According to Catholicism, is repeatedly visiting a Protestant church a mortal sin?

The short answer is: No. Providing that one assists at the sacrifice of the Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

  Sunday Mass and Holy Day Obligation

  It is both a precept of the Church and Church law that Catholics must worship God on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation by participating in the Holy Mass. This follows from the fact that in the Mass it is Christ Himself who worships the Father, joining our worship to His. In no other way is it possible to adequately give thanks (eucharistia) to God for the blessings of creation, redemption and our sanctification than by uniting our offerings to that of Jesus Christ Himself. Following the example of the Old Covenant the Church does this weekly, on the day of the Lord's Resurrection.

    Canon 1247

    On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.

    Canon 1248

    The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.
    If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the liturgy of the word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families.

  Since a "grave cause" is needed to excuse one from this obligation it would be a serious or mortal sin to willfully skip Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation, as the Church has always taught. Reasons such as the necessity to work to support one's family, child care, personal sickness or the care of the sick, necessary travel etc. would excuse a person on a particular occasions. Those who have continuing reason to be excused should consult their pastor.

  If a priest is not available in an area and only a Liturgy of the Word or a Communion Service is offered the Mass obligation does not "transfer" to such services. As canon 1248 notes, participation is recommended for the spiritual value, especially if Communion is distributed.

The reason for "visiting" another church may because of several causes. One may be helping a non-Catholic family member to get to their church. One may be doing this for many, many reasons. But the obligation to participate in the sacrifice of the Mass takes precedence and must be fulfilled.

If in doubt, one should seek advice for competent authority such as a deacon, priest or bishop.

I know the case of a deaf woman who after attending a Catholic Mass, she goes to a Protestant service because their services have sign language and no one at her Church (Mass) does sign language. This is done with permission from the diocese where she lives.

Catholics could also be hired by a Protestant Churches to play an organ at their services because of their expertise. Our Catholic parish actually hired a Protestant to play the organ at Mass because of her expertise in playing the organ.

"Visiting" a non-Catholic church is not a mortal sin, providing it remains just that:"visiting". If it is done habitually, one should clarify the situation with one's local pastor or priest.


Yes they are the same trumpet blast because during both Scriptures you have the second coming of Jesus and the resurrection.

In Matthew 24

  the angels "will gather his elect from the four winds"

In 1 Thess 4:16-17

  the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain
  shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord
  in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

May I also add it is the same as 1 Corinthians 15:51-52

  Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
  be changed—  in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised
  incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


In what countries is it illegal to own a Bible (the most banned book in the world)?

Regrettably, there are many countries with legal or customary restrictions on the Bible. While a total ban is comparatively rare (e.g., North Korea punishes any possession of religious literature by death or imprisonment), it is more common for ownership or distribution to be limited:

To certain government-approved groups only. For example, China allows distribution of Bibles for churches or seminaries that are part of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement / China Christian Council, and they are sold in some bookshops, but cannot generally be mail-ordered by individuals or unregistered churches. Several other nations require government approval before religious books (or any books) can be printed.
To foreigners only. Maldives says citizens must be Muslim, and foreigners are allowed to practice their religion in private; Bibles can be imported for personal use.
In certain languages only. Morocco allows Bibles in French, English, and Spanish, but not Arabic.
Can't publish, but can import. Turkmenistan does not allow publication of Bibles. They can be imported, in limited numbers and with permission, by registered churches.

Restrictions on attempts to convert members of other religions may also result in de facto bans on Bibles. Similarly, government actions in the name of "public order" may have the same effect, even if there is no law specifically banning Bible publication or ownership. In several cases, effective bans on religious freedom take place despite supposed constitutional guarantees to the contrary. Experiences may vary in different parts of the same country, or at different times.

So "illegal" is perhaps the wrong word, and we should instead be thinking of "Can anyone easily obtain a Bible in this country without attracting official difficulties?". Any such list will have fuzzy edges, of course. One indicator might be the ease with which Bible societies are able to do their work. They are organized groups with a missionary element and so the bar is higher for them than for private individuals.

The Gideons have a list of countries where they are not allowed to operate:

  Afghanistan, Algeria, China (People's Republic), Comoros, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen

However, for some of these countries, other groups exist: there are United Bible Societies chapters for Algeria, Iraq, Morocco, and China, and some presence in Comoros, Djibouti, Mauritania and Somalia. The Catholic Bible Federation also operates in Iran. Not all of these efforts may be entirely government-approved.

For more detailed information, the US State Department issues annual reports on religious freedom with detailed assessments of the conditions on the ground in each country.  In particular, they distinguish between what the country's law says, how the government acts, and how the wider society responds.


Is there a Christian equivalent of Mandala (word or symbol)?

Is there a Christian equivalent for the use of a mandala (word or symbol) in Church architecture?
Some Christians simply call them mandalas. Different denominations have adopted different terms for them, according to their usage.
Simply put, Christians added beauty to their churches in various ways and mandalas are simply one of those options.
For example in many Catholic Churches, they are called rose windows if made out of stained glass. This type of architecture is quite common in larger churches and cathedrals.

Mandala is the Sanskrit word for circle, and the great psychologist Carl Jung called it an “archetype of wholeness.” Archetypes are those basic patterns and symbols that repeat across cultures and traditions, emerging from a collective unconscious or shared well of images.  Jung saw mandalas as expressions of the deep self’s longing for integration and a visual map toward our own spiritual centers.  He would spend time each morning creating mandalas in response to his dreams and advised his patients to do the same.
The circle is a universal symbol appearing in nature -- think of the shape of the planets, moon, and sun.  It is also found across religions -- think of the ancient stone circles found across Ireland or the intricate sand mandalas that Tibetan Buddhist monks create.   We find it in the Catholic tradition as well.  Consider the communion wafers we partake of each week or the wedding bands that symbolize the eternal nature of that sacramental commitment as elemental expressions of the mandala form.
In churches we often find the more stunning displays of mandalas: the rose window.  The first rose window was created about the year 1200 originating in France and then spreading throughout European churches.  Considered part of French Gothic architecture, they are fairly characteristic of medieval churches.
The rose window functions on several different levels at once. Think about a time when you were inside a church and sunlight spilled through a stained glass window casting colored beams across the sacred space.  This interaction between light, glass, and color sparks something transcendent within us. Our hearts feel lifted in their longings for the holy.
In rose windows, typically Christ or the Virgin Mary appears in the central rosette as the center point -- an expression of our desire for and movement toward holiness.  In the petals surrounding the center may be images from the liturgical cycles and seasons of the year, the Saints and Apostles, the virtues, or sometimes the Zodiac.  These petals act as paths guiding our eyes always back to the center. It is meant to be a symbol of our own spiritual journey and how to return back to that which is most important to us.
Domed ceilings in churches are another architectural expression of this sacred form, usually having a window up to the sky in the center, allowing the light to radiate into the building.  Monasteries were often built around central cloisters.  These were usually square in shape because of the building wall structure, but in the center there was often a lush garden or sometimes a fountain as an expression of God’s abundance and dwelling place at the center of monastic life.
Labyrinths are sacred circle forms being rediscovered today, with the most famous one at Chartres Cathedral in France. They contain a circuitous path that eventually leads to the center and are symbolic of the soul’s journey to the divine center within.  In the middle ages, labyrinths were used as metaphorical pilgrimages for those who could not journey to the holy city of Jerusalem.  Walking a labyrinth is a profoundly meditative experience, in part because the circular journey helps to integrate both sides of the brain in prayer and so frees the mind from a strictly linear way of approaching God.
Rosaries are also examples of the sacred circle as a form to support prayer. The word “rosary” comes from the Latin for “garland of roses.”  In Catholicism the rose symbolizes the Virgin Mary and the layers of petals draw our awareness toward the center.  Praying the rosary is a kinesthetic experience of holding each of the round beads between our fingers and repeating our prayers as our hands also move around the circle, offering us an experience of wholeness through both word and body.
Mandalas or sacred circles offer us a template for the interior journey to the heart of ourselves where we encounter the heart of God present as well.

Mandalas in the form of a labyrinth within church architecture may symbolize either Hell or the Pilgrim's Way depending on its usage.

Though originally seen as metaphors for the dark powers of Hell and our need to rely on Our Lady to show us her Son, over time labyrinths came to be seen quite differently. During the Crusades when Christians couldn't make visits to the Holy Land, and in the same manner that the Way of the Cross devotion developed as a sort of substitute "pilgrimage" to the Holy City, labyrinths came to be used as substitute "Chemins de Jerusalem." Christians, barred from earthly Zion, would walk the labyrinths, often on their knees in penance, meditating on the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sound easy? The paths of the Chartres labyrinth, for example, make for a journey of 858 feet. Imagine walking on your knees on cold, hard marble for almost the length of three football fields!

Plan of the labyrinth of Chartres Cathedral

Walking the labyrinth at Chartres Cathedral

Forms which are evocative of mandalas are prevalent in Christianity: the Celtic cross; the rosary; the halo; the aureole; oculi; the Crown of Thorns; rose windows; the Rosy Cross; and the dromenon on the floor of Chartres Cathedral. The dromenon represents a journey from the outer world to the inner sacred centre where the Divine is found.
The Cosmati pavements, including that at Westminster Abbey, are geometric mandala-like mosaic designs from thirteenth century Italy. The Great Pavement at Westminster Abbey is believed to embody divine and cosmic geometries as the seat of enthronement of the monarchs of England. - Wikipedia

Cosmati pulpit in Santa Maria Assunta in Lugnano in Teverina


When Friday asks "Why God no kill the devil?" is Robinson Crusoe's response in line with Anglican theology?

Your presumption that Defoe's character Robinson Crusoe was an Anglican appears to be a matter of highly speculative opinion. The Wikipedia page detailing DeFoe's biography states that his parents were Presbyterian dissenters, and that his education was in Presbyterian and Unitarian institutions, and that he was associated with Unitarianism. Under these circumstances, it would seem that there is little theological basis that is specifically Anglican in Robinson Crusoe. Further, as I recall from past reading,  for several hudred years between th Accession of Elizabeth I following the death of Queen Mary, and the resulting restoration of the English Reformation,  the Church of England styled itself as the Catholic Church, not the Anglican church. Under English law it was illegal for an adherent of the Roman church to use the term "catholic". So when Defoe writing "Robinson Crusoe" uses the term "protestant", it is juxtaposed against the situation that what we now know as the Church of England was legally the "Catholic" church, and in that context, "protestant" would likely have meant non-conforming disdenters.

Having written that, it should be noted that during DeFoe's lifetime, the Church of England had a much more Calvinist component to it's theology than the catholic influences that would enter with the Oxford Movement about a century after DeFoe's death.


Were there any saints who criticized the church?

There were some early examples of bishops criticizing the church at Rome, which typically is considered by some as "the church".  Saint Polycarp disagreed with Rome over its observance of Pascha (or Easter).  This in turn led to Saint Polycratus' disagreement with Pope Victor circa CE 190.  Saint Firmilian and Saint Cyprian disagreed with Rome over its observance of baptism.

The following is from Eusebius' recording of the criticism.

  But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:
  “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.
  He fell asleep at Ephesus.
  And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.
  Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?
  All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.
  I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”
  He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows:
  “I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire;1705 whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.”
  Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
  -source-

Polycrates is basically criticizing Victor of Rome for not following apostolic teaching.

This next example is a letter from Firmilian to Cyprian criticizing Pope Stephen's allowance of heretical baptism as equal to Christian baptism.  In his letter, he references the aforementioned Easter controversy, saying Rome feigns apostolic authority.

  But, moreover, you have well answered that part where Stephen said in his letter that heretics themselves also are of one mind in respect of baptism; and that they do not baptize such as come to them from one another, but only communicate with them; as if we also ought to do this. In which place, although you have already proved that it is sufficiently ridiculous for any one to follow those that are in error, yet we add this moreover, over and above, that it is not wonderful for heretics to act thus, who, although in some lesser matters they differ, yet in that which is greatest they hold one and the same agreement to blaspheme the Creator, figuring for themselves certain dreams and phantasms of an unknown God. Assuredly it is but natural that these should agree in having a baptism which is unreal, in the same way as they agree in repudiating the truth of the divinity. Of whom, since it is tedious to reply to their several statements, either wicked or foolish, it is sufficient shortly to say in sum, that they who do not hold the true Lord the Father cannot hold the truth either of the Son or of the Holy Spirit; according to which also they who are called Cataphrygians, and endeavour to claim to themselves new prophecies, can have neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, of whom, if we ask what Christ they announce, they will reply that they preach Him who sent the Spirit that speaks by Montanus and Prisca.
  -source-

They continue in their criticism.

  And as Stephen and those who agree with him contend that putting away of sins and second birth may result from the baptism of heretics, among whom they themselves confess that the Holy Spirit is not; let them consider and understand that spiritual birth cannot be without the Spirit; in conformity with which also the blessed Apostle Paul baptized anew with a spiritual baptism those who had already been baptized by John before the Holy Spirit had been sent by the Lord, and so laid hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. But what kind of a thing is it, that when we see that Paul, after John’s baptism, baptized his disciples again, we are hesitating to baptize those who come to the Church from heresy after their unhallowed and profane dipping. Unless, perchance, Paul was inferior to the bishops of these times, so that these indeed can by imposition of hands alone give the Holy Spirit to those heretics who come (to the Church), while Paul was not fitted to give the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands to those who had been baptized by John, unless he had first baptized them also with the baptism of the Church.
  -ibid-

His letter is a very interesting read, especially given that the Catholic Church finally recognizes in LDS baptism the same problem that Stephen failed to grasp.

So yes to the OP, there have been saints who have criticized what is known as the Catholic Church.


Why is Freemasonry considered by many evangelicals to be incompatible with Christianity?

I want to preface this by saying that I have never been a Freemason, and this answer, necessarily will include items that are likely to be disputed by those within Freemasonry.  This can't be avoided if I'm to answer the actual question.  The question is "Why do Evangelicals consider it to be incompatible".  It's not asking if it really is, just why they think it is.

In order to answer that, I need to post the things that those who oppose Freemasonry believe.  I have absolutely no idea if those things are true or not, and I'm not here to claim they are or aren't.  I'm just repeating what's in the literature and what's believed of Freemasonry by Christians.

I'm going to use, as my primary resource, a site that's been put up by someone claiming to be an ex-Mason.  It contains much of the same in formation that can be found in other literature.  I've read several books on "cults" and Freemasonry is listed in several of them.  For example, while it's not listed as a cult in this book, the book What's the Difference lists Freemasonry in a section called "Nothing New Under the Sun...  Eleven more viewpoints that undermine, challenge, or attack Biblical Christianity".  At any rate, the claims on this site are compatible with most of what I've said.

With all of that out of the way, here are several points about Freemasonry that are incompatible with Christianity:

Freemasonry requires each Mason to believe that there is only one God and teaches that all men worship that one God, simply using a variety of different names.  In the case of the Wiccan, he satisfies the requirement for belief in A Supreme Being by believing in the Horned god of Witchcraft.  The Hindu may satisfy the requirement with faith in Vishnu.

From a Christian perspective, this is utter nonsense.  This is also, just about the only point you'd need to show that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity.  Any attempt to say that the God of the Bible is the same as (or even functionally equivalent to for some people) the pagan gods, Allah, or any other is blasphemy, pure and simple, from a Christian perspective.

Freemasonry has a plan of salvation, which is not based on Christ at all.
There is some concern about the oaths made in Freemasonry.

Follow this link and you'll find an extensive treatment on several issues that show Freemasonry to be incompatible with Christianity

Another site lists other reasons, again, which I've heard before, but can't personally verify.  Again, I'm just answering why some Christians are opposed to Freemasonry.

  In Freemasonry the god of the secret societies is covertly substituted
  for the One True God. This false god is identified in the Masonic
  lodges as "the Great Architect."
  Masons think that through masonry one can chisel away layers of oneself, similar to how one creates a beautiful statue out of rough
  stone.  And they think the end result will be no need for God; because
  they think the perfect Mason is like God. Pages 50-51 of the Mason
  handbook makes this quite clear - but not to the initiate. Masons are
  lied to about everything in the 1st three degrees.
  Masons repeatedly are directed to the "Mystery Religion" and the time man found God in nature.  Almost none of Masonry's teachings come
  from Christianity.  This 'mystery religion' Masons have joined
  originated from pagans in ancient Egypt, Chaldea, and in China. The
  Mystery Religion, Freemasonry and all 'ancient' secret societies have
  one thing in common. They string you along, just to finally tell you
  that there is no God; and you are a god, because you follow their
  teachings, which are:

And finally...

  In the Masonic Lodge everything is symbolic of something else. The
  name "Lucifer" means "Light Bearer" or "Light Bringer".  Masons point
  out that the MORNING STAR is Lucifer.  When Masons speak of the "light
  of Masonry", they actually refer to Lucifer bringing forth the light.
  During the lecture for the 32nd degree, Masons are told that the
  triliteral name for god is composed of three Hindu gods: Brahma,
  Vishnu and Siva. Siva is a synonym for Satan! Lucifer is honored and
  revered by Masons as the TRUE GOD!


Have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus resembled Joseph?

Not that I am aware of.  Since Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 make it clear that no human father was involved in the conception of Jesus, then what Joseph looked like would have no bearing on what Jesus looked like, apart from the fact that they were both Jewish. Jospeh was Jesus' adoptive father.

The very first verse of the New Testament clearly proclaims the Jewish ethnicity of Jesus. “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1).

It is evident from passages like Hebrews 7:14 that Jesus descended from the tribe of Judah, from which the name "Jew" comes: “For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah.”

The genealogy of Mary, Jesus' physical mother, shows that she was a direct descendant of King David.  This is in Luke chapter 3 which establishes without any doubt that Jesus was a Jew ethnically.

Since the Bible is silent about the physical appearance of Jesus, then there would be no point in anybody speculating if Jesus physically resembled his adoptive father. I have been unable to find any references to Christian discussion on this, only that Christian theologians agree Joseph was not Jesus' physical father.

EDIT: With regard to the question of Jesus’ genetic makeup, it is important to understand that the Bible tells us the the pre-mortal Jesus was the eternal and uncreated Word of God (John 1:1-3, 14). It was the eternal Word of God who left heaven in order to become the embryo in Mary’s womb. This pre-existent one had to empty Himself of the glory He had in the Godhead, alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit, to add human nature to His divine nature.

Mary’s contribution was the humanity of Jesus. The Formula of Chalcedon (451) speaks of Jesus as ‘consubstantial with us according to the manhood;’ the Athanasian Creed specifically links his manhood to the substance of his mother and that later, Protestant creeds do the same. The Westminster Confession (VIII.II), speak of him as “conceived... in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.”

Jesus had the same anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, central nervous system and the same basic genetic code as all humans.  Through Mary’s umbilical cord, he was that particular baby, the son of that particular woman who was the bearer of the whole previous genetic history of her people and the recipient of innumerable hereditary features.  He was a unique genotype precisely because Mary contributed at least half his chromosomes (as any human mother would). How the rest were contributed remains a mystery.

The one certainty is that Mary could not herself have contributed the sex-determining chromosome, Y, which is always provided by the biological father. As it was a divine act of the Holy Spirit, perhaps those chromosomes normally derived from the male parent were provided that way, the divine act which fertilized the ovum simultaneously creating twenty-three chromosomes complementary to those derived from the mother.  What we do know is that Jesus was not a clone of his mother, because then he would not have been male but would have been female. The incarnation was a unique event and humans cannot possibly give a biological break-down of every aspect of this unseen miracle in Mary’s womb. The Bible does not go into any details.

Sources: The Person of Christ by Donald Macleod p 162 (Christian Focus 1998). Sexuality & God in EL Mascal, Whatever Happened to the Human Mind? pp 128-155 (SPCK, London 1980)


How should Christians who work with fiction approach material which uses the Lord’s name in vain?

For many years I misunderstood what "taking God's name in vain" actually meant. Using the name "Jesus Christ" (both or either), or "God" is an expletive or 'cuss' word was not actually the subject of one of the Ten Commandments.
Think about the phrase "take the name", then add "on" to make it "take on the name". Think about the traditional institution of Christian/Biblical marriage, and the practice of the bride "taking on the name of" her new husband as they wed.
"Taking the Lord's name" was really about the people advertising to the world that they were "God's people who lived by God's law". To paraphrase, what God was saying is basically this: "Do not take on my name [call yourselves God's children], then live like you belong to the Devil (or the world, or any of the other tribes or nations you see around you, who practice wickedness)."
It was about living out their (your) profession. We call ourselves Christians...but to the world, do we live as Christians?
Sure, the speech/language the exits our lips is a sign of what's inside ("out of the mouth the heart speaks" - Matthew 12:34, Luke 6:45), but it was/is about behaviour and how that aligns with profession.
We could say that the colloquially term 'Nominal Christian' might refer to those who "take God's name in vain".
I have certainly been guilty of this on many occasions...
Does that help?
For a more in depth understanding, study the act, and importance, of naming in the Old Testament. It was much more than a labeling mechanism, contrary to what our modern scientific world view would have us relegate it to.
Listen to the following podcast for a Scholar's take on this:
"What is God's Name? Feat. Dr. Michael Heiser"


Did the first Christian believers keep the Sabbath and if so on which day?

The writings of the early Christians make it clear that Christians abandoned the Jewish custom of worship on the Sabbath (seventh day) and instead held the first day, which they called the Lord's Day, to be the sacred day of worship.  One of the simplest explanations on the subject comes from Tertullian, around 200 AD:

  But why is it, you ask, that we gather on the Lord's Day to celebrate
  our solemnities?  Because that was the way the Apostles also did.

  -- De Fuga in Persecutione, XIV: 11

This was not an innovation of the second century AD, as a full century earlier, (101 AD,) we find Ignatius saying:

  Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to
  the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but
  living in the observance of the Lord's day on which our life was
  sprung by him and his death.

  -- Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 9

And just in case there is any confusion as to the identity of the Lord's Day, we can turn to Justin Martyr. (140 AD)

  And on the day which is called Sunday there is an assembly in the same
  place of all who live in cities or in country districts; and the
  records of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as
  long as we have time.

  ...

  Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly,
  because it is the day on which God, when he changed the darkness and
  matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day
  rose from the dead.

  -- Apologies 1:67

And again from Justin Martyr, we see that Christians did not keep the Jewish holy days:

  We neither accord with the Jews in their peculiarities in regard to
  food nor in their sacred days.

  -- Apologies Sec. 21

So yes, it's clear from the historical record that the first-century Christians, such as Ignatius, had organized worship meetings on the Lord's Day (Sunday), and that they did not consider observance of the Jewish Sabbath important, it having been fulfilled by Christ with the rest of the Law of Moses.


Are there other biblical references where angels are disguised as humans?

Apparently, some in New Testament times were familiar with some such incidents, and did not find it unlikely that it would happen, as related in the book of Hebrews:

  Hebrews 13:2

  Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.


On which parts in the gospels is Weatherhead's argument about Mary, mother of Jesus, founded?

Rev Dr Leslie Weatherhead (1893-1976) was a Methodist minister and a very popular preacher in London from the 1930's to the 1960's, in a liberal Protestant tradition. He was also a prolific and popular author.

There is a new and helpful article on Wikipedia (posted in September 2014) about Leslie Weatherhead. It has a full bibliography.

Weatherhead's speculative theory about the conception of Jesus Christ was published in his book "The Christian Agnostic", (published in London in 1965, and also in the Abingdon Classics series) based on his rather loose interpretation of the Gospel of Luke, chapters 1 and 2.

Weatherhead has a small and ageing following in the UK, not significant in the leadership of the Methodist Church.


Adam and Eve Clothed in Light Before the Fall - Origin of this belief?

It seems this interpretative tradition goes back millennia to the ancient Jews. BioLogos has a short article on the development of the tradition that Adam and Eve "wore" garments of light, attributing it to the Jewish squeamishness regarding the naked body, then exacerbated by Greek culture, rampant with nudity, flooding the Jewish populations at the time of Alexander the Great.

The article does not list any ancient Jewish sources as having discussed this topic, but it does mention and quote one Christian: Ephraem, the 4th century Syrian theologian. The most revealing quote is:

  It is because of the glory with which they were clothed that they were not ashamed. When it was taken away from them—after they had violated the commandment—they were indeed ashamed, because they were now naked (Commentary on Genesis, 2:14). [Other quotes are offered in the article]

In a different vein of "study", nearly 1500 years later, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich had an extensive and very vivid personal revelation in which she described Adam and Eve as clothed in light.

  They were like two unspeakably noble and beautiful children, perfectly luminous. and clothed with beams of light as with a veil. From Adam's mouth I saw issuing a broad stream of glittering light, and upon his forehead was an expression of great majesty. Around his mouth played a sunbeam, but there was none around Eve's. I saw Adam's heart very much the same as in men of the present day, but his breast was surrounded by rays of light. In the middle of his heart, I saw a sparkling halo of glory. [More at Shield of Faith]

The LDS even have their own take on it, as presented in Meridian Magazine. The Nakedness and the Clothing of Adam and Eve is a very well sourced article on the topic, though it is centered around LDS theology, which you may not be looking for. Again there doesn't seem to be any ancient Jewish sources quoted, but many other sources that make the claim are cited. For example:

  Rabbinical tradition taught that, following his transgression, “Adam. lost his [heavenly] clothing-God stripped it off him,”15 and similarly that Eve “was stripped of the righteousness in which [she] had been clothed.”16

The most common explanation and defense for the belief is multifaceted. First, God is clothed in light; his Shekinah. This radiant glory of God shines though in the most righteous, like it did when Moses came down from Mount Sinai. Similarly, Adam and Eve, in the image of God, radiated God's glory. Second, some, Jews particularly, argued that the Garden was a very holy place. In fact, the most holy of places. And Adam was a priest of sorts. Since God required his priests to be ornately clothed while in the tabernacle, Adam likewise must have been clothed.

There are multiple reasons why a Christian would believe this and there are multiple sources with different motivations seemingly conceiving it independently. I personally do not find the origin of this idea the main component in its continued adherence throughout the ages.


Should Catholics silently hum the Tetragrammaton when they're supposed to sing it?'

In the liturgical context, I think the Liturgiam Authenticam, which provided guidance on how to conduct translations, is pretty clear on this:

  [I]n accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.

In English, the tetragrammaton should be replaced with "LORD", although I've seen "God" used as well.

However, outside of that context, the Church is less strict. In the follow-up letter, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a strong case that the use of the tetragrammatron is philologically misguided:

  The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the so-called Septuagint, dating back to the last centuries prior to the Christian era, had regularly rendered the Hebrew tetragrammaton with the Greek word Kyrios, which means "Lord." Since the text of the Septuagint constituted the Bible of the first generation of Greek-speaking Christians, in which language all the books of the New Testament were also written, these Christians, too, from the beginning never pronounced the divine tetragrammaton. Something similar happened likewise for Latin-speaking Christians [...] in these translations, too, the tetragrammaton was regularly replaced with the Latin word "Dominus", corresponding both to the Hebrew Adonai and to the Greek Kyrios. [...]

  This fact has had important implications for the New Testament Christology itself. When in fact St. Paul, with regard to the Crucifixion, writes that "God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9), he does not mean any other name than "Lord" [...]

but it issued no guidance about whether it should be used elsewhere, stating only (emphasis mine):

  Avoiding pronouncing the tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the Church has therefore its own grounds. Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the Church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated.

Outside of a Christian context, it may be like nails on the chalkboard for someone who perhaps gets annoyed when people talk about the Brontosaurus, but there is no direct prohibition about using it. Of course, it would be a sign of respect to hum it or replace it the word Lord if at all possible.


What does it mean that God's wrath is infinite and what is its relation to existence of life on other planets?

According to the program, Bruno was found guilty

  of questioning the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ, of believing that God's wrath is not eternal, that everyone will be saved, of asserting the existence of other worlds.

To answer your first question, "What does it mean that God's wrath is infinite?" it appears, based on the quote from the program, that Bruno was a universalist.  This was, and often still is by many Christians, considered a heresy.

The answer to your second question, "What is its relation to existence of life on other planets?" is that there is none. These were separate, distinct charges, unrelated to each other. There is no implication that the believing in other worlds is in any way related to the believing that God's wrath is not eternal.


How does Jesus describe God in the Gospels

I attempted to list a few verses below where the Father character is described in detail.

Joh 10:29  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Greater than all.

Joh 3:35  The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
Joh 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Loving, Saving and Wrathful.

Luk 11:9  And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Luk 11:10  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Luk 11:11  If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Luk 11:12  Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
Luk 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Good and Generous.

Joh 14:7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8  Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 14:10  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 5:19  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Joh 5:20  For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Joh 5:21  For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Joh 5:22  For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Joh 5:23  That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Every act of kindness, compassion, healing and deliverance which is attributed to Jesus can also be attributed to the Father. Every sermon and judgment made by Christ can likewise be attributed to the Father.


No, according to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, the divine nature did not become fully human, or even partially human.

From the Formula of Chalcedon:

  one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence

The divine nature is united with the human nature in person of Jesus Christ, but it is unchanged by this union.

Much of the confusion around the HU is placing the two natures in the same category with the person. The person is fully human and fully divine, but the two natures are unchanged.

You ask

  What does "without division, without separation" mean?

It means that the two natures can not be separated from each other when discussing the person Jesus. We can not divide the properties of Jesus between the two natures. We all agree that the person Jesus was born of Mary. Under the HU, we can not separate the two natures and say that the man (only) Jesus was born of Mary. We must always say as well that God was born of Mary.

The two natures are united in the person of Jesus but are not changed by the union. The union is so ' stong' that we can not find any separation or division in Jesus.


How do Unitarians interpret the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20)

Note: unitarians can believe that Jesus is divine, as that word is vague and does not need mean someone is God. Angels can be considered divine, the Logos (if understood as not God) can be considered as divine, and even humans can be considered in some sense divine.
Answer: The first step for a unitarian can be to note that Matthew 28:19

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Berean
Study Bible)

simply mentions three things (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and doesn't claim they are all God, much less articulate finer points of trinitarian theology.
As commentary by the unitarian Spirit and Truth Fellowship states:

"The mention of the Father, Son and holy spirit together in one
context only shows that these three exist. [... while the] doctrine of
the Trinity states that the Father, Son and “Holy Spirit” together
make “one God” and that the three “Persons” are co-equal and
co-eternal, and that doctrine is not stated in this verse."

The second step is to explain why baptizing is done for more than just the name of the Father.
To do this, it helps to explain what the term 'name' means. As the commentary continues (ibid.):

"“name.” A study of the biblical culture and language shows that in
this context the word “name” primarily stood for “authority,” and
doing something in the “name” of a person or persons who had great
authority was very common."

Indeed, Matthew 28:18, which immediately precedes the Great Commission, says

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to Me."

So Jesus' name is included because he has been given all authority by God. As the commentary states (ibid.)

"Given God’s ultimate authority and power, Christ’s exalted position
as the risen Messiah and Lord, and the power of God to believers via
the holy spirit, which Jesus spoke of at the Last Supper, it makes
sense that Jesus would mention all three of them here in Matthew 28.
[... Jesus is telling the Apostles] to baptize in the “name”
(authority) of the Father, Son, and holy spirit, and they did that."

So the answer is that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all important, and although Jesus is not God, he has been given authority by God - unlike other prophets.


Does anybody know whether there were times when people/ ministers
  deliberately worked out decent ways and postures for praying?

These innovations in postures and ways of prayers / prayer services exists as far back as we have sources (This goes for all religions and denominations of Christianity).

The use of folded hands most likely came from the Jewish priesthood (as do many other parts of the Mass - in particular those relating to sacrifice). The Mass is the replacement of the bloody sacrifice of the Jews with the unbloody sacrifice where Jesus is the lamb who is sacrificed in every Mass (literally according to Catholic belief).

You also mention standing prayers. In Judaism a prayer service such as the Amidah (The standing prayer) where people stand goes back before  the Siege of Jerusalem (2000 years ago). Since then prayer services have greatly expanded and with that new ways, postures and also for example clothing(largely medieval innovations).

Other ways of prayer are most definitely deliberate but if we want to find the actual source it'll probably be lost in time or hard to pinpoint which church began.

  Can we say that movements/groups like Catholics, Mennonites,
  Anabaptist created their own ways of prayer that can still be seen in
  some denominations?

Many of the prayer rituals originated in Judaism.
Others rituals were taught directly by Christ to the apostles(It is believed that Jesus taught the apostles the way to say the Mass and the other sacraments whilst they were together.) who, in turn, taught them to the new "apostles" (the bishops they appointed).
Others were assimilated into the Church by missionaries as they traveled.

Aside from a few minor differences, the early Christians practiced much in the same way as modern Christians like folding hands; the sign of the cross, the kiss of peace, etc. were all in the Mass from the start.

  Why some Christians stand up and assume certain postures, while others
  pray however they want? How long has it been so?

Since Christianity exists, there were always denominations / churches with their own innovations of rituals like prayer.


How well supported is the generic interpretation Rublev's Icon as being a depiction of the Holy Trinity as portrayed in Genesis 18?

Among church fathers, Ambrose is one supporter:

  Abraham, who was glad to receive strangers, faithful to God and tireless in his service and prompt in fulfilling his duty, saw the Trinity typified.  He added religious devotion to hospitality, for although he beheld three, he adored one, and while keeping a distinction of the persons, yet he called one Lord, thus giving honor to the three but signifying one power. (On His Brother, Satyrus 2.96)

Caesarius of Arles similarly writes:

  He received the three men and served them loaves out of three measures.  Why is this, brothers, unless it means the mystery of the Trinity? [...] In the fact that he saw three, as was already said, he understood the mystery of the Trinity, but since he adored them as one, he recognized that there is one God in three persons. (Sermon 83.4)

Origen actually finds images of the members of the Trinity in the food that is served.  The calf represents Christ (Homilies on Genesis 4.2), and the preparation of three equal measures of flour into bread is an image of the Trinity (On Abraham 1.5.38).

Other fathers are not so supportive of this idea.  Ephrem the Syrian believed just one of them was the Lord (Commentary on Genesis, 15.1), while Augustine called all three of them angels (City of God, 16.29).

See the Ancient Christian Commentary if you'd like to investigate further.


Does the Bible contain a definitive explanation of morality?

All language, whether written or spoken, whether miraculously inscribed on stone tablets, breathed in fire letters on the sky, inspired by God through a human vessel or scribbled to your friend on Facebook—due to the fundamental nature of language as a means of communication—requires interpretation. Interpretation is an inseparable part of communication.

Most branches of Christianity (as in the vast majority) believe God has provided in the Bible a clear basis—fundamental guidelines as you will—for morality. It defines what makes something moral vs. immoral and provides concrete examples.

The doctrine in question here that I assume is what you actually mean to question is officially known as the Perspicuity of Scripture. The degree to which different doctrinal traditions believe the Scripture to be clear (as in plain to the ordinary reader) varies some with some traditions believing it to need more contextualization. However on the issue of basic morality the weight of extant  teachings is clearly towards the end of believing it to be spelled out clearly.

You will find this issue covered specifically in the statement of faith of most groups.

What follows is one example of that. While the Westminster Confession of Faith as a whole is only officially representative of a limited subset of Protestants, you will find at least on these two points it is generally representative of many groups. At the very least this point (whether doctrinally the same or different) turns up in similar statements for most groups.

For example on the general nature of Scripture being clear (not needing scholarly interpretation beyond the ordinary understanding of language) it  has this to say:

  WCF, Chapter 1

  VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His
  own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set
  down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced
  from Scripture […]

  VII. All things in Scripture are not alike
  plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which
  are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so
  clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other,
  that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the
  ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

On the issue of morality, it notes that the fundamental rules governing morality are outlined in the Ten commandments (this idea is expressed in various ways but generally held across most theological traditions).

(Emphasis mine to note the thread relevant to this question in a longer excerpt.)

  WCF, Chapter 19

  I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound
  him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual
  obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death
  upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep
  it.

  II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of
  righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in
  ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four
  commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our
  duty to man.

  III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give
  to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, […]

  […]

  V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as
  others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of
  the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of
  God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel,
  any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

  VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of
  works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great
  use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life
  informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and
  binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful
  pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining
  themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of,
  humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer
  sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His
  obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain
  their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of
  it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions,
  in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse
  thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner,
  show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may
  expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them
  by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and
  refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters
  from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not
  under grace.


Whether Ignatian spiritual exercises are good for the discernment of vocation according to Thomistic understanding of vocation?

Father Romanus Cessario, O.P.'s essay, Thomas Aquinas and Vocational Discernment may be of use to you.  There he argues that the Ignatian commentarial tradition deviates from a Thomistic understanding of grace and vocation.  For example:

  Aquinas does not encourage a man to practice a “discernment” of Dominican life in order to distinguish it from other possible vocations in the Church. The reason is simple. Growth in charity results only from a divine gift given. We call this gift, the gift of grace. Strictly speaking however, no one can discern a grace, no one may discover by human means whether or not he possesses sanctifying grace. The Church in fact disallows a direct knowledge of the presence of habitual grace in a given individual: “Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith.” (29) Aquinas reasons as follows: God is the principle and source of all graces given. God, however, remains “beyond the reach of our knowledge on account of his sublimity.” (30) So no man can discern with certainty, that is, grasp, perceive, apprehend, or judge, that he possesses the gift of divine grace.

From what I remember, the gist of the article is that simple things guide discernment, such as love of God, a desire to serve him, and a free choice of the will.  For Cessario the tradition that has come out of Ignatius' Exercises is too complex and seeks out a kind of certainty that just isn't attainable or realistic.


What does the Catholic Church mean when it calls humans co-creators with God?

God created the nature and men, either directly or through evolution (that's a different question). But men created lots of other things: fire, flint tools, wheel, civilisation... This is one aspect: in some sense God created even technology, but we, men, are its direct creators.

There are other aspects. If you testify about Jesus or just live with God and bear fruits of Holy Spirit and your testimony (by words and/or life) becomes the impulse for someone to convert and believe in Christ, this is mainly work of God's grace and Holy Spirit, but you acted as God's fellow worker in this case.

Of course, not everything we do is a participation on God's work on his kingdom. God gave us free will and responsibility to either gather with him or scatter without him.


Who first understood the "authorities" in Romans 13 as spiritual, not secular, authorities?

C.E.B. Cranfield, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (vol. 2), attributes the first modern reference to this interpretation to Martin Dibelius (approximately 1909), but notes that it tends to be associated with Oscar Cullmann. He goes on to summarize the other supporters of this approach:

  It is, of course, clear and agreed that the civil authorities are referred to. What has been the subject of a considerable amount of dispute is whether there is in ἐξουσίαις a double reference—to the civil authorities and also to angelic powers thought of as standing behind, and acting through, the civil authorities. The suggestion of the double reference goes back (as far as modern times are concerned) to M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, Göttingen, 1909. Though Dibelius later abandoned it,1 it was taken up by K. L. Schmidt,2 G. Dehn,3 K. Barth,4 O. Cullmann,5 and a number of other scholars.6 It has come to be specially closely associated with Cullmann, and it is he who has borne the brunt of the attacks upon it, in some of which a mood of impatience and irritation has sometimes been noticeable. Such adjectives as ‘grotesque’, ‘eccentric’ and ‘fantastic’ have been used of it, and it has often been very summarily dismissed....

  A useful account of the negative reaction to this interpretation has been given by [Clinton D.] Morrison.7

  [Citation for entire quote]8

The Hermeneia commentators on Romans point to a later proponent of this interpretation as the first reference to translating ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις as a reference to angelic powers (or more specifically, the angelic powers behind the earthly rulers), Karl Ludwig Schmidt (1937), also noting some of the same scholars listed by Cranfield:

  According to Lutz Pohle, Römer 13, 89, the first elaborations of the angelic interpretation were developed by Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “Das Gegenüber von Kirche und Staat in der Gemeinde des Neuen Testaments,” Theologische Blätter 16 (1937) 1–16, and Günther Dehn, “Engel und Obrigkeit: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Römer 13, 1–7, ” in E. Wolf, ed., Theologische Aufsätze, Karl Barth, zum 50. Geburtstag (Munich: Kaiser, 1936) 100–109. See also Dehn’s later study, Vom christlichen Leben. Auslegung des 12. und 13. Kapitels des Briefes an die Römer, Biblische Studien (Neukirchen) 6–7 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1954); the most influential advocate of this interpretation was Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s, 1956; London: SCM, 1957, 1961) 95–114, followed by Clinton D. Morrison, The Powers That Be: Earthly Rulers and Demonic Powers in Romans 13:1–7, Studies in Biblical Theology 29 (London: SCM; Naperville: Allenson, 1960), and others.9

James D.G. Dunn indicates10 that an analysis of the meaning of ἐξουσία in patristic literature has been conducted by Karl Hermann Schelkle.11

Footnotes

1 ‘Rom und die Christen im ersten Jahrhundert’, in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wtissenschaften, philosophische-historische Klasse (Heidelberg) 1941–42, Abhandlung 2 (1942), p. 7, n. 2.

2 ‘Zum theologischen Briefwechsel zwischen Karl Barth und Gerhard Kittel’, in Theologische Blätter (Leipzig) 13 (1934), cols. 328–34, and ‘Das Gegenüber von Kirche und Staat in der Gemeinde des Neuen Testaments’, in Theologische Blätter 16 (1937), cols. 1–16.

3 ‘Engel und Obrigkeit’, in E. Wolf (ed.), Theologische Aufsätze Karl Barth zum 50. Geburtstag, Munich, 1936, pp. 90–109.

4 Church and State.

5 Christ and Time, London, 1951; The State in the New Testament.

6 For names see C.D. Morrison, The Powers that Be: earthly rulers and demonic powers in Romans 13:1–7, London, 1960, p. 25, n. 2; W. Affeldt, Die weltliche Gewalt in der Paulus-Exegese: Röm 13:1–7 in den Römerbriefkommentaren der lateinischen Kirche bis zum Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts, Göttingen, 1969, p. 30.

7 Morrison, op. cit., pp. 40-54.

8 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 656–660.

9 Robert Jewett and Roy David Kotansky, Romans: A Commentary, ed. Eldon Jay Epp, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), fn. 57 on p. 787.

10 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, vol. 38B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 757, 760.

11 Schelkle, K. H. "Staat und Kirche in der patristischen Auslegung von Röm 13:1–7." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 44 (1952–53), 223–36.


What is the history behind/Origin of the doxology that often gets added to the end of the Lord's prayer?

I can't find this doxology in the lords prayer as recorded in
  scripture

It is in the King James Version:

  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine
  is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

but the underlying Greek is missing in some manuscripts.  Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.) explains:

  The ascription at the close of the Lord’s Prayer occurs in several
  forms. In K L W Δ Θ Π f 13 al it is the familiar triple strophic form,
  whereas the Sahidic and Fayyumic (like the form quoted in the Didache)
  lack ἡ βασιλεία καί, the Curetonian Syriac lacks ἡ δύναμις καί, and
  the Old Latin k reads simply “for thine is the power for ever and
  ever.” Some Greek manuscripts expand “for ever” into “for ever and
  ever,” and most of them add “amen.” Several late manuscripts (157 225
  418) append a trinitarian ascription, “for thine is the kingdom and
  the power and the glory of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
  Spirit for ever. Amen.” The same expansion occurs also at the close of
  the Lord’s Prayer in the liturgy that is traditionally ascribed to St.
  John Chrysostom.

  The absence of any ascription in early and important representatives
  of the Alexandrian (א B), the Western (D and most of the Old Latin),
  and other (f 1) types of text, as well as early patristic commentaries
  on the Lord’s Prayer (those of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian), suggests
  that an ascription, usually in a threefold form, was composed (perhaps
  on the basis of 1 Chr 29:11–13) in order to adapt the Prayer for
  liturgical use in the early church. Still later scribes added “of the
  Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Since the phrase is omitted in the modern Critical Text of the Greek New Testament, many modern translations (e.g. NIV) omit the phrase as well.  The RSV footnotes, "Other authorities, some ancient, add, in some form, For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen."

The phrase is included in the 1904 Patriarchal Text of Constantinople, which is an "official" version of sorts for the Greek Orthodox Church and Greek-speaking Orthodox jurisdictions and is very close to the so-called "Majority Text".  The Patriarchal Text is based on copies of copies of copies of manuscripts that have been passed down over the centuries in various Orthodox monasteries (the Orthodox Church is not very fanatical about "autographs").  So we have kind of a weird situation in that the Greek-speaking churches mentioned in the New Testament that continue to exist today use a Biblical text that is considered less than authentic by non-Greek Bible scholars in the New World.

As Metzger implies, it is also found in the Liturgy of John Chrysostom.  In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the final doxology is usually spoken by the priest after the reader has completed the Lord's Prayer.  We (Orthodox) do not normally say the doxology in our private prayers.


Who are "we" in the pre-mortal life according to the LDS?

B) all humankind
The next paragraph in the article states

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that while in our premortal state, we were all present when God the Father explained His plan for the salvation of His children.

emphasis added by me


According to Catholicism, is it sinful to physically harm abortion doctors to prevent them from performing abortions?

Ends do not justify means.
It is never permissible to do evil so that good may come about: "let us not do evil that there may come good" (Rom. 3:8). Sin sometimes must be tolerated in order to prevent a greater evil.
St. Thomas Aquinas's answer to the question of "Whether the rites of unbelievers ought to be tolerated?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 10 a. 11 co.) could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to whether  abortionists ought to be tolerated:

although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): "If you do away with harlots [or abortionists], the world will be convulsed with lust."

cf. Vermeersch, S.J.'s Tolerance
In "Whether human law should repress all vices?" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 96 a. 2 co.), St. Thomas shows that human law should forbid murder:

human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

Thus, "laws" permitting murder are no laws at all.
Abortion a state of war?
If the millions of abortions happening yearly constitute a state of war, then just war theory might be applicable. "In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 40 a. 1 co.):

"the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged"

"a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked [e.g., abortionists], should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault [e.g., killing innocent babies]."

"it is necessary that the belligerents [e.g., anti-abortionists] should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil [e.g., ending abortion]."

Conditions #2 and #3 certainly could apply to abortion, but it is unclear that condition #1 applies. Has any civil ruler ever openly declared war against abortion?


Why is Christianity considered a monotheistic religion?

Christianity is monotheistic as its adherents believe in only one God.

The first commandment speaks about the gods of other religions. Although Christians believe in only God, they do acknowledge that other gods are believed in by non-Christians.

In other words, there are many gods in which to believe, but you believe in only one if you are Christian.

Also, the same passage applies to Muslims and Jews.

To answer the third part of your question: the belief in the Christian God (i.e. the Trinity) is what defines Christians.

Belief (or lack thereof) in the supernatural attributes of Satan, the Saints, Virgin Mary, angels vary by interpretation, but in general these figures are considered non-divine, and certainly subsidiary to God.


Why do some Christians use a period instead of a colon in verse references?

There's probably no general explanation for the different reference styles. Both are just as easy to understand, but using the colon is the more common.

Wikipedia says that the Chicago Manual of Style specifies a colon while MLA style specifies a period, but only a tiny fraction of Bible verse references would be from people strictly following either style. More relevant to Biblical studies and theology, the SBL Handbook of Style uses colons.

In recent years the period has probably become more common because on most mobile phone keyboards it's faster to type than a colon, which usually requires switching keyboard mode.


Where is Jesus's Soul according to tripartite theology?

The soul is the conscious part of you, and Jesus. His soul went to hell with His Body; returned to the surface of the earth at his resurrection; and to heaven at His ascension:

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. [Acts 2:29-33 KJV]

Jesus' soul is whever Jesus is.


Why was Jesus called Jesus, and not Immanuel?

Because Emmanuel/Immanuel is a nick name.
It is like saying Clark Kent, his name is SuperMan, though people also know him as Man of Steel.
Which is the same with Jesus, he's name is Jesus of Nazareth, we call him Jesus Christ (Christ means Messiah) but we know him as Emmanuel because he's God in the flesh who walked with us.

and the prophecy is

  Isaiah 7:14 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
  Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his
  name Immanuel.

(And Abram to Abraham has no connection to this. Abram did wrong things, lying to those kings and allowing Sarai to be taken as the King's wife while Abram accepted the good/provision over Sarai. A man to be Father of all nations should not bare a name and remembrance of someone who lied and gave up his wife. God had to change his name to Abraham.
The thing was back in those times, names actually meant something. Jacob's name meant cheating and his name was changed to Israel. Jacob who would become the first to bear Israel was cheating a lot of people and did wrong things, so we cannot let the Jews bare the forever name Jacob to someone who cheats. That was why God had to change his name to Israel. Saul people knew him as a persecutor so he had to change his name to Paul.
I do think it's important for us to look at our name meanings for they can impact our lives. If name makes changes to our life as a bad thing, it is best to change our name. If you look at the prophet names in the bible, they all have good meaning outcome like David means beloved.)

God bless


What are the primary differences and implications of a propitiatory view of the atonement versus an expiatory view?

I can only answer from the Western bias as I fail to comprehend the Eastern thought even when it is explained. Western thought properly includes propitiation and expiation it does not toss one out for the other or put them at competing sides.  It does not exclude either. However the Eastern thought seems to be uncomfortable with the propitiation involved in the cross and does not seem to me to believe that God’s wrath was poured out on the Son.

In Western thought propitiation, which is that part of the work of Christ on the cross, that makes ‘appeasement’ to an offended God, satisfying his wrath for sin. The other side of Western thought is expiation. Expiation occurs on the cross (not only to have the punishment of sin removed through propitiation) but to have sins cleansed and removed as well.  Cleansing and deliverance from the actual power of sin is implied by expiation.

Cleary both of these aspects are implied by the scriptural view as the idea started with the Passover lamb and as well as the burned 'red heifer'. Both the concept of propitiation and expiation are clearly established under the Old Testament foreshadowing types. First, God’s ‘wrath’ in killing the first-born of Egypt was avoided by the Passover Lamb. The Jews were not cleansed by putting blood on the doorposts but were avoiding a deadly destruction of anger. Second, on the other hand, the burning of the 'red heifer' and collection of ashes oustide the camp clealry implies the actual ceremonial cleansing of the sacrfificial type.  The ashes of the burnt animal were directly used for ceremonial washing buy mixing some ashes with water and sprinkling the unclean. (Ref Leviticus 19, Hebrews 19:13-14))

One can’t properly witness the ceremonial sacrifices of the Old Testament without believing both propitiation and expiation as inseparable objects, each meaningless without each other. First the worshipper or priest would lay hands on the animal to be sacrificed, symbolizing the transfer of guilt. Then the shedding of blood and total destruction of the animal would occur, symbolizing the appeasement to an offended God. Then the blood would ceremonially cleanse the worshipper. Clearly all these things support a proper view and cast grave doubts on any view that might try to limit them to only propitiation, or expiation.

Both propitiation and expiation are implied by each other in the removal of guilt. An angry God is no longer angry when guilt is transferred to another in propitiation.  The stain of guilt is wiped away from expiation. Both propitiation and expiation are meaningless terms unless the removal of guilt in understood in each.

Both propitiation and expiation are implied by each other in the removal of guilt. An angry God is no longer angry when guilt is transferred to another in propitiation.  The stain of guilt is wiped away from expiation. Both propitiation and expiation are meaningless terms unless the removal of guilt in understood in each.

The eastern view is that God changes when he ceases to be angry (according to the Western view) but propitiation does not imply any change in God whatsoever. He still is angry with sin but its guilt has been transferred to another. God can never change or remove his wrath. It must be extinguished on a a subject who bears the guilt of sin.


Why did Luther not support iconoclasm like some other reformers?

Luther's own words on the subject are quoted in:

  The Third Sermon, March 11, 1522, Tuesday after Invocavit

In his sermon on 'How Christians should regard Moses' Luther makes it clear that he does not agree with making images nor with worshipping them but he draws the line at destroying other people's images.

Luther draws the line because he says :

  And if you reply: The text says, “You shall not make any images,” then they say: It also says, “You shall not worship them.” In the face of such uncertainty who would be so bold as to destroy the images? Not I. But let us go further. They say: Did not Noah, Abraham, Jacob build altars? [Gen. 8: 20; 12: 7; 13: 4; 13: 18; 33: 20]. And who will deny that?

Since he feels that he cannot prove that someone is worshipping an image in an idolatrous manner (although there may be no doubt that they made the image) he feels it wrong to destroy the image.

He also accepts the fact that some might criticise the making of an ark and cherubim. They were not made to be worshipped and it was wrong to do so, but Luther feels the criticism is valid and accepts that if Iconoclasts are going to destroy other people's images then those whose images are destroyed have a claim on them.


What was the Christian response to death-loving practices of Ancient Roman society?

Christians had a revulsion against the exploitation of the games, as evidenced by the story of Telemachus, an Egyptian monk who, in  403 AD threw himself into the arena to stop the gladitorial games. Telemachus died in the melee already on the field, but Emperor Honartius was so inspired by the sacrifice that he put an end to the games on January 1, 404.
From Foxe's Book of Martyrs:

After this fortunate victory over the Goths a "triumph," as it was called, was celebrated at Rome. For hundreds of years successful generals had been awarded this great honor on their return from a victorious campaign. Upon such occasions the city was given up for days to the marching of troops laden with spoils, and who dragged after them prisoners of war, among whom were often captive kings and conquered generals. This was to be the last Roman triumph, for it celebrated the last Roman victory. Although it had been won by Stilicho, the general, it was the boy emperor, Honorius, who took the credit, entering Rome in the car of victory, and driving to the Capitol amid the shouts of the populace. Afterward, as was customary on such occasions, there were bloody combats in the Colosseum, where gladiators, armed with swords and spears, fought as furiously as if they were on the field of battle.
The first part of the bloody entertainment was finished; the bodies of the dead were dragged off with hooks, and the reddened sand covered with a fresh, clean layer. After this had been done the gates in the wall of the arena were thrown open, and a number of tall, well-formed men in the prime of youth and strength came forward. Some carried swords, others three-pronged spears and nets. They marched once around the walls, and stopping before the emperor, held up their weapons at arm's length, and with one voice sounded out their greeting, Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant! "Hail, Caesar, those about to die salute thee!"
The combats now began again; the glatiators with nets tried to entangle those with swords, and when they succeeded mercilessly stabbed their antagonists to death with the three-pronged spear. When a glatiator had wounded his adversary, and had him lying helpless at his feet, he looked up at the eager faces of the spectators, and cried out, Hoc habet! "He has it!" and awaited the pleasure of the audience to kill or spare.
If the spectators held out their hands toward him, with thumbs upward, the defeated man was taken away, to recover if possible from his wounds. But if the fatal signal of "thumbs down" was given, the conquered was to be slain; and if he showed any reluctance to present his neck for the death blow, there was a scornful shout from the galleries, Recipe ferrum! "Receive the steel!" Privileged persons among the audience would even descend into the arena, to better witness the death agonies of some unusually brave victim, before his corpse was dragged out at the death gate.
The show went on; many had been slain, and the people, madly excited by the desperate bravery of those who continued to fight, shouted their applause. But suddenly there was an interruption. A rudely clad, robed figure appeared for a moment among the audience, and then boldly leaped down into the arena. He was seen to be a man of rough but imposing presence, bareheaded and with sun-browned face. Without hesitating an instant he advanced upon two gladiators engaged in a life-and-death struggle, and laying his hand upon one of them sternly reproved him for shedding innocent blood, and then, turning toward the thousands of angry faces ranged around him, called upon them in a solemn, deep-toned voice which resounded through the deep inclosure. These were his words: "Do not requite God's mercy in turning away the swords of your enemies by murdering each other!"
Angry shouts and cries at once drowned his voice: "This is no place for preaching!--the old customs of Rome must be observed!--On, gladiators!" Thrusting aside the stranger, the gladiators would have again attacked each other, but the man stood between, holding them apart, and trying in vain to be heard. "Sedition! sedition! down with him!" was then the cry; and the gladiators, enraged at the interference of an outsider with their chosen vocation, at once stabbed him to death. Stones, or whatever missiles came to hand, also rained down upon him from the furious people, and thus he perished, in the midst of the arena.
His dress showed him to be one of the hermits who vowed themselves to a holy life of prayer and self-denial, and who were reverenced by even the thoughtless and combat-loving Romans. The few who knew him told how he had come from the wilds of Asia on a pilgrimage, to visit the churches and keep his Christmas at Rome; they knew he was a holy man, and that his name was Telemachus-no more. His spirit had been stirred by the sight of thousands flocking to see men slaughter one another, and in his simple-hearted zeal he had tried to convince them of the cruelty and wickedness of their conduct. He had died, but not in vain. His work was accomplished at the moment he was struck down, for the shock of such a death before their eyes turned the hearts of the people: they saw the hideous aspects of the favorite vice to which they had blindly surrendered themselves; and from the day Telemachus fell dead in the Colosseum, no other fight of gladiators was ever held there.

As a religion, Christians also agitated against the Roman practice of infanticide as well, fishing live, discarded babies out of the Tiber.
In general, it can be said that Christians held those practices of the Romans that involved needless killing to be repulsive.


What impact did the False Decretals have on Gratian's collection of Canon law?

I will try an answer based on the one source I found online with a quick search. My answer relies on the summary in the review [2] on the book [1]. The whole book [1] gives more details. If someone has special questions in the comments and I have time, I will search it in the library.

The Pseudoisodorian Decretals were important for Gratian. 400 out of 4000 chapters of the Decretum Gratiani were "pseudoisidoric" ("psedoisidorianisch"). 220 of them deal with processual matters. For the justification of the papal primate Gratian used Pseudoisidor "fewer" ("weniger"). The direct sources of Gratian for these cittations are less clear.

[1] Fuhrmann, Horst: Einfluß und Verbreitung der pseudoisidorischen Fälschungen. Von ihrem Auftauchen bis in die neuere Zeit. (Schriften der Monumenta Germania« histórica 24, I-IIΙ.) Anton Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1972—1974.
(title in English: Influence and distribution of pseudoisidoric counterfeits. From their emergence to newer times; 3 Volumes, intersting is here esp. Vol. 2)

[2]  Landau, Peter: Horst Fuhrmann, Einfluß und Verbreitung der pseudoisidorischen Fälschungen. Von ihrem Auftauchen bis in die neuere Zeit. In: Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, 1975, Vol.61(1), pp.377-392 (388f.). (buyable online)


Where did Aquinas say that the "greatest penalty of sin is the loss of the sense of sin"?

The Summa Theologiae and in the third book of the Summa "Contra Gentiles"

CAtholic answers (I did not hear the program) may have been paraphrasing the concept of Aquinas's view of original justice and the effect it has on our inability to recognize sin.


Are there cases of popular atheists who used to publicly defend atheism (via debates, books, etc.) but eventually ended up converting to Christianity?

There is Francis S. Collins, M.D., PhD., who was the head of the Human Genome Project and who has described himself as an 'obnoxious atheist' in his academic years. He believed that all questions of life could be ultimately reduced to 'physics and chemistry'. It was only in later life, in his work as a doctor when he was faced with a broad spectrum of suffering, and in particular, one woman who told him it was her faith that supported her, that he turned to reading C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. It was this that convinced him that all his arguments against religion was that of 'a schoolboy.'
He says it was only when "he was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon, I turned a corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it - also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me, and it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass, in front of the cascades, I fell to my knees and accepted this truth - that God is God and that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to this belief.'
Personally, although you have described a 'strong' atheist as someone as very smart. I don't think this matters much in either atheism or theism - there are other faculties of the mind. And in this, especially, they matter more.
In fact, in a book that I'm reading at the moment, Islam and the Destiny of Man by Gai Eaton, a French-Swiss who converted to Islam and who his school-teacher in sixth-form described 'you are the only truly universal sceptic I have ever known' relates an anecdote of his time at Charterhouse, Cambridge:

A few of us had lingered on, drinking coffee, after the evening meal in the Hall at King's College. The conversation had turned to religion. At the head of the table say an undergraduate who was universally admired for his brilliance, his wit and sophistication. Hoping to impress him and taking advantage of a brief silence, I said: 'No intelligent person believes in the God of religion!' He looked at me rather sadly, before answering, 'on the contrary, nowadays intelligent people are the only ones who do believe in God.'

He saw right through him, and Eaton says:

I would willingly have sunk out of sight under the table.

What turned Eaton towards religion was a book called The Root and the Flower by the writer L. H. Myers, described at the time as the only 'philosophical novelist England has produced'. He also befriended him. Myers had given his entire life to the pursuit of pleasure. Few women had been able to resist his combination of wealth, charm and good looks. Although fascinated by spirituality and mysticism, he adhered to no religion and obeyed no conventional moral law. Later in life, he tried to change himself and 'even to repent his past', but it was too late. Three years after Eaton had first corresponded with him, he committed suicide.
Although Eaton named his son after him, he realised that his 'wisdom' had only been in his head and that it had never penetrated his human substance.
Although, it's again about an atheist turning towards Islam - Islam after all, is not far from Christianity - especially when measured in the atheism-theism axis, you might find the book The Road to Mecca useful. It's the spiritual biography Mohammed Asad, originally Leopold Weiss and whose father had been Jewish). He lists his reason as the spiritual  emptiness of Western Civilisation and its idolatry of the Market and the misery that it has brought to everyone he knew. In Christianity,  it's known as worshipping Mammon.
edit
@Mike Borden: According to Gil Eaton, on the axis of atheism-theism, Islam and Christianity are closer to each other than either are to atheism. Moreover, he says that Islam is closer to Christisnity than the other way around as Islam accepts Christ as a Prophet whilst Christianity does not accept Muhammed as a Prophet. Hence the direction of my answer which explored a number of spiritual conversions from atheism to theism - and in particular, Christianity.
I don't, for example, discuss conversions to Hinduism or Buddhism.


Does Calvary Chapel assume everything is wrong in this world?

From your description, this sounds simply like the application of the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity, which is typical of many congregationalist congregations.


What is the biblical basis for it being acceptable to bring doubts to God?

Yes, this is acceptable. It is not only in prayers and not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament too.

It is important to see that Jesus himself endorses a critical stance.

Thomas the Apostle speaks (John, 20, 25):

  "I won't believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.

Jesus endorses this attitude and bothers to get back to Thomas to give him proof (John, 20, 27):

  Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!

And finally (John, 20, 29):

  Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me.

So the Bible makes it very clear that Jesus wants us to not just be gullible but to demand proof. Neither of the Apostles was prepared to believe without a proof and Jesus respected that and had this very story been incorporated into the Bible for us.


What is the difference, if any, between elders and priests in the LDS church?

Elder is an official position different from that of a priest. It should be noted that every most elders are also a priest (they are still a priest after becoming an elder). A priest is usually ordained an elder after 1 year or when the priest turns 18, if all gos wells.

The office of priest is an office in the Aaronic Priesthood. The office of elder is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood (which is an extension of the Aaronic Priesthood).

Here are the duties of a priest (D&C 20:46-52)

  46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and
  baptize, and administer the sacrament,

  47 And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally
  and in secret and attend to all family duties.

  48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

  49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder
  present;

  50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach,
  expound, exhort, and baptize,

  51 And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally
  and in secret and attend to all family duties.

  52 In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion
  requires.

Here are the duties of an elder (D&C 20:38-45)

  38 The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of
  the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to
  baptize;

  39 And to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons;

  40 And to administer bread and wine—the emblems of the flesh and blood
  of Christ—

  41 And to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the
  laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost,
  according to the scriptures;

  42 And to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church;

  43 And to confirm the church by the laying on of the hands, and the
  giving of the Holy Ghost;

  44 And to take the lead of all meetings.

  45 The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy
  Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God.

A worthy priest can baptize, confer the Aaronic priesthood and ordain men to offices in the Aaronic priesthood and participate in any position in the sacrament.

A worthy elder can bestow the gift of the holy ghost (after someone is baptized), confer the Melchizedek priesthood, ordain men to the office of elder in the Melchizedek priesthood, give priesthood blessings and consecrate and/or dedicate oil, graves, and homes, as well as do anything a priest can do.

They are both are bound by the Covenant of the Priesthood. Elders are also bound the oath.

Also certain elders use the term "Elder" as a title (for example, general authorities and missionaries). Most elders do not though, but are still elders.


Does the Catholic Church explain why Jesus only appeared in short apparitions to his followers post-resurrection?

This is an argument from absence - Paul records a scene not recorded in the Gospels:

  1 Co 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one
  time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

John also explains the reason why not everything was recorded.

  John 20:30 NKJV - And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence
  of His disciples, which are not written in this book;

It's also not just the Catholic Church - all who profess to be followers of Christ, believe as Paul records in 1 Co 15:

  1 Corinthians 15:1-11 NKJV - Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the
  gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which
  you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word
  which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered
  to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for
  our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that
  He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He
  was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over
  five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the
  present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James,
  then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as
  by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who
  am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church
  of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward
  me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet
  not I, but the grace of God [which was] with me. Therefore, whether
  [it was] I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

This is central to faith - as I said in the thread on creationism. Faith is hope in the unseen. (Heb 11:1) if we could see, we'd be held to a greater judgment, and Jesus says this to Thomas, when Thomas declared that Jesus is God;

  John 20:27-29 NKJV - Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here,
  and look at My hands; and reach your hand [here], and put [it] into My
  side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing." And Thomas answered and
  said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because
  you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed [are] those who have not
  seen and [yet] have believed."

Those who have not seen yet do believe, are blessed.


Have Jehovah's Witnesses cancelled the 2020 Memorial on April 7?

It has not been canceled. Many congregations will be using videoconferencing, but if someone would like to attend and they aren't in contact with a congregation, there is also the option to view a pre-recorded Memorial talk on jw.org. To check what the congregations are doing in your local area, check this Memorial meeting search.

For the bread and wine, each congregation is making arrangements so that each person can have the emblems. (Though if a person is not anointed, they do not need to go through extraordinary measures to obtain the emblems.) There's also the video, "How To Make Memorial Bread."

For counting attendance and the number of partakers, the elders will likely just ask ones how many people attended from their home and how many partook. The pre-recorded Memorial talk on jw.org will likely also keep count of how many people view the video.