Two appendices in The Jewish Annotated New Testament touch on the issue:

Greek-speaking Jews in antiquity regularly referred to themselves as Ioudaioi. As an ethnogeographical term, best translated "Judeans," it designates the members of the ethnic group inhabiting the district of Judea, or their descendants wherever they may be. It translates the Hebrew term yehudim, which appears in the Hebrew Bible in books of the exilic period (2 Kings, Jeremiah, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther). In the course of the last centuries BCE and the first century CE the ethnogeographical meaning of Ioudaioi receded, and a new religious meaning came to take its place. As a religious term, best translated "Jews," it designates people of whatever ethnic or geographical origins who worship the God whose temple is (or, after 70 CE, had been) in Jerusalem. Modern translations, including the New Testament translation used in this volume, usually take Ioudaioi as a religious term ("Jews") rather than as an ethnogeographical term ("Judeans"), although this translation is not always certain or correct.1

And:

When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire in the late fourth century BCE, one of the many lands he obtained was the small province, centered upon Jerusalem, called Yehud in Aramaic (Ezra 5.1; 5.8; 7.14). This name stemmed from the kingdom of Judah (Heb Yehudah)—the Southern Kingdom under the descendants of King David, who had ruled that land—after the separation from the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the late tenth century BCE, for more than three centuries before its occupation, first by the Babylonians (597–586 BCE), then by the Persians (539 BCE). Greek-speakers such as Clearchus of Soli (ca. 300 BCE) soon after began referring to this region as Ioudaia, "Judea," and its inhabitants as Ioudaioi, "Judeans."
. . .
As with any term of identity, dispute and/or confusion at times emerged in antiquity over who properly should be called Ioudaios. The problems began in the second century BCE, when an important development complicated the definition of the term Ioudaios. When the Hasmonean kings expanded Judean hegemony by conquering regions to the north and south of Judea—e.g., Samaria, Galilee, and Idumea—they imposed their laws on the native populations. As a result, many who previously had no ethnic or geographic connection to Judea became Ioudaioi, inasmuch as they resided on lands controlled by Judea and obeyed its laws. Yet, opinions varied regarding the extent to which one actually became a Ioudaios through such incorporation.
. . .
In recent years, some scholars have argued that translating Ioudaios with two terms—"Jew" for religious connotation and "Judean" for the ethno-geographic one—is anachronistic. . . . The term Ioudaios designated a person who was from or whose ancestors were from Judea, and for that reason worshiped the God of Judea.2

Summary
Because ethnicity and geography and religion were so closely associated in the ancient world, the term 'Judean' referred to the ethnicity, the geographic homeland, and the religion, all rolled into one, of the people group that came from the Kingdom of Judah.
Following the exilic period, the term eventually became semi-synonymous with 'Israelite' in its usage (since it could refer to people who were from an Israelite tribe other than Judah).
As the Judean ethnic group dispersed into other regions, and as the Judean religion became accepted by different ethnicities, the term slowly began to take on a broader meaning that could apply to any of those three aspects (ethnicity, homeland, or religion), without necessarily implying the other two. It's common for the word to be rendered as 'Jew' in English, most often in reference to the religion.

1 Shaye J.D. Cohen, 'Judaism and Jewishness', p. 513.
2 Joshua D. Garroway, 'Ioudaios', p. 524-525.


Is there a particular order in lighting candles on an advent wreath?

The advent wreath is an evergreen wreath with four candles. One is rose (pink) and the other three are purple.

Before lighting any candles on the wreath you should bless the wreath on the first Sunday of Advent.

Make the Sign of the Cross 1
The Father or head of the household then prays "Our help is in the name of the Lord." The family then responds "Who made heaven and Earth." Pray both verses if you are alone.
Optionally, read Isaiah 9:1-2, 5-6. These verses, and indeed the wreath itself, remind us that Christ is our light and his Birth brought us salvation.
Again, the Father prays:

  O God, by whose word all things are sanctified, pour forth thy blessing upon this wreath, and grant that we who use it may prepare our hearts for the coming of Christ and may receive from Thee abundant graces. Through Christ our Lord. [Response] Amen.

Sprinkle the wreath with Holy Water.
Optionally, if you are read to light the first candle for the first time you may to that now.
End with the sign of the cross.

Now you are ready to light the candles. The candles are not all lit at once. They are lit every night, adding one each week. For weeks when multiple candles are lit you must light them making the Sign of the Cross.

First make the Sign of the Cross.
Light the appropriate candles:

For the first week light only the top purple candle.
For the second week light the top purple candle and the bottom purple candle, in that order.
For the third week light the top purple candle, the bottom purple candle, and the left rose candle, in that order.
For the fourth week light all the candles starting at the top, moving to the bottom, then the left (the rose one), and finally the right.

Each week has an Advent prayer that is prayed after lighting the candles. The prayers are traditionally from the prayers that begin Mass for the beginning of that week. There is some variation. The following are from the traditional Latin Mass:

  Bestir, O Lord, Thy might, we pray thee and come; that, defended by Thee, we may deserve rescue from approaching dangers brought on by our sins, and being set free by Thee, obtain our salvation. Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
  Stir up our hearts, O Lord, to prepare the ways of Thine only-begotten Son, that through His coming we may be worthy to serve Thee with purified minds. Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
  Incline Thine ear to our prayers, O Lord, we beseech Thee; and make bright the darkness of our minds by the grace of Thy visitation. Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
  Bestir, O Lord, Thy might, we beseech Thee, and come; and with great power come to our aid, that, by the help of Thy grace, that which is hindered by our sins may be hastened by Thy merciful forgiveness. Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

Leave the candles burning for a time. Some families let them burn throughout dinner, or during a special devotional time they have set aside each evening.
Extinguish them later that evening.
Make the Sign of the Cross.

Explanation and Symbolism

Like nearly every other devotional, the Sign of the Cross starts and ends the lighting of the Advent wreath. Likewise, the wreath is lit in the same pattern. Lighting the Wreath is a nightly event that can be used as a way for Christians to intentionally keep Christ on their minds and in their hearts during the Advent season. The colors are not necessarily important, but they add extra symbolism.  Purple reminds us that this is a time of penance, fasting, and prayer. The rose candle is lit on Gaudete Sunday, the third Sunday in Advent, which is past the half way point to Christmas. The rose color gives us encouragement and reminds us that Christmas is indeed coming. During the Advent, the priest in your local parish may wear purple vestments during the Mass, but on the third Sunday, he may wear rose vestments. This is the same symbolism at work.

From your picture, the following looks to be the most appropriate arrangement and lighting order:

The candles on the wreath arranged as below make it easier to see the order of lighting tracing the sign of the cross.

1. The sign of the cross is made by moving your right hand up to touch your forehead, then to the lower middle chest, then to the left shoulder, then to the right. Some Eastern traditions move from right to left. While doing this you pray "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." When on the word Father touch your forehead, and Son touch your chest, and Holy touch one shoulder, and Spirit touch the other shoulder.

How to bless your Advent Wreath
How to light an Advent Wreath
Advent prayer for the first week
Advent prayer for the second week
Advent prayer for the third week
Advent prayer for the fourth week
Prepare for Christmas with an Advent Wreath
The colors of the candles
What is Gaudete Sunday
How to make the Sign of the Cross


Was Adam anatomically God's image, as Michelangelo's painting seems to indicate?

The Catholic Church (my own Tradition) believes that being made in God's image does not have such a physical reality. This 'image' is more a reflection of His own Nature. The closest physical way we 'image' God is that humans are both Male and Female who come together to generate a Third person. This "The Two Become One" is reflecting the Trinitarian Nature of God; where the Holy Spirit proceeds "From the Father and the Son".

God also has no real gender in the same sense that humans have gender. Human gender is a creation of God; which fits into His design of creation. God does ask us to call him Father, and yes, the second person of the Trinity did appear on earth in a Male body; but human Fatherhood and human Sonship are only shadows of God's Perfect Fatherhood and Perfect Sonship. God, aside from the incarnation, as no physical body composed of matter.

One thing I have realized about the various paintings in Catholic Churches is that angels and even God himself (the Father) are depicted as human. This isn't because they 'look' like that; rather the artist is expressing the idea that "These are Persons". Angels are persons: They are pure intellect (and no physical body), and with intelligence comes personality. How much more so for God?

There are more ways that humans 'image God', but I only gave you the ways concerning physical appearance since that is what you are concerned with. I hope this helps.


This is not an unusual usage, nor one that needs a specifically religious explanation. "The Sea of Galilee" is the standard English translation of the original Greek θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ("thalassan tes Galilaias"); that is, "the θάλασσα of Galilee"). One sees this usage, for example, in Matthew 4:18.

Liddell and Short, a commonly used Greek-English lexicon, defines θάλασσα as "the sea", using primarily references to the Mediterranean.

Merriam-Webster gives a usage of "sea" to mean

  a great body of salt water that covers much of the earth

that is, a synonym of "ocean". However, it also describes "sea" as used to mean

  an inland body of water—used especially for names of such bodies

It is in this sense that the body of water you mention is called "the Sea of Galilee".


How should Christianity respond to the person who defames it?

There are many different Christian perspectives and some may disagree, but it's arguable that at least a majority of Christians would agree that:

A Christian should respond as Jesus would and according to what He taught:

  38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. - Matthew 5:38-48 NIV

So, we should not retaliate, or even resist them; but pray and show love according to the will of our Father in heaven.

This is further explained by Paul, one of the early followers of Jesus:

  17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

  “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
      if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
  In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

  21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:17-21 NIV

So we should treat them well and leave it for God to deal with them. The government is a quite different matter - it has the authority (given by God ultimately, and the will of it's people secondarily) to make laws that are just and fair for the benefit of it's citizens.  If the government decides it is in the interest of public order to enact a law that prevents the sort of behaviour you mention, then that is a matter for the government.  Christians have differing views on what should be the relation between the Church and the state, but most views seek to interpret what Jesus meant by:

  Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” - John 18:36 NIV

And will argue for at least some form of separation between the two - just how much and what that practically means is worked out in different ways in different contexts and is the subject of ongoing debate.

Summary: Most Christians would argue that we should not retaliate against those who seek to insult, mock or defame either Christ, Christians or the Bible; in fact we should pray for them, love them and leave them in God's hands to judge with the hope that they will repent and find mercy from Him. What the governement does to them is not necessarily a Christian's (or the Churches) business except insomuch as their citizenship or office requires them to draw up, vote on, enact or enforce the laws of the land.


During Lutheran Confession, can the confessor refuse to absolve the sins of the penitent?

First and foremost, nobody - neither Catholic nor Protestant - believes that a priest "forgives" sins.  At best, they act as an intermediary, supplicating to Jesus, who alone forgives sin.

As the Cathecism of the Catholic church states:

  Only God forgives sins. The priest is the sign and the instrument of God's merciful love for the sinner. The confessor is not the master of God's forgiveness, but its servant. The minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ

Whether or not a priest chooses to exercise this role, in any form of Christianity, is up to the priest.

As an intermediary between man and God, Lutherans do not believe that a priest has an absolute lock on forgiveness. Indeed, as with most Protestants, Lutherans do not believe that the priest is doing anything except for incarnating the action that Jesus himself performs in forgiveness.

Put another way, Luterhans would not see the priest as having any particular monopoly on the granting of forgiveness.  As a practical matter as well, the priesthood of all believers means that in reality, any believer any seek forgiveness from any other. (Note: While this doctrine is usually associated with Baptists, Luther himself subscribed to the notion, if not the term.)

As such, if a priest didn't pronounce absolution, it would be a trivial matter for the penitent to secure another "priest" who would, or even find his forgiveness directly through prayer with the Lord.


What rules does the Catholic Church have for venerating crosses/crucifixes on Good Friday?

The rubrics for the pre-1955 Missale Romanum (PDF p. 326) seem to assume there is a front and back side of the cross, which could only be possible were there a corpus on it:

  Completis Orationibus, Sacerdos…accipit a Diacono Crucem jam in Altari præparatam: quam, versa facie ad populum… etc.

  The orations having been completed, the Priest…takes the Cross,
  already prepared at the altar, from the Deacon: which, [the cross] turned
  toward the people… etc.

It can also be inferred that the cross shouldn't be so big that it can't rest on the altar.


How do Catholic theologians reconcile homoousion with the vulgate translation of Hebrews 1:3?

We must start by referring to the original text of Heb 1:3a, which, leaving untranslated the last word, is:

"Who, being the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his hypostasis,"

where the text translated as "the exact representation of his hypostasis" is "charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou".

With this in mind, the short answer to the question is: translating hypostasis as substance would be perfect if we were translating Heb 1:3 into 1st century Latin, but after the Tertullian-initiated and Nicaea-confirmed understanding of substantia as ousía in the Nicene sense, it causes the passage to state either Arianism or tritheism.

The long answer follows below, structured into sections

1. Substantia is the original cognate of hypostasis.

Etymologically [1] [2],

hypostasis = hypó ("under") + stásis ("a standing" = (hístēmi ("to stand") + -sis, verbal noun suffix)) = "that which stands under"

is a direct cognate of [3] [4] [5] [6]:

substantia = sub ("under") + stans ("standing", present active participle of stō ("stand")) = "that which stands under".

According to [7], the first recorded use of hypostasis as "substance" was in the book "On the cause of plants" by Aristotle's successor Theophrastus (c. 371 - c. 287 BC), while the term may have been introduced in the philosophical discourse either by the Stoic Poseidonius (c. 135 BC - c. 51 BC) according to some, or by the Epicurean Demetrius Lacon (fl. late 2nd century BC) according to others, in both cases with the meaning of objective or concrete existence or reality. Thus, real entities were said to "have hypostasis", whereas merely apparent or imaginary entities did not.

Recalling at this point that both the Stoic and the Epicurean philosophical schools were materialistic, the first conceiving the all-pervading Logos as a subtle fiery aether and the second conceiving reality as consisting just of atoms and void, it is clear that, to the extent that they used the term ousía, they would not have used it in the sense of form understood as universal or even in the sense of form at all, but in the sense of the individual, particular, concrete entity, the "hypokeimenon", “that which underlies or lies beneath”, which clearly overlaps with the meaning of hypostasis. Therefore, it is clear that for both Stoics and Epicureans the terms ousía and hypostasis were synonyms, but that was due to the specific sense in which both schools understood ousía.

Introducing now the Latins, who were now becoming interested in philosophy,
into the picture:

Since, per linguistic design, substantia = hypostasis, and, per Stoic and Epicurean
understanding of ousía, hypostasis = ousía, then, for the Latin-speaking Stoic- and Epicurean-dominated culture, substantia = ousía, which was exactly what Tertullian did, as we will see below.

2. Heb 1:3 was written in a Stoic- and Epicurean-dominated lexical context.

In order to understand correctly Heb 1:3, we must first take into account the lexical context of the human author at the time of writing it. As is well known, the Letter to the Hebrews was written before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, since it consistently refers to the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law as still ongoing (Heb 8:4-5; 9:7-10,13,25; 10:1-2; 13:11). On the other hand, it was probably written shortly before 70 AD, since the exhortation to "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith." (Heb 13:7) seems to refer either to James, brother of the Lord, killed in Jerusalem in 62 AD, or to Peter and Paul, killed in Rome in 64 and 67 AD. Therefore, the Letter was written in a cultural context in which, for the last 150 years, the prevalent philosophical schools had been Stoicism and Epicureanism, both of which, as we saw in the previous section, used the term hypostasis with the meaning of objective or concrete existence or reality.

Then we must note that the very notion of "charaktēr" - impressed image or copy of something, reproduction, representation [1] - necessarily implies a numerical distinction between the original and its charaktēr. Therefore, stating that the Son is "the charaktēr of the Father's hypostasis" necessarily implies that the Son is or has a numerically different hypostasis from that of the Father, irrespective of what hypostasis may mean in that context.

Taking these two points in conjunction, Heb 1:3 is saying that the Son is the exact representation of the objective, concrete reality of the Father. Therefore, the objective, concrete reality of the Son is numerically different from that of the Father.

Once we understand Heb 1:3 this way, we must answer two questions:

2.1. Is Heb 1:3 consistent with trinitarian orthodoxy, Arianism, tritheism, or all of them?

The key to answer this question is to realize that, in orthodox trinitarian doctrine, the divine nature does not exist in reality separate from the divine Persons. I.e. the common divine nature, abstracted from and without the personal properties, does not have objective, concrete reality. (And thus, in the philosophical lexicon of 1st century AD, it does not "have hypostasis".) It is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit Who have objective, concrete reality. (And thus, in the philosophical lexicon of 1st century AD, "have hypostasis".) And since the Father is really not the Son, the objective, concrete reality of the Son (-his hypostasis in the philosophical lexicon of 1st century AD-) is numerically different from that of the Father, which is precisely the sense of Heb 1:3, as we saw above. Therefore, Heb 1:3 is consistent with trinitarian orthodoxy.

Note that if in the framework of trinitarian orthodoxy we want to use the term hypostasis in a sense consistent with Heb 1:3, we must use it in the post-Cappadocian sense (as opposed to the Nicene sense of synonym of ousía), because, as we saw above, Heb 1:3 necessarily implies that the Son is or has a numerically different hypostasis from that of the Father, irrespective of what hypostasis may mean. Thus, the definition of Nicaea did not use hypostasis in a sense consistent with Heb 1:3.

Clearly Heb 1:3 is also consistent with Arianism and tritheism, which also posit that the objective, concrete reality of the Son is numerically different from that of the Father. The only inconsistency of Heb 1:3 is with modalism.

2.2. What is the correct translation of hypostasis in Heb 1:3?

As we will see, the choice of Latin-derived words for "his hypostasis" to convey the original sense of "the objective, concrete reality of the Father" can no longer, after the trinitarian debates of the IV century and the settlement of the theological lexicon, be made independently from the adoption of a particular theological position. This is because, as we saw above, Heb 1:3 necessarily implies that the Son is or has a numerically different hypostasis from that of the Father, irrespective of what hypostasis may mean. With this "charaktēr corollary" in mind, let's examine the options for translating hypostasis.

a. Substance. While "substantia" in the 1st century AD was etymologically and semantically equivalent to "hypostasis", after Tertullian coined the formula "tres Personae, una Substantia" early in the III century, substantia came to mean, among Latin-speaking Christians, the single infinite spirit that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have in common. This meaning of substantia as equivalent to ousía in the Nicene sense was reinforced by that Council establishing that hypostasis, the cognate and original equivalent of substantia, was to be understood as synonym of ousía. Therefore, translating hypostasis in Heb 1:3 as "substance" after Nicaea has as a consequence, per the "charaktēr corollary" recalled above, that the translated text necessarily implies that the Son has a numerically different substance, i.e. ousía in the Nicene sense, from that of the Father, which amounts to stating Arianism if the substances are qualitatively different or tritheism if they are qualitatively identical.

In other words, translating hypostasis as substance would be perfect if we were translating Heb 1:3 into 1st century Latin, but after the Tertullian-initiated and Nicaea-confirmed understanding of substantia as ousía in the Nicene sense, it causes the passage to state either Arianism or tritheism.

b. Being. This term is ambiguous, and in principle could convey the original sense of "objective, concrete reality" as either post-Nicene notion, ousía or Person, though it sounds more like the former, with which it is etymologically related. Therefore, it is in principle compatible with all theological positions, though it sounds more as Arian or tritheistic.

c. Person. This term is fully consistent with trinitarian orthodoxy (and also with the other theological positions, since it says nothing about whether the Father and the Son have the same ousía.) It has two drawbacks: first, it has no etymological relation with hypostasis, and second, it is not a general equivalent to hypostasis but only to a hypostasis of a personal nature.

d. Subsistence. This term was invented around 400 by Tyrannius Rufinus (344-411) to convey the post-Cappadocian meaning of hypostasis, for which the term substantia was no longer available since its meaning had been settled in Nicaea as the Latin equivalent of ousía [2] [3]. It was built by taking substantia and replacing the derivative of the verb stō by the derivative of the cognate and synonym verb sistō [4] [5]:

substantia = sub ("under") + stans ("standing", present active participle of stō ("stand")) = "that which stands under".

subsistentia = sub ("under") + sistēns ("standing", present active participle of sistō ("stand")) = "that which stands under".

Therefore translating hypostasis as subsistence is etymologically perfect, generally valid, and fully consistent with trinitarian orthodoxy (and also with the other theological positions, just as the case of person). The drawback is that the word has a completely unrelated usual meaning in English.

References

Section 1

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%91%CF%80%CF%8C

[2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AC%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82

[3] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substantia

[4] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sub#Latin

[5] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stans#Latin

[6] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sto#Latin

[7] Ute Possekel, "Evidence of Greek philosophical concepts in the writings of Ephrem the Syrian", Peeters Publishers, Louvain, 1999.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rZ3gGQuJUS4C

Section 2

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%87%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%AE%CF%81

[2] Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., The Trinity and God the Creator: A Commentary on St. Thomas' Theological Summa, Ia, q. 27-119, 1943, translated by Frederic C. Eckhoff, B. Herder Book Co., 1952. Reprinted by Aeterna Press, 2016.
https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/3085
https://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/trinity.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=yGmkDAAAQBAJ

[3] "Subsistence." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 18, 2018 from Encyclopedia.com.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/subsistence

[4] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subsisto

[5] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sisto


Is William Barclay a respected theologian in mainstream Christianity?

Professor William Barclay has been somewhat misrepresented by some who object to the fact that he held to some ‘liberal’ ideas (theologically speaking). This Greek scholar and Classics expert certainly was at odds with many Christians on quite a few points, but not with regard to Jesus being God incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity. Whatever critics say about this man (who is not around to defend himself), he cannot be charged with lending any support to anti-trinitarian religionists who deny that “the Word was God”. I am not interested in defending the theology of Barclay, nor am I versed in his writings, but I do object to those who try to use partial quotes from his writings regarding the deity of Christ, to either claim he wasn’t “a real Christian” at all, or that he actually agrees with anti-trinitarians who deny that “the Word was God”. He never did support that school of thought.  It is scholastically dishonest to cite him in such a way that he appears to claim that Jesus was not God incarnate.
The article quoted from in the OPs answer to his own question is interesting in that the writer (Dudley Ross) criticises Barclay for being “a liberal”; for being less than enamoured of evangelicals in the 20th century who were viewed as being conservatives, whereas he viewed himself as a liberal evangelical; for admitting to having ‘borrowed ideas’ and not original ones of his own. Ross quotes Barclay as making the allegation, "The phrase `born of woman' has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth." I know of some trinitarians who would agree, because that phrase is never said of Jesus in the Bible – it is said of John the Baptist.
Ross does more partial quoting to accuse Barclay of this theological error: “Barclay really did not believe that Jesus was God.” The partial quote Ross uses does not favour us with the context or if Barclay then went on to add how Jesus was, indeed, God, despite those truthful points from scripture he had detailed. Like Barclay, trinitarians know that they cannot quote a verse that says “Jesus is God”, as if Jesus was the entire summation of God when the Bible is clear that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, yet both are equally God in their divine Being. So, when Barclay highlights how Jesus was sent by the Father, and prayed to Father God, and was devoted to doing the will of his Father, that would be something trinitarians agree with.
When it comes to ‘proof’ that Barclay did not believe Jesus was God, the best Ross can come up with is to refer to another person, a liberal -

“Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come
through in the expalatory [sic?] notes. The reader should be alert for
both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity
(Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an
impersonal force emanating from God)…”

But Barclay has never stated that Christ is “a mere man” nor that the Holy Spirit is “an impersonal force emanating from God.” If Barclay had said any such things, you may be sure that direct quotes would have been given. Instead, we have an attempt to tar Barclay with the same Unitarian brush that smears Thayer.
Now let Barclay speak up in protest at those who deny that Jesus is God, and who claim that the Holy Spirit is simply the power of God. Before he died, he took a group to task for trying to partially quote him to imply that he supported them. He wrote,

“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New
Testament translations.  John 1:1 is translated: ‘…the Word was a
god’, a translation which is grammatically impossible… It is
abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament
like that is intellectually dishonest.”

And that is the issue here – intellectual dishonesty. It is not about the extent of Barclay’s theological liberalism on matters other than the deity of Christ. I do not care how liberal Barclay might have been because I am not a follower of Barclay nor was I taught by him. I am only concerned with the issue of whether anti-trinitarians can cite him honestly as one of their own, or whether Barclay held to a higher, divine view of the person of Christ than they have. Many anti-trinitarians quote from Unitarians in support of their views, but the question is – can they honestly quote Barclay as a supporter of their anti-trinitarian views? I think not.
I have no intention of going on to defend Barclay by quoting copiously from his statements about the deity of Christ. It should suffice that he objected to one anti-trinitarian group trying to claim his views in support of their own on that matter. Nor will it do to claim that the question as to whether he is “a respected theologian in mainstream Christianity” links in with the claim that for many on this site “anyone who denies the trinity is not a Christian since a Christian must accept the Creeds”. Many on this site would point out that acceptance of the trinity equates with accepting what the Bible says on the matter. The biblical doctrines of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit can only ever come from the Bible. The Bible came first, creeds came later. The first century Christians wrote of how they viewed Christ, and all who call themselves Christians must adhere to what their scriptural writings declare, for therein is the revelation of God, by the Holy Spirit, as to just who this Jesus really is.
Some people in mainstream Christianity (whatever that is) will view Barclay as being a respected theologian; others will disagree. At the end of the day, people are entitled to disrespect Barclay for holding to views on many points that they disagree with, but they should not go on to approve of what he says on the person of Christ, thinking he’s anti-trinitarian when he was no such thing. Those who quote Barclay out of context on that doctrine run the risk of being scholastically dishonest.


What does the curse on the serpent mean?

The curse continues with its most important point

  And I will put enmity   between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush[b] your head,   and you will strike his heel.”

This is thought to mean Jesus (enmity) will crush serpent's head (defeat death), after Jesus suffers (heel struck).


Did early Chinese Protestant actually call God "(old) Gentleman of Fiery Magnificence", as Wikipedia says?

In the Chinese translation of the Bible, L-RD is called “耶和華”, pronounced from "Ye He Hua", it's directly derived from the Hebrew word יהוה"YHWH"
Just the literal meaning of characters, 耶 has not much meaning, while 和 means peace, 華 means Chinese.

But most of the time when a foreign word is translated to Chinese, the characters don't have significant meanings. While negative characters are avoided, neutral characters are popular in the translation of names.
In the translation of Hebrew and Greek Bible to Chinese, as much as I know, the Chinese version of names are preferably transliterated from Hebrew.

For example,

Moses - 摩西 "mo shi" - משה "moshe"
Jesus - 耶穌 "ye su" - ישוע "yeshua"
John - 約翰 "yue han" - יוחנן "yokhanan"
Joshua - 約書亞 "yue shu ya" =    יהושע "yohushua"

The "J" in Biblical English names are usually "׳" (yod) in Hebrew, pronounced as "i".


What is the official Catholic view of a feminine element within the Trinity?

What is the Catholic view of the Trinity and does it contain a feminine element?

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Catholic religion, the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Catholics are baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Before receiving the sacrament, they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son and the Spirit: "I do." "The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity."

What is the Trinity?

  A term used since A.D. 200 to denote the central doctrine of the Christian religion. God, who is one and unique in his infinite substance or nature, is three really distinct persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and only God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet God the Father is not God the Son, by generates the Son eternally, as the Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but a distinct person having the divine nature from the Father and the Son by eternal procession. The three divine persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial and deserve co-equal glory and adoration. - The Holy Trinity

In essence there is no feminine principle in the Trinity. Nevertheless some have expressed a feminine element so to speak in regards to the person of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that God is called "Father", while his love for man may also be depicted as motherhood, but he ultimately transcends the human concept of sex, and that "God is neither man nor woman: he is God".

  The Father revealed by the Son

  238 Many religions invoke God as "Father". The deity is often considered the "father of gods and of men". In Israel, God is called "Father" inasmuch as he is Creator of the world.59 Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, "his first-born son".60 God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is "the Father of the poor", of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection.61

  239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.

  240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Of the thirty or so parables in the canonical Gospels, the Prodigal Son was one of the four that were shown in medieval art almost to the exclusion of the others, but not mixed in with the narrative scenes of the Life of Christ (the others were the Wise and Foolish Virgins, Dives and Lazarus, and the Good Samaritan. The Labourers in the Vineyard also appears in Early Medieval works).

God the Father will never forget his children here on earth, just as a mother would never forget the child of her womb.

  Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? and if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee. - Isaiah 49:15

  This painting is perhaps the most famous, dramatic and beautiful presentation of the forgiving and accepting grace of God the Father. As was Rembrandt’s custom, he presents the figures in this piece primarily in darkness, with the primary light being on the face of the father, his embracing hands upon the back of his returned son, as well as upon the face of the jealous and judgmental older brother.  Notice how Rembrandt has the son positioned between the arms of the father. These arms are both receiving and protectively outlining the son. In this tender embrace, we can wonder if Rembrandt had John 1:18 in mind where we are told that God the Son dwelt in the bosom of God the Father.

  Roger Scruton comments in session 9 of The Family Project, “These are hands that are not in the business of judging or scolding.”  Henri Nouwen, in his wonderful devotional on this painting, asks a question about these hands which are distinctly different from one another. One, the left, is large, strong and masculine. The right is smaller, more slender. Perhaps feminine? Could they represent both fathering and mothering nature of God? Nouwen tells of one of his friends pointing out to him how these two hands correspond with the difference in the son’s feet. He explains,

  “…the caressing feminine hand of the father parallels the bare, wounded foot of the son, while the strong masculine hand parallels the foot dressed in a sandal. Is it too much to think that the one hand protects the vulnerable side of the son, while the other hand reinforces the son’s strength and desire to go and get on with his life.” (p. 99)

  It is very possible, as this is God’s heart and nature toward each of us. - Rembrandt’s “Return of the Prodigal Son”

Further food for though may be obtain with the following(s):

What the ‘Early Church Parents’ said about God’s gender


Do any sects permit consensual open marriages?

I am unable to find reference to any official sects or doctrines which permit open-relationships (as distinct from polygamy and various forms of plural marriage).  However, there certainly are a minority of Christians who practice various forms of open-relationships. The Liberated Christians web site* has a section about various forms of open relationships within a Christian context.  As far as I know, it's a completely amateur site, run by volunteers, and without the backing of any official church organization, denomination, or sect.
An overview of their beliefs is explained here, and says, in part:

The ancient Hebrews, as portrayed in the Old Testament, clearly believed in multiple partnerships and this practice is nowhere condemned by God.
When the New Testament scriptures are viewed as a whole, taking into account the cultural context in which they were written, it is clear that neither Jesus nor the writers of the New Testament condemned such practice, although it appears that polygamy had, for non-religious reasons, substantially declined within Jewish culture by the time of Christ.
Despite this biblical evidence, the Christian church has persistently opposed polygamous relationships and has, at times, actively persecuted families which chose to practice this lifestyle. The church has also used twisted interpretations of various scriptures in defense of its opposition to this lifestyle.

And they describe those who agree with them as:

Many of them are mainstream, evangelical Christians, including pastors and their wives, church elders and Sunday school teachers. Some are seminary-trained theologians. Others are lay men and women from many different church backgrounds or no organized Christian background at all. They come from all walks of life, including college students, doctors, ministry professionals, housewives and blue-collar workers. They may be your neighbors, co-workers or even your relatives. (Scary, isn't it?!) They are ordinary people who have simply acknowledged that they have polyamorous desires, as do most other people who are unable to admit it to themselves, their partners, their church or their God.

So not really a sect, per-se, but there are a number of Christians purported to share their views.
*Warning: ancient web site, with poor taste in animated gifs, and many broken links!


Why was it not necessary to break Jesus' legs during crucifixion?

The scripture says that Jesus "gave up his spirit" in Mt 27:50 and Jn 19:30 (it is implied in Luke). The description in John is particularly enlightening because it says that Jesus got a drink and gave up his spirit because he knew "that everything had now been finished, and so that scripture would be fulfilled". Jesus chose to give up his life at that moment, and he chose precisely the right moment in order to fulfill prophecy. It was not a matter of fitness or being in shape, but rather fulfilling God's will. This is further reinforced by the fact that before letting go of his life he said, "It is finished".

From a physiological perspective, it's also reasonable that Jesus would die faster because of what he suffered prior to crucifixion. He was beaten (Mt 26:67-68), flogged (Mt 27:26), given a crown of thorns (Mt 27:28-29), and struck over the head repeatedly (Mt 27:30).


Whose hand wrote 'the document that listed my transgressions' ? (Colossians 2:14)

The word "cheirographon" (χειρόγραφον) appears only once in the Bible.
A literal translation is "handwriting", but that's not necessarily what it means in practical usage.
(cf. "chairman" or "pineapple" or even "carpet" in English).
Its meaning must be understood from other sources.
The Outline of Biblical Usage says that the word can mean:

a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at the appointed time

Strong's says it can mean:

a manuscript (specially, a legal document or bond (figuratively))

Thayer's Greek Lexicon says:

specifically, a note of hand, or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to he returned at an appointed time (Tobit 5:3 Tobit 9:5; Plutarch, mor., p. 829 a. de vitand. aere al. 4, 3; Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 3, 40);
metaphorically, applied in Colossians 2:14 ((where R. V. bond)) to the Mosaic law, which shews men to be chargeable with offences for which they must pay the penalty.

The common element is not whether it was written by hand (and 2000 years ago they didn't have typewriters or laser printers, so how else could it be written), but that it refers to a legal document.
In English we have "writ of execution", which is a legal order issued by a court.
The word "writ" literally means "written", but that it is written is irrelevant to the meaning, and in fact it could be machine-printed from digital data on a computer.
The obvious conclusion is that "cheirographon" should be understood as meaning "IOU" or "certificate of debt".
There is no justification to attaching significance to the individual parts of the word.
Saying that it was "nailed to the cross" is simply a metaphor.
The idea is that in being literally nailed to the cross, Jesus took that IOU and paid it for you.
By no means does it mean that you can now continue to take money from the moneylender without incurring new debt.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses use different language for theological reasons?

I can't verify the accuracy of this post, but the origin of "Kingdom Hall" is given here (and I would imagine that the phrase "Kingdom Songs" has a similar origin).

  The name Kingdom Hall was suggested in 1935 by J. F. Rutherford, who
  was then president of the Watch Tower Society. In connection with the
  Society's branch facilities in Honolulu, Hawaii, [...] When James
  Harrub asked what Brother Rutherford was going to call the building,
  he replied: "Don't you think we should call it 'Kingdom Hall,' since
  that is what we are doing, preaching the good news of the Kingdom?"
  Thereafter, where possible, halls regularly being used by the
  Witnesses gradually began to be identified by signs that said "Kingdom
  Hall." -- Proclaimers Chap 20, p. 319

As to the "Hebrew (and Aramaic) Scriptures" and the "Christian Greek Scriptures" , again, I'm not sure of the accuracy of the Wikipedia article I'm about to quote, but the citations point to the original Watchtower publication.

Wikipedia offers this:

  The translators use the terms "Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures" and
  "Christian Greek Scriptures" rather than "Old Testament" and "New
  Testament", stating that the use of "testament" was based on a
  misunderstanding of 2 Corinthians 3:14.[29] When referring to dates in
  the supplemental material, the abbreviations "B.C.E." (Before the
  Common Era) and "C.E." (Common Era) are used rather than BC and AD.

You've already answered the question of "Elders" yourself.


Do divorced non-Catholics need an annulment to marry in the Catholic Church?

Code of Canon Law Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law;
  therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be
  upheld until the contrary is proven.

Thus the Church  recognizes the marriages of non-Catholics as well and considers them valid until proven otherwise.

Answering assuming the party with no encumbrances is Catholic

No marriage can occur until the marriage of the party previously married in the Baptist Church and now divorced is examined by the Church and a decree of nullity issued (i.e. in the eyes of the Church, that marriage never existed to begin with).
Once that decree has been issued, the requirements for a mixed marriage must be met for there to be a valid marriage in the Catholic Church.

Addendum

  Why does the Catholic Church require an intended spouse, who is divorced but not Catholic, to obtain an annulment before marrying in
  the Catholic Church?

  The Catholic Church respects all marriages and presumes that they are
  valid. Thus, for example, it considers the marriages of two
  Protestant, Jewish, or even nonbelieving persons to be binding for
  life. The Church requires a declaration of nullity to establish that
  an essential element was missing in that previous union preventing it
  from being a valid marriage.

  This is often a difficult and emotional issue. If the intended spouse
  comes from a faith tradition that accepts divorce and remarriage, it
  may be hard for them to understand why they must go through the
  Catholic tribunal process. Couples in this situation may find it
  helpful to talk with a priest or deacon. To go through the process can
  be a sign of great love of the non-Catholic for their intended spouse.

Source:  Annulments | FOR YOUR MARRIAGE | An initiative of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Please see also: What are the stipulations for a mixed marriage to be valid in the Catholic Church?.

It is my belief that the following are also pertinent:

MATRIMONIA MIXTA
INSTRUCTION ON MIXED MARRIAGES


Who first coined the term “Christian”?

The short answer is we just do not know. It is doubtful that it was St. Ignatius of Antioch!

It is true that the term Christian was first employed at Antioch; there exist no historical evidence as to who coined this term.

  The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11 after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26). The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26, where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (Acts 26:28). The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." (1 Peter 4:16).

  Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames. However Peter's apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over "Nazarenes" and the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards.

  The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him;" Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the 1st century. In the Annals he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians" and identifies Christians as Nero's scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome. - Etymology of the term Christian (Wikipedia)

Although we do not know who actually coined the term Christian for those who follow The Way; it quite possible that it was coined by the pagans of Antioch.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is however accredited with coining the term Catholic.

  The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term "Catholic Church" is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna. Exhorting Christians to remain closely united with their bishop, he wrote: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

  Of the meaning for Ignatius of this phrase J.H. Srawley wrote:

    This is the earliest occurrence in Christian literature of the phrase 'the Catholic Church' (ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία). The original sense of the word is 'universal'. Thus Justin Martyr (Dial. 82) speaks of the 'universal or general resurrection', using the words ἡ καθολικὴ ἀνάστασις. Similarly here the Church universal is contrasted with the particular Church of Smyrna. Ignatius means by the Catholic Church 'the aggregate of all the Christian congregations' (Swete, Apostles Creed, p. 76). So too the letter of the Church of Smyrna is addressed to all the congregations of the Holy Catholic Church in every place. And this primitive sense of 'universal' the word has never lost, although in the latter part of the second century it began to receive the secondary sense of 'orthodox' as opposed to 'heretical'. Thus it is used in an early Canon of Scripture, the Muratorian fragment (circa 170 A.D.), which refers to certain heretical writings as 'not received in the Catholic Church'. So too Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, says that the Church is called Catholic not only 'because it is spread throughout the world', but also 'because it teaches completely and without defect all the doctrines which ought to come to the knowledge of men'. This secondary sense arose out of the original meaning because Catholics claimed to teach the whole truth, and to represent the whole Church, while heresy arose out of the exaggeration of some one truth and was essentially partial and local.

  By Catholic Church Ignatius designated the universal church. Ignatius considered that certain heretics of his time, who disavowed that Jesus was a material being who actually suffered and died, saying instead that "he only seemed to suffer" (Smyrnaeans, 2), were not really Christians. Historical use of the term Catholic (Wikipedia)

Side note:

  According to an ancient tradition, St. Ignatius of Antioch was the child whom Christ took and presented to the apostles as the example of the one who is greater in the kingdom of heaven. From that day the child, who was most beloved by the Savior and favoured with the divine embrace, was also marked as the one upon whom lions would feast in the Roman Colosseum.

    At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:1-4)


What is the Biblical Basis for Christ returning with a physical body at the Second Coming?

Will Christ at the second coming be made of flesh?
Yes.  This is what the Bible says:
It is true that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).  The Word gave up the glory he had in heaven and became a little lower than the angels in order to do the will of his Father in heaven.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9).

This is Jesus, who lived, died and then was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones.   The resurrected Jesus told his disciples he was not some sort of spirit creature:

A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have (Luke 24:39).

Acts 1:9-11 tells us that just as his disciples saw him ascend into heaven, so he will return in the same way:

After He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight.  And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, then behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them, and they said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.

Jesus was resurrected with a glorified body of flesh, an incorruptible body, fit for eternity in heaven.  His followers, who look to a heavenly citizenship, await the return of the Lord Jesus Christ who is empowered to

transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body (Philippians 3:20-21).

His glorious body is an incorruptible body, one that will never die.  In this way, Jesus' resurrected body is different from his pre-resurrection body.  Nonetheless, when he returns, in glory and accompanied by all the heavenly hosts, it will not be as a spirit creature, but as the resurrected Christ - and every eye will see him.
As a response to the comment left by @user47592: Jesus own words prove that the resurrected Jesus was not a spirit creature but had a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Acts 1:11 informs us that Jesus will return “in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”  It was not a spirit creature that ascended into heaven.  It was the glorified, resurrected body of Christ Jesus that his disciples saw.
There is nothing invisible about the return of Jesus:

Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.  So shall it be!  Amen (Revelation 1:7).

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ Jesus will return as a spirit creature.
If you disagree, feel free to down-vote my answer but it would be more honest to post your own answer to the OP’s question and explain to everybody why you disagree with Ken Graham and myself.


Why does Catholicism impose restrictions on receiving the Eucharist?

Firstly, 1 Cor. 11:24 & 25 ("this do ye for the commemoration of me") is not addressed to all of us but to ordained priests with the ability to consecrate, of which the Apostles were.

Secondly, the Church prohibits those in a state of mortal sin (e.g., the divorced and "remarried," who are really adulterers, unless they correct their sinful situation and receive absolution in Confession) from receiving Communion both for the sake of the sinners' souls and for the preservation of the sanctity of this most Holy Sacrament, for, as St. Paul relays (1 Cor. 11:27),

  whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of our Lord.

To receive Communion, one must be

a baptized Catholic united to the Catholic Church
in a state of sanctifying grace (i.e., not have committed a mortal sin, the death of the supernatural life of the soul, without first receiving absolution from a priest in the Sacrament of Confession)


Why did God describe the light as being good, but not the darkness?

If you look over the account, God pronounced all of the things that he created "good," after he was finished creating them.  But look at what it says about the darkness: the earth was without form and void, and darkness covered everything... and then God said "Let there be light" and Creation began.

This implies that darkness wasn't something that God created, but rather the default state, the absence of the light that God created.  (Which is in line with modern scientific knowledge about the nature of light and optics.)


Is righteousness a prerequisite for salvation?

You say "a person would be considered righteous by their deeds and not just their faith".  I'm not sure this is a necessary reading of the Biblical passage. You quote 2.24: I think verse 18 is more useful for interpreting James' account of the relationship between faith and works:

  But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

James 2.18 (NRSV)

It isn't that faith and works are separately required – prerequisites, if you like – for salvation. It's much more that James sees them as inseperable.  You can't go round saying "I have faith, so ignore what I do: I've saved."  What you do, for James, demonstrates your faith.  If you have faith, you will do good works.  If you have faith in Jesus Christ, that faith will transform you and it will transform the way you act. A genuine faith is shown by the fact that the person does good works.  A faith that isn't seen in works is, as far as James is concerned, dead:

  For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

James 2.26 (NRSV)

Or, as Martin Luther would have it (despite his well known views on the Book of James...):

  Faith cannot help doing good works constantly.

An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans (1522)

James is reacting against a tendency – which has come up time and time again in Christianity – to ignore how Christians act because in Christ all sin is forgiven, or because salvation is predestined.  The tendency – commonly known as antinomianism (ἀντί against + νόμος law) – has been seen as heretical pretty much by all Christian groups throughout history.

I don't think James is undermining the significance of faith, but he is saying that it doesn't exist in a moral vacuum where it has no effects in a Christian's behaviour.


Was there any meaningful difference between the terms "presbyter" and "priest" in early Christianity?

I don't have any documents to show you, but I do want to point out some linguistic aspects to this question that can lead to confusion.

In English, the word priest comes from a contraction of the word presbyter. In other languages, the word used for Catholic priests today is the word presbyter, so this question as worded doesn't really work in an early Church context that predates the English language.

However, in Greek, there is the word hieros, which fits the Old Testament concept of a priest in the Temple. The meaning of hieros is one who offers sacrifices. It also refers to one who represents God to man and man to God, performing an intermediary and intercessory role. However, the meaning of presbyteros is really just an older man who is a leader and does not have as much of a religious connotation.

I think the question you would be interested in would be to know if the words hieros and presbyteros were used to refer to the same person in the early Church. I remember hearing that they were because they refer to different aspects of the same role, with hieros referring to their intercessory role and presbyteros referring to their leadership role.

By the way, hieros is where we get the word "hierarchy" (literally rule by priests) referring to the leadership of the Church.


Was the account of eating forbidden fruit a metaphor?

The Church of England doesn't generally have a published doctrinal stance on this sort of thing.
However, there is a passage in the Catechism which might be relevant.

What is thy duty towards God?
My duty towards God is to believe in him, to fear him, and to love him, with all my heart, with all my mind, with all my soul, and with all my strength; to worship him, to give him thanks, to put my whole trust in him, to call upon him, to honour his holy Name and his Word, and to serve him truly all the days of my life.

Eve, and Adam, certainly didn't follow that: by disobeying, they did not put their whole trust in God. Whether that turns the story of the apple into a metaphor can only be determined by the individual — the Church of England holds that it's reasonable to believe that the first few chapters of Genesis are literally true and it's reasonable to believe they are allegory or metaphor.
Acquiescent obedience would imply simply being an automaton. No-one is an automaton; God gave Man free-will, and he's used it. It was the basis for the Fall in the first place.
The Catechism continues:

What is thy duty towards thy Neighbour?
My duty towards my Neighbour is to love him as myself, and to do to all men as I would they should do unto me: To love, honour, and succour my father and mother: To honour and obey the Queen, and all that are put in authority under her: To submit myself to all my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters: To order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters: To hurt nobody by word nor deed: To be true and just in all my dealing: To bear no malice nor hatred in my heart: To keep my hands from picking and stealing, and my tongue from evil-speaking, lying, and slandering: To keep my body in temperance, soberness, and chastity: Not to covet nor desire other men's goods; but to learn and labour truly to get mine own living, and to do my duty in that state of life, unto which it shall please God to call me.

This certainly sounds like "acquiescent obedience", but bear in mind that this was written in the seventeenth century for young people coming to confirmation (and it had to be learned by heart!). These two questions follow directly after the recitation of the Ten Commandments and their distillation into the two Dominical commandments, Love God and Love thy Neighbour.
God's will for mankind is to love God and love one's fellow-man. The Catechism makes it clear that there is no greater calling, since it is God's; is that "acquiescent obedience"?


What is the Catholic Church's teaching on paying respect to one's in-laws?

What is the catholic Church's teaching on paying respect to one's in-laws?

Did not Our Lord say:

  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another”. (John 13:34)

In-laws are simply our extended immediate extended family through marriage.

Our Lord also said:

  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12: 30-31)

Do not forget that we must love and respect all people, strangers, in-laws as well as those we do not get along with. The Golden Rule applies to all people including our in-laws.

  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". (Matthew 7:12)

The Fourth Commandment says that one should respect one's parents. In-laws are family by extension of marriage and they deserve our love and respect. It behooves us as Catholics to follow Our Lord’s words to the best of our ability.


Biblical basis for God's egalitarian love

I am not aware of a verse that says explicitly that "God loves everyone equally". In fact, there are some verses to suggest that some are loved more than others, which is not your question so will be neglected1, but there are several that indicate that God indeed loves all people.

The first is probably the most quoted Bible verse of all time:

  For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
  John 3:16 (NASB)

That verse stresses that God loved the world, which colloquially means everyone. Additionally, the love is so great that the greatest gift of all, eternal life, is offered to everyone. Now there's not a direct statement of "love equality" in John 3, but there is a good case to be made that God loves everyone greatly.

This thought continues in Romans 5, 1 Timothy, and 2 Peter:

  But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
  Romans 5:8 (NASB)

  [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
  1 Timothy 3:9 (NASB)

  The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
  2 Peter 3:9 (NASB)

It seems odd to suggest that God does not love anybody in light of these verses, however, it does not mean there is "love equality", however, when the love of God was the motivation to offer all people eternal life, we are talking about a love in which the minimum level is exceedingly great.

The perspective given on GotQuestions.org makes a distinction between merciful love, which extends to everyone and keeps God from annihilating everyone at the moment of sin, and covenant love, which extends to only Christians and brings the gift of eternal life for the condition of accepting Jesus. I find that the view is common among Christians.

See Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2-3


What are the minimum requirements for becoming pope?

The Answer

You asked what were the minimum requirements for becoming a pope. So I will not entertain all the minutia associate with papal elections.

First of all, a pope is simply a bishop who has universal authority over the Church1. Other bishops only have authority over their particular Churches, though they may exercise authority over the universal Church if they are joined by other means (i.e., an oecumenical council or in union with another bishop).

Further, bishops are bishops by virtue of the fact that they are recipients of the sacrament of priesthood. To eligible to receive this sacrament, one must be a baptized man2.

Therefore, because the papacy is simply an office of a bishop (or episcopate) with universal authority, the only requirements for holding the office of the pope, the papacy, are the requirements for holding an office of a bishop. The only requirements for holding the office of a bishop are those required to receive the sacrament of the priesthood. Therefore there are only two requirements:

One must be male
One must be baptized

All other "requirements" are merely practical requirements--that is to say, it is very doubtful the Church will elect a non-practicing Christian despite the fact he was baptized as a baby and a male. Despite the fact he is eligible, he is practically disqualified on account of his apostasy.

Side Note

There is room for speculation in the Church on whether popes can lose their office save the occasions of death and resignation. St. Robert Bellarmine is infamous for speculating such. While this is in the realm of speculation, the Church in general has moved strongly away from such thoughts. It is popularly held that popes are popes until they aren't popes--that is to say, a pope doesn't stop being pope because you don't like him.

Sources

1http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/882.htm

2http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1577.htm


How sound is the doctrine in Dante's Inferno?
Dante’s Inferno is basically just one part of the now famous work known as The Divine Comedy. Dante Alighieri’s epic poem was written in 1321 and was written as a literary work and not a theological work. We have to keep that in mind.
Dante was quite orthodox for his time place in history.
As a literary work, it was intended to be a poem which included the use of allegory, symbolism,  philosophy, and theology, as understood in his times.

Dante’s three-part epic poem the Divine Comedy, or Commedia, is one of the most influential and dense works of poetic literature in the Western tradition.  Building off Homer and Virgil, and influencing the likes of Chaucer, Milton, Blake, and Tennyson, as well as bringing to popular consciousness and form the modern Italian language, Dante’s epic delves into the meaning of allegory, poetry, love, truth, and philosophy.  Dante’s poetry rests on the classical presumptions of the human being: earthly love does have Divine, or transcendent, character and quality.  Moreover, following from the Christian tradition which Dante is part of and extols, it is first the love of things temporal when finally, and properly ordered, allows one to enjoy earthly loves while proceeding to move toward the permanent things: the good, true, and beautiful.
Admittedly, the poem is exceedingly dense and is ripe with all types of layers of allegory, philosophy, and theology. For a basic understanding of the intellectual content of the poem, I cannot go too deep into the themes for risk of losing you, the reader.  As such, I will explore a few of the major themes in the various books – starting with Inferno – and give explanation and context to these.
Understanding the Inferno: The Construction of Hell
To understand Dante’s construction of Hell we must first understand some basic things about Christian theology.  In Christian theology, God is understood as Love and Truth. This is important to know when exploring the nine circles of Hell, and especially the separation between the first four five circles with the final four circles.  Furthermore, Christian anthropology asserts that man has a telos and that this telos is to live a life in union with truth, wisdom, and love. Without knowing Truth, which is impossible with reason or wisdom, then one cannot properly love.  Without this one cannot live a truly fulfilled and happy life which is what all humans seek. - Dante’s Inferno: Understanding Hell

Dante’s Divine Comedy is a poem containing a  mixture of the Biblical truths, Roman Catholicism, mythology, and medieval traditions.

The poem is written in the first person as Dante describes his imaginative journey through the three realms of the dead: Inferno (hell); Purgatorio (Purgatory); and Paradiso (heaven).
The philosophy of the poem is a mixture of the Bible, Roman Catholicism, mythology, and medieval tradition. Where Dante draws on his knowledge of the Bible, the poem is truthful and insightful. Where he draws on the other sources, the poem departs from truth.
One extra-biblical source Dante drew upon was Islamic tradition (Hadiths) as depicted in Muhammed’s “Night Journey.” According to one scholar, Islamic eschatology has exercised “an extraordinary influence on Chinese and Christian thought. Among numerous popular eschatological works written by Christians, Dante’s Divina Commedia is an example of Islamic influence” (Islam by Solomon Nigosian, Crucible, 1987, page 152).
In fairness to Dante, however, it should be noted that his work is intended to be literary, not theological. It does reflect a deep yearning to understand the mysteries of life and death and, as such, has generated tremendous interest over the centuries, remaining extremely popular even today. - Is The Divine Comedy / Dante’s Inferno a biblically accurate description of heaven and hell?

Not completely backed up biblically or even by any tradition, Dante places Satan frozen in the middle of a lake of ice. He even places Christ’s betrayer Judas in his mouth as if eating souls like a ravenous lion. In his three mouths, he chews on Judas Iscariot, Marcus Junius Brutus, and Gaius Cassius Longinus. The Divine Comedy runs like a medieval novel than a theological work.

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. - 1 Peter 5:8

His epic poem does deviate from biblical sources and traditional pius beliefs, but his imagery, at least to me remains awesome!

Satan is trapped in the frozen central zone in the Ninth Circle of Hell, Inferno, Canto 34. Illustration by Gustave Doré.
The following may be of some interest:

Why is the Devil also known as Lucifer (and other names) three-faced? Symbolic meaning of Dante in his Canto XXXIV of the Divine Comedy.


Why should I choose one particular congregation or denomination?

To be honest, you have a good point.

We're all here for the same reason, to glorify God and rejoice in his Son, our savior. For most intents and purposes, any denomination of Christianity will get you that much.

As far as being part of a body of Christians at all, I believe this to be essential. Time alone is also necessary, but good Christian fellowship can go a long way; there are those to help you in your walk with faith, those to keep you on your walk, those to share your experiences with, and those to encourage you. This site could even be called a good site for Christian fellowship. The body of Christ is ever growing, and can a finger or a toe be a part of the body if it doesn't want anything to do with the rest of the fingers or toes, or they eyes or the nose?

As far as picking a denomination, this often happens because of very small, specific beliefs. I (being a Lutheran) selected my denomination because of how closely they keep to the original translation of the Bible (every pastor must learn Greek and Hebrew, and they cite the original languages often) and because of their focus on Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone. I needed to be constantly reminded of the fact that nothing I do can get me to heaven, and that God is the only one that has the ability to save me, and I need to take every chance I get to further my relationship with Him.


If we have no control over the lusts of the flesh, then all the commands in the Bible to refrain from sin are pretty absurd and waste of time and space.

Of course we have the ability to say no to temptations, as is cited in many passages of Scripture that urge us to do so.

  No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is
  faithful, and h*e will not let you be tempted beyond your ability*,
  but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that
  you may be able to endure it.  1 Corinthians 10:13 ESV

  For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
  12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to
  live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age.
  Titus 2:11-12 ESV

  As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your
  former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be
  holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy,
  for I am holy.”  1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV

If we really did not have the ability to overcome temptation, then the Bible would say much different things and give different instructions about responding to our inevitable failures.


Where does prevenient grace originate in the Bible?

From a Lutheran perspective:

We do not believe in us having to do anything.  Even accepting Christ.

Ephesians 1:4

  4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

He chose us.  Not the other way around.

If we don't accept Christ, how do we know that we're saved?

Baptism.

1 Peter 3:21

  21 Baptism now saves you

Only God can really know whether someone goes to heaven or hell, but if the child were baptised, I would say that 1 Peter 3:21 provides a good basis for the belief that they could still go to heaven.


Is there any good book on history of the heresy of Modernism?

This is a good introduction to the history and philosophy of Modernism:

Dominique Bourmaud, One Hundred Years of Modernism: A History of Modernism, Aristotle to the Second Vatican Council (Kansas City, Mo.: Angelus Press, 2006).e-book en español: Cien años de Modernismo: Genealogia del Concilio Vaticano II

History

Emile Poulat, Histoire, dogme et critique dans la crise moderniste (Tournai, Belgium: Casterman, 1962).e-book in italiano: Storia, dogma, e critica nella crisi modernista

Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century (Kansas City, MO: Sarto House, 1996).e-book en español: Iota Unum: Estudio sobre las transformaciones de la Iglesia Católica en el siglo XX

Alexander Roper Vidler, A Variety of Catholic Modernists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

Doctrine

Jean Baptiste Lemius and John Fitzpatrick, Catechism on Modernism According to the Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” of His Holiness Pius X (London: R. & T. Washbourne, 1908).Fr. Lemius is the presumed drafter of Pope St. Pius X's encyclical on Modernism, Pascendi.

Thomas Joseph Walshe, The Principles of Catholic Apologetics : A Study of Modernism Based Chiefly on the Lectures of Père Garrigou-Lagrange “De Revelatione per Ecclesiam Catholicam Proposita” Adapted and Re-Arranged (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2009).

Jürgen Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Théologie - New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2010).The "New Theology" is neo-Modernism; Pope Pius XII condemned it in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, subtitled: "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine." It's drafter is thought to have been Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P, ∵ he wrote "The structure of the encyclical Humani Generis." Cf. also: Greenstock, David L., T.O.P., "Thomism and the New Theology," The Thomist, 13 (1950), p. 567 & this quote from it re: theological conclusions.

Key Magisterial Documents

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis & Syllabus of Errors, Lamentabili Sane (1907), Oath Against Modernism (1910)
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (1950)


How does one go to Confession before receiving the Eucharist if I am not Catholic?

Catholic sacraments are for Catholics.

Catholic sacraments are for Catholics and Catholics are to receive the sacraments from Catholic ministers.

  Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2. - Immensae Caritatis

However, there are circumstances when non-Catholics may receive Communion from a Catholic priest. This is especially the case when it comes to Eastern Orthodox Christians, who share the same faith concerning the nature of the sacraments:

  "Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).

In your particular case, you must take an RCIA course in order to be instructed on what the Catholic Church teaches and believes. Once an individual is ready to make a Profession of Faith into the Church, one will normally make a confession the day before he makes his public Profession of Faith and receives the Eucharist. This is the practice in my archdiocese.

That said one should be aware that Non-Catholics may go to confession under very limited circumstances.

  Can. 844 covers exceptional circumstances when Catholics can receive the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Anointing of the Sick from non-Catholic (but validly ordained) priests, as well as those exceptional circumstances when non-Catholics can receive those three sacraments in the Catholic Church.

  Note well the important word “exceptional”.

  Can. 844, states in paragraph 4:

    “If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or of the Bishops’ Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.”

  First situation: danger of death. Here the priest makes the determination. If a priest approaches a car accident where a man is dying and the priest asks if he can be of any assistance, and the man says, “Father, I’m a Lutheran, but I know I’m dying and I want to meet my Lord with a clear conscience. Could you hear my confession?” The priest could determine that, yes, the conditions warrant him hearing the confession of this Lutheran.

  Next: outside the danger of death. Notice who makes the determination: not the priest, but either the diocesan bishop, or the whole Bishops’ Conference. If there were a general persecution of Norwegian Lutherans in my native Minnesota, and all their ministers were being rounded up and sent to the state pen in Stillwater or St. Cloud, the diocesan bishops could determine that this exceptional situation warrants exceptional action. He could permit his priests to absolve, communicate, and anoint Norwegian Lutherans who come to them, provided these Lutherans “demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments.”

  Bottom line: in situations where there is not danger of death, it is not up to us – even to the priest – to determine if the conditions are met for these exceptional cases.  The bishop decides!  If there is time to consult the bishop, consult the bishop! -  Can non-Catholics go to confession?

That said, in the meantime one can and should make a perfect act of contrition.


Why did the Catholic Church decide to have a Bible?

Why a canon?

Why not a potato gun?
Even before John died in Patmos there started to be other books which claimed to come from the Apostles or otherwise claimed to have been inspired by God. While in some cases this was not a terrible thing (some of them are quite dull, actually) others of these were wild departures from the teachings of Christ and were arguably destructive to the soul. As a response the Church started to gather together lists of what documents were known to have been of Apostolic origin. I believe the first such (or the first that we know about) list dates back to the end of the second century. It actually took the better part of three centuries for a genuine consensus to exist and when it was finally agreed upon that was more-or-less a gentleman's agreement: no ecumenical council decided the fact, everyone simply agreed.

It was over a millennium later that someone presented a serious challenge to the canon. One of the less talked about points which was a bi-product of the reformation was the fact that people started to call into question which books actually belonged in the Bible and which did not. In a response to this, the Council of Trent officially (and bindingly) defined the canon.

What benefit is there to a canon?

Among others:

What benefit is there to have a creed? What benefit is there in having a Catechism? One of the chief benefits of a canon is that it functions as a point of reference. You can deny Augustine, but you can't deny Paul.
It also served liturgical purposes. Even from the road to Emmaus, the Church has associated the breaking of the bread with the reading of scripture. Setting a defined list of scripture guarantees that what is read is something worth reading.

You may want to check out this article on the process.


The best explanation I heard on this passage goes like this : "Depart from me all those who professed to be my followers, yet lived your lives as if I had never given you commands to live by". In other words, all those who never tried to be holy like Jesus.  And, by the way, ALL sins are mortal unless they are forgiven by Jesus. And He can forgive EVERY sin.


How do Young Earth Creationists explain artifacts dated to 20,000 years ago or more?

As others noted, icr.org and answersingenesis.com have numerous articles on the subject. The argument is usually boiled down into the following points:

1) Accurate radioactive dating assumes that the decay rate of a radioactive material has not changed over time and is the same today as long in the past.

2) Dating of objects less than about 50,000 years old is done using Carbon-14, not other isotopes that have much longer half-lives, such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, etc. (See http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/carbon14.html ) (Other non-radioactive methods have their proponents, and these methods have their own problems. e.g. dendrochronology- studying tree rings. See http://www.icr.org/article/7058/ )

3) Only once-living things may be so dated. (Although, consider the presence of C-14 in diamonds thought to be millions or billions of years old: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-in-fossils-and-diamonds/ ) (Also, there are restrictions. e.g. Sea creatures and animals that eat sea creatures are excluded, since the amount of C-14 in the ocean is much different than the atmosphere.)

4) Dating using Carbon-14 assumes that the fraction of C-14 in the atmosphere had reached a steady state value long ago and has not changed appreciably since then. (C-14 is assumed to be created by cosmic rays hitting Nitrogen in the atmosphere.)

5) C-14 is absorbed into organisms via respiration or consuming plants that contain it.

6) After the organism dies and is buried, no more C-14 enters it, and the C-14 already inside it begins to decay, starting the clock.

7) During the period that the organism is buried and fossilized or preserved in some other way, no chemical processes cause additional C-14 to enter the specimen or be leached out of it.

8) When the specimen is dug up and prepared for analysis, it is not contaminated by foreign sources of carbon.

9) The machines used to determine the ratio of C-14 to C-12 are well-calibrated and sensitive enough to make an accurate determination.

I doubt that anyone, Creationist, Evolutionist or other, would disagree with what I just said. The question is, how valid are the many assumptions that I listed? Some of them must be taken on faith - we have no way to inspect the entire geological and chemical history that a specimen has undergone in order to tell if any assumptions have been violated.

Young earth creationists have challenged several of the assumptions.

1) If the Earth was recently created, then at the start, before any cosmic rays had yet hit the atmosphere, there would be no C-14 in it. Any plants or animals that died and were buried at this time would have no C-14, hence would appear to be very old - say 100,000 years old, or the limit of our machines ability to measure.

2) Over time, as C-14 built up in the atmosphere (via cosmic ray bombardment of atmospheric Nitrogen), things would begin to take on a younger C-14 age.

3) The flood of Noah removed a huge amount of carbon from the biosphere, burying it underground. This cause a sudden drop in C-14. (See https://www.icr.org/article/7311 )

4) Since then, C-14 has recovered and increased.

The above story is consistent with the Bible, and accounts for fluctuation in C-14 concentrations in the atmosphere that would then be interpreted as older and younger ages than the true ages.

In addition, experiments have been performed that show that the decay rate can be altered under certain laboratory conditions. (See https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/acceleration-of-radioactivity-shown-in-laboratory/ )  It is theorized that the flood was caused by God speeding the decay rate, causing excess heat inside the earth, triggering volcanism and earthquakes and shifting tectonic plates, which poured steam into the atmosphere, forming the clouds that inundated the world.

The resulting warm ocean and volcanoes caused so much water and dust to enter the atmosphere, that they blocked the sun and triggered an ice age. (See http://www.icr.org/article/ice-age-genesis-flood/ )

The importance of understanding the true initial conditions of the earth cannot be overstated. For example, potassium-argon dating (used for longer time scales) assumes that molten volcanic rock is so hot that it forces all the argon gas out before the rock cools. Then inside the cool rock, potassium begins to decay into argon, which remains trapped in the solid rock. However, recent volcanoes have been studied. Volcanic rocks only a year or two old are found to be millions of years old by K-Ar dating, because they have argon gas that the theories said should not be there. Thus we have actual experimental evidence to show that their assumptions are not (at least in some cases) valid. (See https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/anomalous-potassium-argon-ages-implications/ )

Quote from http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/carbon14.html:

  "Scientists now realize that production of carbon-14 has not been
  constant over the years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun
  has fluctuated."