the antechamber of Heaven, where people prepare to enter Heaven. According to Catholic doctrine, all of the souls in Purgatory will reach the Divine Presence in the end.)

Catholics believe that intercessory prayer can help those persons that need it to complete their purification after death. Since the Mass is the highest form of intercessory prayer possible, many (if not most) Masses are celebrated with for the sake of some loved one who is deceased.

Returning to the question, determining which purpose is the more important is complex, because it depends on the intention requested.

For example, the repentance of someone not in friendship with God is more important than the purification of a deceased person in Purgatory, since the salvation of the souls in Purgatory is assured, whereas the salvation of the former person is in peril.

On the other hand, praying for someone in Purgatory is probably (at least absolutely speaking) more important than praying for someone's physical healing, because (at least according to the testimony that many saints and mystics have given) the purification in Purgatory causes a suffering much greater than that caused by illness.

One should also keep in mind that although each Mass has what is called a "first intention"—which is regulated by Canon law to avoid abuses in collecting  donations for Masses—a single Mass can have any number of "second intentions." Therefore a single Mass could be offered for both a living person and a deceased one, or several of each. Moreover, the "second intentions" are not worth "less" than the first; it is just that only first can be attached to a donation (and priests may collect a maximum of one per day).

The reason that most Masses are offered for deceased souls (as a first intention) has less to do, I think, with the intrinsic importance of the intention, as with the spiritual needs of the faithful. Many people request Masses for their deceased relatives, usually with a small donation (stipend), and therefore these, as a practical matter, become the most common first intention.


How do Christians respond to and/or explain the similarities between other societies' Gods and that of Jesus

I will post later using this information here, but for now, I have copied the image supplied by Jayarathina Madharasan

It seems that there are actually not as many similarities as certain people on the internet would like you to believe.


What is the reason for differences for Genesis 3:9 among Bible translations?

The Hebrew text of Gen. 3:9 according to the Masoretic text states,

  וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶל הָאָדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אַיֶּכָּה

The Hebrew word הָאָדָם (ha-adam) is composed of the definite article הָ (ha) prefixed to the noun אָדָם (adam). While the word אָדָם by itself may be translated as either "(a) man" or "Adam" (Gesenius, p. 13), whenever the word is prefixed with the definite article, it probably means "the man" and not "Adam." It would be highly unorthodox for a proper name to be prefixed with the definite article in Hebrew. For example, we see דויד (David), never הדויד (ha-David). Thus, it would be translated into English as,

  And Yahveh God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"


To JWs, how is Jesus Christ "the same yesterday and today, and forever"?

Pretty simply, actually.  His pre-existence (yesterday) is explained as a special case:

  Unlike any other human, Jesus lived in heaven as a spirit person before he was born on earth. (John 8:23) He was God’s first creation, and he helped in the creation of all other things. He is the only one created directly by Jehovah and is therefore appropriately called God’s “only-begotten” Son.

Jesus' resurrection returned him to his spirit-being (today and forever):

  After Jesus died, God restored him to life as a spirit person. (1 Peter 3:18) Jesus then waited at God’s right hand until Jehovah gave him power to rule as King over all the earth. (Hebrews 10:12, 13) Now Jesus is ruling as King in heaven, and his followers are announcing that good news worldwide

The quotes above are taken from the JW website and a publication titled "Who is Jesus Christ?"


Which groups of Christians hold signs about Jesus or Christianity in public, and why?

I am not aware of any denominations that display such signs as an official part of their teaching or practices, so the only way of knowing why someone displays such a sign is to ask them.

Beyond that, we can only speculate...

There are two legitimate reasons I can think of to possibly do this:

The most obvious would be simple evangelism.  That is, fullfilment of the great commission, to make disciples.  Many people, I suspect, see such signs and advertisements as a way to spread the good news of Christ's salvation to the world.

Whether such methods are effective evangelism tools is not really on-topic for this question. (And I suspect their effectiveness is very cultural-dependent).
The other legitimate reason I can imagine is praise and worship.  Billboards that read "Jesus is Lord" might be there for the purpose of evangelizing to non-believers, or they might be there simply as a public expression of praise.

And one other possibly legitimate, or possibly illegitimate reason I can imagine:

To earn favor with God. Some Christians might feel it is their duty to do such a thing.  Whether this is legitimate or not may depend on which denomination you ask, as well as specific motives, and is beyond the scope of this question.

Some Christians feel it is a duty to "stand boldly for Christ" in the "culture wars," and might feel this is one way to do that.

And there are many illegitimate reasons I can imagine one might do this.

To look cool. Someone might think waving such a sign makes them look cool.  If not to the general public, perhaps to other members of their church, a love interest, or to themselves.
To look lame. Someone might intentionally put themselves in a situation where they might be ridiculed, so as to be a victim of "religious persecution"... sort of a "martyr mentality."


Are there any trinitarian Christian denominations that believe one should only pray to the Father, not to Jesus?

After hours of research, I have found only one Trinitarian denomination where SOME members believe it is wrong to pray to Jesus.  It is the Churches of Christ, not to be confused with the International Churches of Christ.  Here is an extract from a relevant article which also shows why the majority of Churches of Christ members don’t have a problem in praying to Jesus:

"Here are the facts—God is God, Jesus is God, and the Spirit is God. The Scriptures affirm this. I’ll not give any Scripture on the fact that the Father is God because that’s a foregone conclusion to most. However, let’s first look to Jesus as God—“Thomas answered [Jesus], ‘My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). If Jesus isn’t God, then why did Thomas say what he said? Therefore, if Jesus is God, He should be afforded all glory and praise just as the Father. Jesus said that He deserved the same honor as His Father (John 5:23) and even received worship (John 9:35–38).
Some believe it wrong to pray to Jesus, and they reason thus, “When Christ prayed to God, He prayed to the Father and not Himself. Just look at the Lord’s Prayer.” That’s true, but in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus didn’t pray for the sick, and yet I’m sure that most of our prayers are limited to praying for the sick. At least, most of our bulletin prayer lists are limited to such. The Lord’s Prayer doesn’t cover all that can be prayed for, and, therefore, to whom we may pray.
If Jesus is God who deserves the same honor as the Father, then why can’t He be addressed in prayer? Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59). Paul prayed to Jesus (2 Corinthians 12:8). The Corinthians called on the name of Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:2). Those who called on His name were bound by Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:14). Prayers were presented to Jesus, the slain Lamb, in heaven by the twenty-four elders (Revelation 5:8). Time and again, Jesus received prayer. The idea that Christ is anything less than God defies clear passages stating such. “For in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). Just read all of Colossians to see just how much of God Jesus is. And John too." (1)

Trinitarian denominations that uphold the Nicene creed have no problem in praying to Jesus since he is part of the One Being of God.  When Trinitarians pray to God, they are praying to all three members of the Godhead.

"The Nicene Creed, accepted and used in the whole church since the 4th century, says of the Spirit: “who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.” This means that all three members of the Trinity were prayed to.
Prayers to Jesus were very frequent, even typical, in the early apocryphal Christian writings, including public/liturgical prayers, though they were not commonly used by the second century apologists. Prayers to Jesus became more frequent in certain areas of Christianity after the 4th century.
Clement of Alexandria (c.150 – c. 215) included a rare prayer to Jesus toward the end of his The Instructor. This prayer appeals to Jesus to perfect believers that they would give thanks and praise to “the unique Father and Son, Son and Father . . . with the Holy Spirit, all in One.” (2)

The only denominations who refuse to pray to Jesus are anti-Trinitarian.
(1) https://start2finish.org/churches-christ-trinitarian/
(2) https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/the-trinity/prayer-and-trinity/


How is the situation of "divorce her quietly" in Matthew 1:19 according to Catholicism?

"Divorce" (in the sense of the Bills of Divorce that Moses permitted; cf. Mt. 5:31, 19:7 & Deut. 24:1,3) in your translation of Mt. 1:19 is not the same thing as "put[ting] her away privately," as the Rheims translation puts it, which is really separation. Issuing a Bill of Divorce would be "publicly to expose her," which "Joseph her husband" was not "willing to" do. Also, St. Joseph did not consider issuing her a Bill of Divorce because he was "a just man."

Here's what the Catholic Haydock Commentary says on Mt. 1:19:

  Ver. 19. And Joseph her husband, knowing her strict virtue, was surprised at this her pregnancy, but "being a just man," and not willing to expose her, by denouncing her, or giving her a bill of divorce, he had a mind to dismiss her privately, committing the whole cause to God. Let us learn from Joseph to be ever tender of our neighbour's reputation, and never to entertain any injurious thoughts, or any suspicions to his prejudice. (Haydock)

In Canon Law, there's a distinction between a ratum et consummatum (ratified and consummated) marriage and a ratum sed non consummatum (ratified but not consummated marriage). Before the birth of Christ, Sts. Joseph's and Mary's marriage was not consummated, so if they were alive today, the Roman Pontiff could technically dissolve their marriage bond (Can. 1142). However, the angel convinced St. Joseph not to dismiss her, saying "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." (1:20).


What information do we have on the real vision of Pope Leo XIII?

It appears we have no true historical information on the alleged vision of Pope Leo XIII.  The Global Catholic Network says that in 1934 a German writer, Father Bers, investigated the origins of the story of Leo’s vision. “Wherever one looks,” he observed, “one may find this claim — but nowhere a trace of proof.” Father Bers quoted a priest who visited with Leo XIII when the prayer was instituted in 1886:

  When the prayers which the priest says after Mass were being instituted, I happened to have a short audience with the Holy Father. During the conversation Leo XIII mentioned what he was going to prescribe and recited all the prayers from memory. This he did with such deep-seated conviction of the power of the cosmic rulers of this darkness and of the beguilement which they cause, that I was quite struck by it.

Father Bers concluded:

  Therefore it can be safely assumed that the Holy Father would have spoken of the vision if he had had it — or that at least the reporter would have mentioned it — since it would have been most relevant to the general purport of the statement. Consequently, the argument “from silence” seems to indicate clearly that the “vision” had been invented in later times for some reason, and was now feeding upon itself “like a perpetual sickness.”

The article goes on to summarise the problems with associating the supposed vision with the institution of the St. Michael prayer:

Writings which promote the story give no references to sources.
The various accounts contradict each other as to where the vision
supposedly took place — after Mass at the foot of the altar, or in a
conference with cardinals.
The various accounts are inconsistent about the date of the vision.
The dates the accounts give for the alleged vision (1880, 1884 and
1888) do not correspond with the date when the St. Michael prayer was
actually instituted (1886).
There appears to be no corroboration for the story in a contemporary
account which one would expect to have mentioned the event, had it
indeed taken place.


Who are David and Sibyls in the first stanza of Dies Iræ?

Dies Irae is a Latin hymn or sequence prescribed for the Roman Catholic Requiem Mass (Mass for the Dead or Funeral Mass) as well as on the Feast of All Souls (November 2) until the liturgical reforms which followed the Second Vatican Council. It could be noted that there are more translations in English than in any other modern language of this hymn. By 1913, the English renderings numbered 234, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the subject.
Fish Eaters has this to say about King David and the Sibyls:

These women are often depicted in medieval dramas, Jesse Trees and Nativity scenes. One hears of the Sibyls in Catholic chant and hymns, too: on Christmas Eve, after Matins and before Mass, The Song of the Sibyl was sung all over Europe until the Council of Trent (now this custom, restored in some places in the 17th c., remains mostly in Spain). They are most famously mentioned in the "Dies Irae," sung at Masses for the dead. Its opening lines:

Dies irae, dies illa,

solvet saeculum in favilla,

teste David cum Sibylla.

That day of wrath,

that dreadful day,
shall heaven and earth in ashes lay,

as David and the Sybil say.

Who were these women whom Christians group with King David and the great Old Covenant Prophets?

Who Was the Corroborating Sibyl in Dies Irae?

We are startled to have the Sibyl brought in as a supporting witness: Teste David cum Sibylla. The Sibyl is a virginal prophetess, who is the medium and mouthpiece of the religious or inspired traditions of paganism. The Erythrean Sibyl and the Samian Sibyl are credited with prophecies concerning the Last Judgment and the end of the world. The reference to the pagan prophetess is likely prompted by the practice of Christian art, which since the thirteenth century has placed the Sibyls at the side of, or rather opposite to, the prophets. We know today that the twelve books of Sibylline prophecy that have come down to us are not genuine, but among Christians of earlier centuries there was a widespread belief in their authenticity. St. Jerome has a passage that implies some credence on his part. Lactantius even quotes the pronouncements of the Sibyls as divinely inspired. The great St. Thomas declares: "Etiam Sibyllae multa vera praedixerunt de Christo" (Summa, II-II, Q. clxxii, art. 6). St. Augustine quotes a Sibylline utterance on the destruction of the world, but he seems to have his tongue in his cheek and says that the Sibylline prophecies in general can be looked upon as the inventions of certain Christians: "Istae prophetiae possunt putari a christianis esse confictae" (De Civ. Dei, lib. XVIII, cap. 47). Perhaps Thomas of Celano believed that certain individuals outside of the Chosen People received revelations concerning certain mysteries, and gave the Sibyl a distinction she did not deserve by adducing her as a witness. - Dies Irae, Masterpiece of Latin Poetry by Msgr. Paul E. Campbell, M.A., Litt.D., Ed.D.

As a side note, Michelangelo painted five Sibyls on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
Let us remember that King David had incurred the wrath of God as expressed through the prophet Nathan (I Samuel 11-12).

Worst of all, David had one of his own soldiers killed so he could take his wife for himself, which incurred the wrath of God as expressed through the prophet Nathan (I Samuel 11-12). Yet David repented and sought forgiveness (Psalm 51 is associated with this incident), which God freely granted while not exempting him from the consequences of this flagrant infraction of his law. - A flawed king: David


I am a professional archeologist.  Many end times aficionados believe that Magog represents Russia and that Russia will soon come to invade Israel.  However, the ancient Assyrians had dealings with Magog, which was also called Lydia, and their Court records clearly identify Magog and it is not Russia.  For decades Christians have been deceived and have been unwittingly deceiving others about who is to be involved in the prophesied invasion of Israel.  Russia has absolutely nothing to do with Magog and being the nation that will lead an invasion of Israel.

The Assyrian Royal Court dealt with each of these nations directly about 100 years before Ezekiel wrote, and their records are reliable, clear and detailed. These are the same records that are referred to in Ezra 4:15 and the same records used to verify the historical events written about in scripture from circa 800 B.C. to 400 B.C. These records represent the primary source on this subject as opposed to secondary sources which are often not based on facts and very often the product of mischief, bias or lack of study.

Any reference to Josephus is of no avail because historians and archeologists know from a multitude of written records, that the Greeks (such as Herodotus) did not call Magog the Scythians.  All of our earliest copies of Josephus come from eleventh century Monks and the passage that is often referred to is clearly a forgery for several reasons obvious to historians and archeologists who study the ancient Near East.

Please consider taking the time to read my report Debunking the Russia/War of Gog and Magog Myth on this important subject that recently appeared in the Christian Post Blogs on March 15, 2012. This report can also be found on my blog site for 2/9/12.


Wormwood is an angel/star from the book of Revelation. The name wormwood is a pun on a Hebrew saying: the name means curse or cursed (and can arguably be traced back to a bitter-tasting plant) and so Wormwood enacts curses in the book of Revelation however, where this occurs in the Old Testament it is almost certainly referring to a curse or to a "cursed" plant with a bitter taste.


What is the biblical argument against having a concubine?

Overseers and deacons are told to be a one woman man in the pastoral epistles, and Christians are told to model the behavior of these men. (1 Timothy 3:12)

Additionally, Ephesians 5 roots the institution of marriage in creation and demonstrates that its intent was always to point to the profound mystery revealed: Christ's marriage to the church. As a picture of a healthy monogamous marriage in pre-fallen creation, it demonstrates that the creation ideal of marriage applies to Christian marriages.

As Jesus said that certificates of divorce were allowed due to hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8) but in the beginning it was not so, he demonstrates that for a time, these non-ideal marriages were permitted though they were never a good thing. As people indwelled by the Spirit, they were expected to be in line with the restoration of creation, and the modeling of the Christ/Church marriage.

Finally, Calvin himself denounced Lamech and Laban as perverters of the original mandate for having one wife in his commentary on Genesis.


Why does Humanae Vitae not mention involuntary celibates/singles?

To answer the first question, I don't think the choice to leave out single people in a document about marriage was unfair. Humane Vitae necissarily leaves out a large number of people, including people who are divorced, widowed, same-sex attracted, single-parents, consecrated religious, etc, just because they aren't the focus of the encyclical. I agree that the Church could say more about a lot of people, but that's another conversation.

In response to your comment about marriage being a "choice of free will", remember marriage is two people freely choosing to be together. It is not the choice of one person, because that wouldn't be marriage. Even if someone really, really wanted to get married, they couldn't just will a vocation to marriage. The vocation to marriage is not being called to an abstract idea, it is being called to a particular person, a particular person who feels the same call and also wants to be married. Unless you meet that person, you can't make a free will choice to get married. Not being married might be frustrating because it's not your choice, but not everyone gets the vocation they want. There were plenty of saints who wanted one vocation and got another, so you have a lot of heavenly friends to turn to.

Edit/Re: what if no one by free will chooses to even give you a chance to win their heart (date, or court)? –

On one level, the answer is simple. If no one chooses to date you, then it probably means that, at least for now, you are called to singleness. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or anything; I don't mean it as a put-down.

How you view singleness is completely up to you. It doesn't have to be seen as a bad thing. It doesn't mean that you are unlikeable, ugly, unworthy, defective or a bad person. It literally only means that you aren't in a romantic relationship. There are millions of factors at play; you don't have 100% control here.

People say no for all kinds of reasons. It might seem like they "aren't giving you a chance" or are rejecting you unfairly, but that isn't always the case. Maybe the person is interested in someone else or feels like they are called to religious life. Maybe they are other impediments to a potential relationship that they are aware of, but you aren't. A lot of times people aren't saying no to be mean, it's just that they don't want to hurt you by pretending that they want to be in a romantic relationship with you when they actually don't. Sure, some people in the world are actually mean, and genuinely like putting people down. But not everyone is like that, and you'll be much happier if you appreciate honesty.

Finally, it's not true that no one is offering you their heart. If you are Catholic and believe in the Eucharist, you know God literally is freely offering His heart and His whole life to you in the Mass/Eucharistic adoration, hoping you'll say yes and give Him a chance. I'm not a spiritual director, just a random person on the internet with zero credibility, but I'd be presumptuous enough to guess that God cares more about your well-being than you do, and that He cares more about whether or not you'll be a saint than whether or not you'll get married. Maybe, just maybe, He's letting you be single so you have a chance to find out how much you're loved by Him, instead of being completely distracted with trying to substitute it with human love.

Maybe try spending more time with Him. Focus on friends and family. Try offering your talents and time to others in service/volunteering. Spend time learning/enjoying life. That won't necessarily fix all the problems or find you a significant other, but you'll be happier with life as it is now.


What is an overview of different denominations' beliefs about how Jesus Christ performed miracles? (By the Holy Spirit or by something else?)

One theory that suggests the source of the miracles was from other the Holy Spirit is  Dr. Cleon Skousen's "Intelligence Theory"(summarized here, transcript here), which he explained in a talk to a group of LDS missionaries.

It's not official LDS doctrine, but it is based primarily on LDS scripture. The gist of it is this:

Before the creation, everything was organized into intelligences.
God is the greatest of these intelligences.
Upon creation, intelligences were assigned to the elements. Some intelligences just know how to rotate in circles around protons and neutrons, some intelligences were assigned to animals, or humans. Clearly based on their capacity and purpose.
God's power is his honor. These intelligences obey God because He is perfect in every sense. The elements change at His requests in order to pay Him this honor.

There are apparently some arguments (which I have not yet read), and my quick summary probably doesn't do the theory justice, but it is one (I'm sure of many) theories that may be able to answer your question.


What did Jesus mean when He said we must "eat His flesh and drink His blood"?

We often let ourselves get trapped by not searching for other Scriptures which may help to explain what we do not fully understand.

This particular scripture is complicated by the part following which denotes his following lessening, because they did not understand that Jesus was not speaking of literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Today after knowing all about his death and resurrection understand that.

Jesus being an eternal being would have seen all of his teachings as if they were one continuous diatribe. Therefore we must consider all of his teaching at once. the following are some of his sayings which give meaning to this particular Scripture.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

  John 6:35  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

This Scripture gives meaning to eating his body and drinking his blood, and we need to also remember the reason we eat and drink in the first place. Our reason for eating and drinking is to sustain life. The same is true of our spirit and our eternal life. If we are to remain in consonance with Jesus teachings we need to continue to feed that spirit in order to keep it alive and well.

  John 6:32 and 33 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

It is quite obvious that Jesus is not talking about Worldly bread, as the Manna and quail which Moses asked of God; but is referring to Spiritual bread. All of these saying were in direct response to his disciples.

  John 6:28 through 31  Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29  Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30  They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31  Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

It probably frustrated Jesus that they could not put together his teachings to understand, and it must still frustrate him, that we cannot understand; even today with all of his word condensed into the Gospels. Which is probably why he said:

  John 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

For them they had been with him during his teaching, however we did not have that privilege, and must study the Scriptures in order to connect all of his teaching.

It would have been necessary that they completely remember and understand his teachings since they would be tasked with passing them on to posterity, in written form.

Hope this helps