The Masoretic (Hebrew) text is closer to the Bible Jesus used, but Septuagint (LXX) was the one used by the New Testament writers.

In most of the Old Testament, the differences are not very significant. However, in a few places the Masoretic and LXX have sharp differences. For example:

  Isaiah 7:14 NRSV from Masoretic Text: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Many modern Bible translations prefer the LXX in passages that are quoted in the New Testament:

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

When this verse is quoted in the gospel of Matthew, it is clearly the Septuagint version:

  Matthew 1:23 NRSV "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."

For that reason alone, I'd be reluctant to dismiss the Septuagint entirely. The ideal (short of learning Hebrew and Greek) would be a translation with lots of footnotes to indicate where the Hebrew and the LXX disagree, and explanations of why the translators prefer one or the other. Failing that, it's beneficial to have several translations available to see how different translators handled these passages.


Does the holiness of a person grow over time?

Holiness is how godlike one is. God is charity (1 Jn. 4:8). Since charity can increase (Summa Theologica II-II q. 29 a. 4) or decrease (a. 10),* so can holiness increase or decrease.
*cf. On Love and Charity: Readings from the Commentary [of St. Thomas Aquinas] on the Sentences of Peter Lombard pp. 31-55, 66-80


You have to go all the way back to Deuteronomy 12 to get to the beginning of the "statutes and judgments" given by God to the Israelites.

Deuteronomy 12:1-7(NKJ)
A Prescribed Place of Worship
1 “These are the statutes and judgments which you shall be careful to observe in the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth. 2 You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. 3 And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place. 4 You shall not worship the LORD your God with such things.
5 “But you shall seek the place where the LORD your God chooses, out of all your tribes, to put His name for His dwelling place; and there you shall go. 6 There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. 7 And there you shall eat before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice in all to which you have put your hand, you and your households, in which the LORD your God has blessed you.

Emphasis mine.
God is giving instruction appropriate for the time and the place.  Not everything in Deuteronomy is appropriate for our time and our place.
As J. Daniel Hays writes in his Applying the Old Testament Law Today:

The narrative setting for the Book of Deuteronomy is the eleventh month of the fortieth year of the Exodus (Deut. 1:3), just before Israel entered Canaan. The place is specified—just east of the Jordan River (1:1, 5). Israel had completed the forty years of wandering as a punishment for refusing to enter the land. Now a new generation had grown up and God gave them a restatement of the covenant that He had made with their parents forty years earlier. Most of Deuteronomy consists of a series of speeches that Moses delivered to the Israelites on God’s behalf. These speeches are connected to the narrative because they refer to the same time, place, and main characters as the narrative does. Also the end of the book contains some nonlegal, narrative material: the appointment of Joshua as leader (31:1–8), the song of Moses (32:1–47), a blessing of Moses on the tribes (33:1–29), and the death of Moses (34:1–12). Furthermore the events of Deuteronomy flow into the Book of Joshua, where the story continues without interruption.


How do Catholics understand how the title “Lord” for Jesus is dependent on his resurrection at Ro 14:9 if it means he is God?

The argument that calling Jesus "Lord" necessarily or always refers to his divinity, I suspect, is a novel one; and non-magisterial catechetical resources carry no guarantee of the soundness of their argumentation for doctrine, since the deposit of faith was handed on largely without explanation of the doctrines, containing only the doctrines themselves: various explanations and arguments for said doctrines' validity accumulating over time. That said, there are certain instances which make it clear that for early Christians, the lordship of the Messiah, and his divinity, were without scruple conflated and mingled into one conception of one single person, one divine Messiah - inasmuch as that's precisely who Jesus is in the New Testament: "God ..  made flesh." (John 1). One key example is, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). Or the instances of "The Day of the Lord" being conflated with the "Day of Christ." Yahweh the only Saviour with Jesus the Saviour of all. Etc. Clearly "Lord" with reference to Jesus is directly calling Him God, as in the Lord of all.

Consider two chapters prior:

  Romans 10:9-13 (DRB) For if thou confess with thy mouth [that Jesus is Lord], and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For, with the heart, we believe unto [righteousness]; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded. 12 For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.

St. Paul quotes Joel 2:32 here:

  And it shall come to pass, that every one that shall call upon the name of the Lord [Yahweh] shall be saved: for in mount Sion, and in Jerusalem shall be salvation, as the Lord hath said, and in the residue whom the Lord shall call.

Thus, Romans 14:9 might rightly be understood in the sense that God in some sense can become 'more' the Lord of the living and the dead by partaking of life and death in the humanity of Christ, than if He hadn't - and only in that sense. Analogous to how Hebrews 4:15 describes the incarnation (Phil. 2):

  For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.

On the one hand, not having compassion on our infirmities wouldn't follow from not being human, since God can make Christ quite capable of sympathizing with those who were, according to Hebrews 1, and John 1, were created through him, and which all consist in him (Col. 1:17).

  Hebrews 2:17-18 (DRB) Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God, that he might be a propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that, wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able to succour them also that are tempted.

As if Christ, who is greater than the angels, couldn't do what angels an do. Thus the argument is that it is fitting and a way in which He can in yet another way be considered the perfect mediator, not that if He lacked humanity, He couldn't save another way, for example.

As with Romans, the author of Hebrews has already called Him God:

  Hebrews 3:1-4 (DRB) Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus: 2 Who is faithful to him that made him, as was also Moses in all his house. 3 For this man was counted worthy of greater glory than Moses, by so much as he that hath built the house, hath greater honour than the house. 4 For every house is built by some man: but he that created all things, is God.

There is as much difference between God and some man as there is between Christ and Moses. Why? Because He is God in the flesh. A man, yes, but who is that man? Son of Mary, or Son of God first, "from ancient times, even from the days of eternity?" The latter.

The word translated "[that] he might be lord of both" is a single verb in the Greek (κυριευση), meaning, "he might be lord." This never refers to being a particular lord or the Lord, but to *the quality of having or exercising governance over*, or exercising one's lordship over someone or something. It doesn't refer to becoming Lord.

However, here, even with the Catholic or trinitarian conception of Jesus, this clearly refers to the humanity of Christ ("he died and rose" etc.) and not to his divinity, in which He is already Lord by virtue of His being God. Here, Christ becomes the lord of the living and the dead by buying them from sin, and being "the Saviour of all men" (1 Tim. 4:10).

St. Paul's point in most or all of these instances is that Jesus is Lord in every way imaginable - as both God and as man. King and Lord in the sense of the new Adam and Messiah as well as in the sense of God.


The Old Testament canon for Christians was formally set for all five ancient Church Sees (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) at the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787.  This Council ratified the Old Testament canons of the local councils of Carthage in 397 and Trullo in 692.  The council of Trullo had ratified the canon specified Canon LXXXV of the Apostolic Canons.

In neither these local councils nor in the 7th Ecumenical Council was the Book of Enoch specified as one of the canonical Old Testament books.  The canon that the 7th Ecumenical Council ratified was the combined lists of the two aforementioned local councils:

  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
  Joshua, Judges, Ruth
  Four "Books of Kings", namely 1/2 Samuel and 1/2 Kings
  Two "books of Paraleipomena", i.e. 1/2 Chronicles
  Job
  Psalms
  Five "books of Solomon": Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
  The books of the 12 Prophets: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel
  Tobit
  Judith
  Esther
  Two "books of Esdras": Ezra and Nehemiah
  Three books of Maccabees


What are the major views on Adam's motivation to sin given that he was
  not deceived?

According to Genesis 3:6, after the woman had eaten, she offered the fruit to her husband who was with her. I see here only a change in panorama, not a change in chronology. Adam had been standing there the entire time. He heard it all, he saw it all. If we look at the first part of verse 6, a possible answer reveals itself.

  And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it
  was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise,
  she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat... (AV)

We are told that the woman "saw" three things concerning the tree:

It was good for food;
It was pleasant to the eyes;
It was a tree to be desired to make one wise.

To begin with, the woman was motivated by what she now "saw," not by what God had previously declared. And what she saw appealed to the bodily senses and carnal desires. It is no coincidence that a serpent is seen beguiling the woman. That the serpent ("the poisoner") was the mouthpiece of Satan is commonly understood. And in a very real way, here the serpent "poisoned" the thinking of the woman and her husband, "who was with her."

Though no reference is made to what Adam "saw" in the tree, we do have one clear fact revealed to us in Scripture—

  ...and he did eat.

Irrespective of what Adam did or did not see with regard to the tree, what he DID see was that the woman had eaten of the forbidden fruit and "was not dead." Regardless of Adam's position with regard to the tree, he was still motivated by what he "saw" in stark contrast to what God had declared and commanded. Thus, Adam's motivation to sin was the fact that he did not see the woman fall down dead. Which brings up an interesting point.

Numbers chapter 30 deals in part with the making of vows and swearing of oaths which bind a man or woman. Beginning with verse 6 we read—

  And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out
  of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it,
  and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows
  shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8
  But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he
  shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with
  her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD
  shall forgive her. (AV)

These are the words of the LORD which Moses, in turn, conveyed to Israel. I submit that there is little difference, if indeed there is any at all, between an oath that binds one's soul and a deed which does so.

Here we have God's own declaration that if the husband hears (or hears and sees) what his wife does which is contrary to God's declaration, command, statute, edict, law, precept, etc., then the man has full authority to disallow what was said or done by the woman (wife) and, "...the LORD shall forgive her."

I see no reason to strip Adam of this caliber of authority. He would have been well within his sphere of authority and dominion over the serpent in disallowing the "act" of the woman, and to give the serpent the "left foot of fellowship" from the garden. In so doing he would have upheld the command of God both in regard to the "fruit" and in regard to "having dominion."


What Biblical evidence is there that the Apostles feared for their lives after Jesus was crucified?

Some commentators think so.  John 20:19 is the best indication:

  On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” [ESV]

Thomas Constable's analysis is common:

  The disciples had gathered in a secure room because they feared the Jewish authorities. The Jewish authorities had crucified their rabbi, so it was reasonable to think that they might come after them as well.

Adam Clarke suggests the fear was unfounded and due to lack of faith:

  We do not find that the Jews designed to molest the disciples [...] but, as they had proceeded so far as to put Christ to death, the faith of the disciples not being very strong, they were led to think that they should be the next victims if found.

John Gill points out that they might also have feared being arrested for having stolen the body:

  they might fear, that since they had took away their master's life, theirs must go next; and especially since it was rumoured abroad that they had stole away his body, they might be under the greater fear, that search would be made after them, and they be apprehended and brought into trouble on that account:


Has the Episcopal Church ever identified "patriarchy" as a sin?

It appears not, however they do list it as a "Central question" in sexual ethics:

  Central questions in sexual ethics now include the nature of sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual identity, and gender identity; the historic and social diversity of sexual practices and relationships; and the effects of patriarchy and the need for justice, equality, and intimacy.

So, they acknowledge that patriarchy does exist, and they mention it in the context of the need for justice and equality, but stop short of calling it a sin.


Where did the dates at the bottom of the pages in the Book of Mormon come from?

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, chapter summaries first appeared in an edition published in 1920, under the editorship of James E. Talmage, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but the chapter summaries in modern printings of the Book of Mormon, as well as the footnotes and cross-references, date to the 1981 printing, which was "edited by a committee headed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve."

These chapter summaries were not part of the original text, and are intended simply as summaries, much like those that can be found in many editions of the Bible, giving an overview of the material to be discussed.

As for the dates, they simply count years in the narrative from fixed reference points in time, under the assumption that the birth of Jesus happened in the year 1 AD.  (This date is used for convenience, and is not an actual point of doctrine, so far as I know.)  The beginning of the book is set at 600 BC, because of a revelation that the Savior would be born six hundred years after their departure from Jerusalem.  The author(s) of the dates clearly did not want to embellish in any way; in spans where the text does not count years, the date on that page simply says "between X and Y," giving the two known years from the chronology that the current events of the narrative are taking place somewhere between.


How does the Westminster Confession address the paradox of the Bible canon?

Yes, the Westminster Confession of Faith answers this apparent, but not real, circularity as follows. In Chapter 1 Paragraph 5, we read:

  We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

The last clause (starting with "yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion...") is the key. The Holy Spirit convinces the believer that the Bible is true. This is the epistemology of the Christian. It is not circular, because it has an infinite reference point starting with God. God has to reveal himself before anyone knows anything about him.

Incidentally, the Bible actually does talk about itself, particularly in Luke 24, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 3:16. If you mean that the Bible does not define its own Table of Contents exhaustively, I would agree with you. The early church recognized the canon, it did not define the canon. This is consistent with John 10:27. There is a good lecture series by Richard Gaffin on how the canon originated.


Gregory of Nazianzus - First Oration - Translation of καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ

I will attempt1 to answer Is this an accurate translation? and leave the liturgical question to someone else.

First the text for reference:

  Ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρα, καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ, καὶ λαμπρυνθῶμεν τῇ πανηγύρει, καὶ ἀλλήλους περιπτυξώμεθα.

  It is the Day of the Resurrection, and my Beginning has good auspices. Let us then keep the Festival with splendour, and let us embrace one another. (Browne/Swallow)

The question boils down to the distinction between an attributive (the auspicious day) and predicate (the day is auspicious) adjective. I think it is necessarily a predicate adjective, as Browne/Swallow have it. I see two reasons.

The word order and position of the article in ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ are that of a subject/predicate noun clause rather than an nominal phrase with an attributive adjective.

  If the noun is articular but the adjective is anarthrous...then the adjective is functioning as a predicate adjective.1

Recall that the constructions that are acceptable representations of an attributive relationship (if at least one article is present) are

ἡ δεξιὰ ἀρχὴ (=first attributive position, ~=English); and
ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ δεξιὰ (=second attributive position); and
ἀρχὴ ἡ δεξιὰ (=third attributive position, uncommon).

It’s hard for me to see how a nominative phrase could make a semantically agreeable sentence.

  ?It is Resurrection Day, and the auspicious beginning, and let us keep the Festival...

I suppose you’re thinking of an appositive relationship (?). (It is Resurrection Day, that is, the auspicious beginning...) The lack of concordance in definiteness is a bit disconcerting, although I’m not sure that’s (for lack of a better word) definitive. The introjection of καὶ is also unusual for simple apposition.

Primarily for the first reason, and supported by the second, I read this clause as a predicate adjective, according with the Browne/Swallow translation quoted above.3

1. Admittedly, my grammar is about 300 years outdated for this question, but I offer it anyway as possibly helpful.

2. William D. Mounce. Basics of Biblical Greek. Zondervan, 2009: pp 67-68.

3. The details of how it is construed as auspicious and mine are not totally transparent to me, but that doesn’t seem to be bothering you. I suspect there is a semantic association between ἡμέρα and δεξιὸς that pushes the latter in the direction of “auspicious”.


Why do Seventh Day Adventists change the moral law using the ceremonial law?

Adventists do not divide the law of Moses into moral and ceremonial. Rather, they (like all of us) share the state and ceremonial interests of the Israeli people, and the moral principles from God, not Moses that are binding on all people in General.
It is logical that morality does not change. There must be a standard of decency. In my opinion, the ten commandments is not the worst option for this.
It is important to understand to whom Moses spoke about religious and other organizational laws. Former slave. To the unorganized herd which for 40 years found religion, and signs of statehood. It's beautiful. But it doesn't have much to do with me today. If you really want, is nowhere explicitly forbidden to continue to offer sacrifices to God as did the Jews. It just doesn't make much sense. Today, I have nothing to do with the Jews of the old Testament. But I still think not killing or stealing is pretty good stuff. That makes sense, doesn't it?
Saturday is not bad. in General, rest after 6 days of work is great. this is what the commandment says. This is not the greatest commandment. This is probably the most ignored commandment. With the rest 9(until that) argue less.

Saturday is celebrated in the evening for the following reason. In Genesis, in the name of God, it is said that there was evening and Morning, Day 1, etc., That is, the day begins with evening. What is the starting point of a new day? Today you can do it with chronometers. Previously, this was done by focusing on the sun.


Jewish traditions regarding the Sabbath at the time of Jesus?

  Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey. - Acts 1:12 KJV

Josephus makes the Mount of Olives to be about six stadia from Jerusalem and it is thus the acceptable distance between these two places which in Acts 1:12 is given as a Sabbath day's journey.

  The Jewish scruple to go more than 2000 paces from his city on the Sabbath is referred to by Origen (περὶ ἀρχων, 4, 2), by Jerome (Ad Algasiam, qu. 10), and by Oecumenius — with some apparent difference between them as to the measurement. Jerome gives Akiba, Simeon, and Hillel as the authorities for the lawful distance.

  Another reason for fixing the distance of a Sabbath day's walk or journey at 2000 yards is that the fields of the suburbs for the pasture of the flocks and herds belonging to the Levites measured 2000 cubits or yards, and that in Ex 21:13 it is said, "I will appoint thee a place (מקו ם) whither he shall flee" — i.e. the Levitical suburbs or cities. Now, it is argued, if one who committed murder accidentally was allowed to undertake this journey of 2000 yards on a Sabbath without violating the sanctity of the day, innocent people may do the same. Besides, the place of refuge is termed מקו ם, which is the same word employed in Ex 16:29. As the one מקו ם, place, was 2000 yards distant, it is inferred, according to the rule the analogy of ideas or words (גזרה שוה) that the command, "Let no man go out of his place (ממקמו) on the seventh day" (Ex 16:29) means not to exceed the distance of the place 2000 yards off (Hillel I, rule 2, in Erubin, 51 a; Maccoth, 12 b; Zebachim, 117 a). Josephus (War, 5, 2, 3) makes the Mount of Olives to be about six stadia from Jerusalem; and it is the distance between these two places which in Ac 1; Ac 12 is given as a Sabbath day's journey. Josephus elsewhere determines the same distance as five stadia (Ant. 20, 8, 6); but both were probably loose statements rather than measured distances; and both are below the ordinary estimate of 2000 cubits. Taking all circumstances into account, it seems likely that the ordinary Sabbath day's journey was a somewhat loosely determined distance, seldom more than the whole and seldom less than three quarters of a geographical mile. See Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. 3, 9; Frischmuth, Dissert. de Itin. Sabbat. (1670); Walther, Dissert. de Itin. Sabbat.; both in Thesaurus Theolog. Philog. (Amsterd. 1720). - Sabbath Days Journey (McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia)


Parable of The Two Sons [Matthew 21:28-31]

These are three entirely unrelated passages. The first two do not explain or qualify the third.

Matthew 19:30, which says that many who are first shall be last and the last shall be first,  should be read in conjunction with the parable that follows, in which the householder paid first those who began their hire last, then paid those who began their hire first, paying all an equal amount (Matthew 20:9-10). In this account, Jesus then says that it is lawful for him to choose those he will (presumably for salvation).

In Romans 2:9-10, there is no dichotomy of first and last. Paul simply mentions the Jews first in both cases, perhaps because he himself was a Jew and he often expresses concern for the spiritual welfare of the Jews. Paul then says (2:11) that God is impartial, in other words favouring neither Jew nor Gentile.

The parable of the two sons, in Matthew 21:28-31, is about the importance of repentance. It says that just as the repentant son found favour, so will publicans and harlots enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus explains this parable in Matthew 21:32, saying that the publicans and harlots believed John the Baptist and, because they believed, repented. And just as the lying son deserved less than his repentant brother, so also those who did not believe John, and have not repented, are less deserving than the publicans and harlots. Here, Jesus is simply saying that even those of the lowest social standing will come first if they have faith and repent.


Why are the offenses against Blessed Virgin Mary are called blasphemies instead of sin?

Because blasphemy can relate to that which is very sacred to God also, as it is written:

  Revelation 13:6 (DRB) And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Cf. Jude 1:8, 10.


Technically… no. The Catholic Church has never decanonized a saint in the sense of saying, "This guy used to be a saint, and now he's not." But the reason is actually quite fascinating.

Canonization doesn't actually make someone a saint, per se. A Catholic "canonization" is the process by which the Church ultimately recognizes something God has already done. The Catholic Church does not claim that all "saints" (in the eyes of God) have been canonized, but they do say that an authentic canonization is both infallible and irrevocable.

In the early 1980s, the Catholic Church made some huge changes to shore up the canonization process. In centuries past (starting in about the 10th century), many of the claims of sainthood were adopted from ancient times, largely through public acclaim and popular stories passed through long-standing tradition and legend. Finally, higher authorities (and eventually the Vatican) took over the process of formally authenticating sainthood.

So what's been going on in the last several decades is the Catholic Church as been meticulously examining the authenticity of some 10,000(?) named saints spread through official sources, local martyrologies, and other historical archives to authenticate if a canonization ever actually took place.

Over the centuries, there were a lot of claims of sainthood without any verifiable authenticity. Several stories of sainthood turned out to be multiple references to a single person. There were mistaken identities, and in many cases, historical figures simply could not be separated from local folk tales and legends.

The more rigorous authentication does not imply a lack of veneration. After 2,000 years, the Church is simply saying that they cannot authenticate the events of veneration, or even if the person actually existed — thus, claims of canonization cannot be authenticated.

But no one has ever been "decanonized", even if such a word could exist.


Commentators who consider the Bible inerrant and attempt to resolve the apparent discrepancy agree that Luke is simply omitting details that John includes.  For example, James Burton Coffman writes:

  Here Luke abbreviated the whole incident so fully presented in John 20:1-9, omitting not only John's participation in it, but also, the fact of Peter's having actually entered the tomb. (source)

Adam Clarke says:

  This circumstance is related still more particularly by John, John 20:5-7. (source)

And, John Gill, commenting on the phrase "and went into the sepulchre" in John, sees no discrepancy:

  though not without first stooping down, as John did; see Luke 24:12. (source)


What are the main tenets and/or beliefs of the 'Emergent' Church?

DeWaay, in The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity, (on Amazon but in stock on CICstore) asserts that Emergents believe in a hopeful view that "the kingdom of God is emerging through the processes of history because God is the future, drawing everything into Himself" (DeWaay 11).  See DeWaay's book for that case, but I think this is a fair assessment.

How this looks in a few details:

Emergents usually reject final judgment, preferring to think God will "save" everyone in a tangible paradise here on earth.
Their mission is not first to spread the saving Gospel message of Jesus Christ to individuals, but instead to do good in society and make life better to all.
They want to create coherent meaning specific to a church or other community, rather than seeking objective meaning and absolute truth.
Truth and meaning are experienced, rather than known.
Conversely, experiences are more important than doctrine.
They seek spiritual growth in many various ways, usually rejecting that the biblical means of grace (Bible teachings, prayer, fellowship, the Lord's Supper) are paramount.
Many even go so far as to reject basic logic as useless: they won't acknowledge the self-evident basic logic laws that all people follow every day, that A is A, A is not non-A, and A and non-A cannot be both true.

Some identify themselves as Emergent or emerging; many followers or proponents of emergent thought do not identify themselves as such. One such self-identifying source is the Emergent Village.

I do not think it should be regarded as a catch-all term.

Emergents will try to avoid any straight, direct answers, and they may object to my broad strokes here.  Their beliefs also vary among each other, of course.


Why would angels climb a stairway if they have wings?

There are definitely two types of angels mentioned in the Bible that have wings - cherubim and seraphim:

“The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Exodus 25:20).
“And the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the outer court, like the voice of God Almighty when he speaks” (Ezekiel 10:5).
“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.  Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew” (Isaiah 6:1-2).

Hebrews 1:14 tells us that angels are spirit beings, and since angels are not bound by the laws of the physical universe, it is unclear as to why the angels would require wings. Often, angels take the appearance of men (wingless).
In Genesis 28:10-12 Jacob sees something similar to a ladder or a stairway (Hebrew word: sullam) which signifies a connection between God and man. In this instance, it was God who provided the means necessary to link Himself to man as opposed to the men of Babel in Genesis 11 who tried to reach heaven by their own actions, aside from the help of God.  Remember, this was a dream Jacob had.  It was not a physical or real ladder/stairway, but a vision used to convey a message to Jacob.


Has the prohibition against construction and veneration of statues and images been abrogated?

This is about correct teaching and the meanings of latria and worship.

TL;DR(1): if the bishops do not ensure proper teaching regarding
religious images, they let the faithful down.  That's where the problem started both during the Iconoclast Movements and during the Reformation where some of your points were raised.
TL;DR(2): was a commandment abrogated?  Yes and no. (See below).
Per the Catholicism tag, answered from that PoV.  This is an example of
a question where teachings between denominations varies considerably.

The crux of the matter, as far back as the Second Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, was whether proper teaching was getting to the faithful.  In some places, it was not since the Iconoclast movement was a response to a trend toward syncretism with pagan Greek religions.  That "getting the teaching across effectively" isn't as easy as it sounds.  Even after the second council of Nicaea, up to the 11th Century France for example, there was difficulty in effectively communicating the teaching that derived from that Ecumenical Council.   (Of course, the Reformation gave two fingers to the teaching, in arguments that resemble your four points).

This question was answered about 1300 years ago.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 was convened as a direct response to the Iconoclast movement and the destruction of images in the Eastern Roman Empire.

The Council's Proclamation

  "We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some
  other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on
  the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls,
  furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of
  our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos,
  those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people.
  Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those
  who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define
  also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of
  veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship
  (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith
  and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect
  transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in
  it the reality for which it stands."

For more on the Iconoclast Movement, the Catholic Encyclopedia has an extensive entry.

Confirmed at the Council of Trent, where some of your points were addressed.

From the Council of Trent(page 170 of that link)

  The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the
  office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the
  Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of
  the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy
  Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially
  instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and
  invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to [Page 234] relics; and
  the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men;
  that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have
  recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from
  God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer
  and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints,
  who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who
  assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation
  of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or,
  that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour
  of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is
  foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in
  heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now
  living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ,
  and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised
  unto eternal life, and to be glorified,--are to be venerated by the
  faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on
  men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to
  the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are
  uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to
  the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of
  obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has
  already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.

  Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and
  of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in
  temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them;
  not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on
  account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be
  asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of
  old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235] their hope in idols;
  but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the
  prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the
  images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and
  prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints,
  whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and
  especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the
  opponents of images.

  And the bishops shall carefully teach this,-that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings
  or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in
  (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the
  articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all
  sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of
  the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because
  the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their
  salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so
  they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives
  and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore
  and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if any one shall teach, or
  entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; let him be
  anathema.

The Council recognized the problem of incorrect usage, and incorrect teaching, and declared that it was a serious error to teach it wrong, and to do it wrong.

Both councils are cited as sources in CCC 2132

  2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first
  commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an
  image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image
  venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred
  images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God
  alone:

  Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered
  as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading
  us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not
  terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

The distinction between "latria" and other "worship" or rendering of honor and veneration

From St Thomas Aquinas:  (Question 94)

  Reply to Objection 1. Neither in the Tabernacle or Temple of the Old
  Law, nor again now in the Church are images set up that the worship of
  latria may be paid to them, but for the purpose of signification, in
  order that belief in the excellence of angels and saints may be
  impressed and confirmed in the mind of man.

St Thomas Aquinas, question 81 (cited in the Catechsim (2132) as a source for that article)

  Objection 3. Further, seemingly "latria" pertains to religion. Now
  "latria signifies servitude," as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei x, 1).
  And we are bound to serve not only God, but also our neighbor,
  according to Galatians 5:13, "By charity of the spirit serve one
  another." Therefore religion includes a relation to one's neighbor
  also.

  Reply to Objection 3. Since servant implies relation to a lord,
  wherever there is a special kind of lordship there must needs be a
  special kind of service. Now it is evident that lordship belongs to
  God in a special and singular way, because He made all things, and has
  supreme dominion over all. Consequently a special kind of service is
  due to Him, which is known as "latria" in Greek; and therefore it
  belongs to religion.

All of the above boils down to the following: there is a correct and incorrect use of religious images.  Bishops, and the Church in general, must ensure correct teaching or people (as in the olden days) may well pay more respect than is due to something other than God.  That can lead to sin, which in the case of teachers falls into "an act of omission" which may lead the faithful into sin via "acts of commission."  (St Thomas Aquinas provides commentary of idolatry as superstition and sin in the Summa Theologica). It's a serious matter for the Church to teach the faithful properly.

The key: true worship, latria, is to be reserved for God.

Offering true worship to anything or anyone else violates the Commandment.  In that regard, it appears that the Greek Orthodox, the Catholics, and the Reformation descended churches are in general accord.

A commandment abrogated?  Yes and no.

As noted in this Catholic Encyclopedia article, the Old testament holds multiple examples of images and physical items associated with worship, referred to by St Thomas Aquinas above, so your dismissal of that factor in point 3 represents a dismissal of 1300 years of Catholic teaching.  (No few of the faithful have difficulty with any number of catholic teachings, so you are not alone).  The position taken is that the "natural law" was not abrogated in the New Covenant, but the "positive law" was abrogated by the New Covenant.

  We note in the first place that the First Commandment (except inasmuch
  as it forbids adoration and service of images) does not affect us at
  all. The Old Law — including the ten commandments — as far as it only
  promulgates natural law is of course eternal. No possible
  circumstances can ever abrogate, for instance the Fifth, Sixth, and
  Seventh Commandments.  On the other hand, as far as it is positive law,
  it was once for all abrogated by the promulgation of the Gospel
  (Romans 8:1-2; Galatians 3:23-5, etc.; Acts 15:28-9).

  Christians are not bound to circumcise, to abstain from levitically unclean food and so on.

  The Third Commandment that ordered the Jews to keep Saturday
  holy is a typical case of a positive law abrogated and replaced by
  another by the Christian Church.  So in the First Commandment we must
  distinguish the clauses — "Thou shalt not have strange gods before
  me", "Thou shall not adore them nor serve them" — which are eternal
  natural law (prohibitum quia malum), from the clause: "Thou shalt not
  make to thyself any graven image", etc.  In whatever sense the
  archaeologist may understand this, it is clearly not natural law, nor
  can anyone prove the inherent wickedness of making a graven thing;
  therefore it is Divine positive law (malum quia prohibitum) of the Old
  Dispensation that no more applies to Christians than the law of
  marrying one's brother's widow.

  Since there is no Divine positive law in the New Testament on the
  subject, Christians are bound firstly by the natural law that forbids
  us to give to any creature the honour due to God alone, and forbids
  the obvious absurdity of addressing prayers or any sort of absolute
  worship to a manufactured image; secondly, by whatever ecclesiastical
  laws may have been made on this subject by the authority of the Church
  The situation was defined quite clearly by the Second Council of
  Nicaea in 787. In its seventh session the Fathers drew up the
  essential decision (horos) of the synod. In this, after repeating the
  Nicene Creed and the condemnation of former heretics, they come to the
  burning question of the treatment of holy images. They speak of real
  adoration, supreme worship paid to a being for its own sake only,
  acknowledgment of absolute dependence on some one who can grant
  favours without reference to any one else. This is what they mean by
  latreia and they declare emphatically that this kind of worship must
  be given to God only. It is sheer idolatry to pay latreia to any
  creature at all. In Latin, adoratio is generally (though not always;
  see e.g. in the Vulgate, 2 Samuel 1:2, etc.) used in this sense. Since
  the council especially there is a tendency to restrict it to this
  sense only, so that adorare sanctos certainly now sounds scandalous.
  So in English by adoration we now always understand the latreia of the
  Fathers of the Second Nicaean Council.

The commandment in the natural law sense is not abrogated, but old law in the other sense about images (positive law) is abrogated in accordance with the New Covenant established by Christ.   Part of the issue here is that the Catholics have that as all one commandment, while some of the Protestant traditions break it into two and roll the "covets" into one.  (If you look at the table here, Greek Orthodox and Reformed break it into 2, while Catholic leaves it as one).  This underlines why this question is denomination dependent for the answer.

Note: latreia and latria are Latin forms of Greek (λατρεία).

Experience with this teaching

In the RCIA ministry, we often encountered people whose cultural upbringing was informed by over four centuries of syncretism in Mexico.  (I live in Texas).  The dialogue typically went like this.

RCIA: It is appropriate to show veneration to the saints, with or without
the presence of a picture or a statue.  {Apostle's Creed, belief in the communion of saints, intercessory prayers, etc}.  Worship {in the latria sense}
is reserved for God {the Holy Trinity}.
Candidate: But I was raised to worship the Virgin.
RCIA: We have told you the teaching of the Church.  What you actually do,
in your heart and in your prayers, is between you and God.  We encourage you to follow the teachings of the church.

At this point, our deacon would usually follow up with this (paraphrased)

  When you pray, and when you go to confession, you should speak from
  the heart.  In your heart there is truth between you and God.  If you
  go to confession, and you try to be untruthful to God ... good luck
  with that.  God knows the truth in our heart.

So what's a Catholic to do?

Reserve true worship, latria, for God (The Holy Trinity).  If an image or a statue inspires you to contemplate on the divine, that's fine.  Just remember that the image isn't worthy of true worship, only God is.

I recommend reading the extended treatment of "Veneration of Images" at the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

I had brought to my attention by @anonymouswho in comments on another question that the rendering of various Greek terms into 'worship' isn't as simple as I've presented it, and that the Greek proskuneó is a related term for this element of the answer regarding latria.

  proskuneós means to bow (properly, to kiss or to do obeisance to), like the Israelites did to YHVH and King David in 1 Chronicles 29:20.  Latria is the Latin form of the Greek (λατρεία)(latreuó / latreia) meaing to serve. Like in Luke 4:8

  "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for
  it is written, Thou shalt worship (proskuneó) the Lord thy God, and
  him only shalt thou serve (latreuó)."


The Greek text of 2 Tim. 1:6 according to Robert Estienne's Textus Receptus (1550) states,

δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀναμιμνῄσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου

There a couple facets of the Greek text worthy of discussion.

Does the infinitive ἀναζωπυρεῖν function transitively or intransitively?
Of primary importance, what does τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ refer to?
What is the relation of τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου ("the imposition of my hands") τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ, if any?

ἀναζωπυρέω - Its Meaning and Transitivity
On the Greek verb ἀναζωπυρέω, BDAG states,(1)

ἀναζωπυρέω (ζωπυρέω ‘kindle into flame’) 1 aor. ἀνεζωπύρησα; lit. ‘cause to blaze again’; usu. fig., and in our lit. only so.

trans. (Pla., X. et al.) to cause to begin again, rekindle τὶ someth. (Plut., Per. 152 [1, 4], Pomp. 645 [49, 5]; Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 16, 70; PGM 13, 739; Jos., Bell. 1, 444 [pass. ὁ ἔρως], Ant. 8, 234; Iren. 3, 11, 8 [Harv II 47, 6]) τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ rekindle the gift of God 2 Ti 1:6. ἀναζωπυρησάτω ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ let faith in God be rekindled 1 Cl 27:3.

intr. (Dionys. Hal. 7, 54; Plut., Timol. 247 [24, 1], Pomp. 640 [41, 2]; Gen 45:27; 1 Macc 13:7; JosAs 19:3 cod B ἀναζωοπύρησαν; Jos., Ant. 11, 240) to take on new life, kindle into flame ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ inflamed with new life through God’s blood IEph 1:1.—See Anz 284f.—M-M.

LSJ states,(2)

ἀναζωπῠρέω, rekindle, light up again, in tmesi, ἀνʼ αὖ σὺ ζωπυρεῖς νείκη νέα E.El.1121; θερμῷ τὸ θερμὸν ἀ. Arist.Spir.484a7; τὴν ὁλην φύσιν Jul.Or.4.151c; τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ 2Ep.Ti.1.6:
—Pass., to be rekindled, Pl.R.527d, X.HG5.4.46 (mataph.); to be excited, Iamb.VP25.112.
II. intr. in Act. recover one’s spirits, Plu.Pomp.41, etc.

Thayer states,(3)

ἀνα-ζωπυρέω, -ῶ; (τὸ ζώπυρον i. e. a. the remains of a fire, embers; b. that by which the fire is kindled anew or lighted up, a pair of bellows); to kindle anew, rekindle, resuscitate, [yet on the force of ἀνα- cf. Ellic. on 2 Tim. as below]; generally trop., to kindle up, inflame, one’s mind, strength, zeal, (Xen. de re equest. 10, 16 of a horse roused to his utmost; Hell. 5, 4, 46; Antonin. 7, 2 φαντασίας; Plut. Pericl. 1, 4; Pomp. 41, 2; 49, 5; Plat. Charm. p. 156 d.; etc.): τὸ χάρισμα, 2 Tim. 1:6, i. e. τὸ πνεῦμα, vs. 7. Intrans. to be enkindled, to gain strength: Gen. 45:27; 1 Macc. 13:7, and in prof. auth.; ἀναζωπυρησάτω ἡ πίστις, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 27, 3 [see Gebh. and Harn. ad loc.].*

According to all three lexicons, ἀναζωπυρέω functions transitively, which makes sense, as it is followed by a direct object, τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ.
Identification of τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ
In his entry on the verb ἀναζωπυρέω, Thayer states,

τὸ χάρισμα, 2 Tim. 1:6, i. e. τὸ πνεῦμα

In other words, Thayer asserts that τὸ χάρισμα is the Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit. If so, then the Holy Spirit is:

that which is in Timothy (ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ)

This is true.

in Timothy "by the imposition of [the apostle Paul's] hands (διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου)

This is true.

Is the Holy Spirit elsewhere referred to as τὸ χάρισμα [τοῦ θεοῦ]? Unfortunately, not explicitly. 1 Tim. 4:4 may refer to the Holy Spirit, but yet again, it does not explicitly state so. However, 2 Tim. 1:7 seems to confirm that it is the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Paul writes,

For, God did not give us [the] Spirit of cowardice, but [the Spirit] of power and love and admonition.
οὐ γὰρ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα δειλίας ἀλλὰ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ σωφρονισμοῦ

In his commentary on 2 Tim. 1:6, St. John Chrysostom wrote,

"I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is in you by the imposition of my hands," that is, the grace of the Spirit,(4) which you have received, for presiding over the Church, for the working of miracles, and for every service. For this grace it is in our power to kindle or to extinguish; wherefore he elsewhere says (1 Thes. 5:19), "Do not extinguish the Spirit."
Ἀναμιμνήσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου· τουτέστι, τὴν χάριν τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἣν ἔλαβες εἰς προστασίαν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, εἰς σημεῖα, εἰς τὴν λατρείαν ἅπασαν. Ἐν ἡμῖν γάρ ἐστι καὶ σβέσαι καὶ ἀνάψαι τοῦτο· διὸ ἀλλαχοῦ λέγει, Τὸ Πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε.

St. Chrysostom notices the obvious parallel. In 2 Tim. 1:6, the apostle Paul reminds Timothy to "rekindle" the gift of God, which invokes the imagery of the gift of God as fire, and then in 1 Thes. 5:19, the apostle Paul exhorts the Thesslonians to not "extinguish" the Spirit, again invoking the imagery of the Holy Spirit as a fire within a Christian. If indeed 2 Tim. 1:6 refers to the Holy Spirit, then the allusion to the Holy Spirit as fire in 2 Tim. 1:6 would be expected and with a precedent.
Relation of Imposition of Hands to τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ
Is there a precedent for an individual receiving the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands (ἡ ἐπίθεσις τῶν χειρῶν)? Of course; in fact, this was the precedent established by the apostles. For example, in Acts 8:17, it is written,

Then they placed their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
τότε ἐπετίθουν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς καὶ ἐλάμβανον πνεῦμα ἅγιον

ἐπίθεσις, meaning "placement" or "imposition," is simply the noun form of the verb ἐπιτίθημι, "to place on/upon, set."

Footnotes
(1) BDAG: pp. 62-63
(2) LSJ: p. 104
(3) Thayer: p. 37
(4) The phrase τὴν χάριν τοῦ Πνεύματος, "the grace of the Spirit," is an epexegetical genitive. Therefore, it would be understood as, "the grace, which is the Spirit." This is understood since St. Chrysostom shortly thereafter identifies the Spirit in 1 Thes. 5:9, which is the Holy Spirit. He is evidently tying the two passages together.
References
Arndt, William, Danker, Frederick W., and Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000.
Liddell, Henry George, Scott, Robert, Jones, Henry Stuart, and McKenzie, Roderick. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
St. John Chrysostom. Ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὴν πρὸς Τιμόθεον Ἐπιστολὴν Δευτέραν ("Commentary regarding the Second Epistle to Timothy").
Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti. New York: American Book, 1889.


From Genesis to Exodus - is God dealing with Israelites or Jews?

Yes, that's right.

The origin of "Jew" actually comes from Judah, one of the sons and tribes of Jacob/Israel. When the Kingdom of Israel splits after Solomon, the dominant tribe of the southern kingdom was Judah, and so it came to be called the Kingdom of Judah. Though there have always been descendents of all the sons and tribes of Israel, the prominence of Judah meant that "Jew" came to be used as a synecdoche for the whole of the nation of Israel after the exile.


Was "No prophet ever came out of Galilee" sarcastic?

Many commentators have enjoyed pointing out the Pharisees' mistake, which is just one of several errors they make in this chapter.

A "pure" sarcasm would mean that the Pharisees considered Galilee to be the place where prophets came from - a bit like associating Washington, DC with politicians. But the context is their rejection of Jesus (known to them as a Galilean) as a prophet, which makes that reading a bit tricky. It is more likely that they are being rude or sarcastic, but at the same time, incorrect to dismiss Galilee as a prophet-free zone.

Thomas Aquinas in the Catena Aurea collated some earlier discussion on this passage. This includes John Chrysostom (Homily 52 on the Gospel of John) characterizing the tone of the Pharisees as "rude" and "insulting" (rudius, iniuriose), which would cover sarcasm; and on the other hand Alcuin of York's Commentary on the Gospel of John, where the emphasis is on their ignorance. If it is sarcasm, then it is still misaimed sarcasm, because the Pharisees are incorrect.

But their mistake is significant. The story of Jonah prefigures that of Jesus in several important ways, and so it is interesting that the two prophets are, in a sense, rejected together.

N. T. Wright says of this verse:

  The Pharisees further show their ignorance of Scripture in that both the prophets Jonah and Hosea came from Galilee. And when John has them say that no prophet "rises up" or "arises" from Galilee, the word he uses is almost always used elsewhere in the book to refer to the resurrection. Jonah was proverbial for coming, so it seemed, "back from the dead" after three days in the belly of the fish; and Hosea contains the prophecy that God will "raise us up on the third day" (Hosea 6:2).1

The Greek verb in question is ἐγείρεται (ἐγείρω), which originally meant "to wake up" or "to arouse", and was later applied to rising from a sick-bed or death-bed, as well as from sleep. It can also mean rousing someone to activity from a previous state of torpor. The other instances in John's gospel are as follows:

Jesus's resurrection / metaphor of raising the Temple: 2:19, 2:20, 2:22, 21:14
Healing at the pool of Bethesda: 5:8
Raising the dead in general: 5:21; and Lazarus specifically: 12:1, 12:9, 12:17
Standing up  / being called to action: 11:29, 13:4, 14:31

The "resurrection" sense is also strongly present elsewhere in the New Testament. So we could say that John's account has a certain level of irony, even if the Pharisees are not themselves being sarcastic.

Some versions of John 7:52 have the Pharisees talking about the prophet, rather than a prophet. They would then be arguing about whether the Messiah ought to be from Galilee, as opposed to whether prophets in general could come from there. If this is the reading then the Jonah question does not arise - but instead, we have to ask about the Pharisees' knowledge or interpretation of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 9 (or in the Hebrew, starting at 8:23). Here, "Galilee" is to be made glorious by a son who is to be called "Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace". The application to Jesus hinges on him being "from" Nazareth as well as Bethlehem, and of the line of David - facts which were not generally known (John 7:42). As before, the tone of the argument could very well be sarcastic, with the Pharisees being wrong, but this time for a different reason.

1. N. T. Wright. John: 26 studies for individuals and groups (InterVarsity Press, 2009). Chapter 10, Disputes about Jesus, p. 60.


According to ancient tradition, Moses wrote down the book of Job. Clues in the text suggest that Job lived after Abraham and before Moses. These clues include genealogical references and place names.

The text of Job uses these names for God: El, Eloah and Elohim.

The theology of Job:

is monothesitic
denies the divinity of Sun, Moon and Stars
speaks of God creating all things
speaks of the flood of Noah
looks forward to a redeemer who would save people from death and perfect them

Given that Moses grew up in Egypt in the royal court where pantheism was practiced, it is unlikely that he became acquainted with Job there. The most likely source for Moses to learn about Job is from Jethro, since:

Midian is not far from the lands where Job's friends and Elihu came from.
the title "Priest of Midian" might actually mean religious functionary and not just local tribal elder or leader

Given that Job's friends were also monotheistic, it seems that such views were more widespread than some think. Rather than monotheism being a late development in religion, it may have been the original religion, which polytheism displaced as it spread like a cancer.


When a person speaks in tongues, do they understand what they are saying?

The most relevant passage I can find in the Bible is this:

  1 Corinthians 14:2 (ESV)
  For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

I'd venture a guess that if a person is "uttering mysteries in the Spirit", they don't understand what they're saying.


The early Church Fathers taught that the twelve Apostles corresponded to the twelve tribes of Israel, even though each Apostle was not from a different tribe.  For example:

  To these He gave authority to preach the Gospel, being twelve in
  number, corresponding [lit. in witness to] to the twelve tribes of
  Israel.

  The Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st/early 2nd cent.)


Which came first, Qur'an or Bible? Bible

Did the Qur'an fall from the sky? NO

Did the Bible fall from the sky? NO

Did God(Allah) write the Qur'an with His finger? NO

Did God(Jehovah) write the Bible with His finger? The Ten Commandment was, at least.

Who wrote Qur'an and Bible?
Qur'an and Bible were written by men and both claimed to be from God.

How many authors Qur'an has? One. Muhammad alone. No one was there to support the ideas of Muhammad. He alone handled the whole situation.

How many authors Bible has? Approximately 40 men. All from different times and places with different languages but were writing in harmony to each other.

How many years Qur'an took to complete? Approximately 23 years. 100 years later it was put into written form.

How many years Bible took to complete? Approximately 1500 years. This has a good historical evidence to prove its authenticity and timelessness.

Method of communication from God in Islam: Muhammad was the only person responsible for the origin of Qur'an. He claimed to receive the last and final message from God through angel Gabriel. The communication usually took place in the Cave of Hira. Muhammad was always alone in that cave. Who knows what he was doing! Probably thinking about what will be the contents for the next chapter for his composed book and revising the words that he has to say to his 50-60 companions.

Method of communication from God in Bible: There are many countless ways on how God communicated with the authors of the Bible. Some saw a vision. Moses was speaking with God like a friend. Paul saw a great light and met with Jesus. There are many examples.

Originality of stories from Qur'an: Most of the stories from Qur'an are borrowed from the Bible with incomplete accounts and many times twisted. Years are not mentioned. There is no sequence. Names are also confusing. Example, Qur'an has no mention of the names of Cain and Abel and also who was the elder or who was the evil one.

  Surah 5:27
  And recite to them the story of Adam's two sons, in truth, when they
  both offered a sacrifice [to Allah ], and it was accepted from one of
  them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], "I will
  surely kill you." Said [the former], "Indeed, Allah only accepts from
  the righteous [who fear Him].

Originality of stories from Bible: The Bible itself is it's own source for it's stories without borrowing it from elsewhere. In fact, it's a historical record of Israel and Christianity.


Were Christians in the Roman Empire known to rescue abandoned babies?

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity says, in its entry on "Child":

  Christians took in these exposed children to save them, though often they could do nothing more than bury them, as the tombs of many children and inscriptions in the catacombs attest (Diehl II, 142–143); in some cases consecrated virgins (Aug., Ep. 98) or benevolent wealthy families educated them.

The first reference is to E. Diehl's Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, a highly regarded collection of ancient Christian inscriptions in Latin.  The second is to Augustine's Epistle to Boniface, of which the relevant section reads:

  Again, sometimes foundlings which heartless parents have exposed in order to their being cared for by any passer-by, are picked up by holy virgins, and are presented for baptism by these persons, who neither have nor desire to have children of their own (§6)

Care for abandoned children by Christians continued into the Middle Ages.  The Encyclopedia continues:

  After Constantine, laws began to protect these abandoned children, defending them as free persons (CJ VIII, 52,3–4). Later it was largely monasteries
  that assumed the burden of educating these children, establishing conditions for their admission to a convent; orphans were accepted unconditionally (Basil, Reg. Maior, 15). [...]

  At the beginning of the Middle Ages the most common way of educating exposed or abandoned children was begun: in 787 Dateus, archpresbyter of Milan, donated
  a house near the church of S. Salvatore to protect them: the first brephotrophium.


According to Reformed Theology do non-trinitarians go to hell?

Reformed theology has indeed, generally speaking, affirmed that those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity are not saved and therefore go to hell.1  Birdie's answer to this question mentions the Belgic Confession, a highly regarded reformed confession, which reads:

This doctrine of the holy Trinity has always been maintained in the true church, from the time of the apostles until the present, against Jews, Muslims, and certain false Christians and heretics, such as Marcion, Mani, Praxeas, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Arius, and others like them, who were rightly condemned by the holy fathers. And so, in this matter we willingly accept the three ecumenical creeds—the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian—as well as what the ancient fathers decided in agreement with them.2

One of the more infamous portions of the Athanasian Creed is particularly relevant:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity [...] the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Though direct affirmation of the Athanasian Creed is not found in other reformed creeds, like the Westminster Standards or the Baptist Confession of Faith, many Reformed theologians have expressed their agreement with the Athanasian Creed, including the "damnatory clauses."3
However, it's nonetheless important to note the care with which many Reformed thinkers apply the language of the creed.  Philip Schaff expresses general discomfort with damnatory clauses in creeds, and argues for a distinction between those who lack full knowledge of the Trinity and those who reject the truth of it:

This threefold anathema, in its natural historical sense, is not merely a solemn warning against the great danger of heresy, nor, on the other hand, does it demand, as a condition of salvation, a full knowledge of, and assent to, the logical statement of the doctrines set forth (for this would condemn the great mass even of Christian believers); but it does mean to exclude from heaven all who reject the divine truth therein taught. It requires every one who would be saved to believe in the only true and living God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in essence, three in persons, and in one Jesus Christ, very God and very Man in one person.4

John Newton approaches the language similarly, suggesting that imperfect knowledge does not damn:

I believe with you, that a man may be saved who never heard of the creed, who never read any book but the New Testament, or perhaps a single evangelist; but he must be taught of God the things that accompany salvation, or I do not think he can be saved.5

Finally, some express even more caution, such as Ra McLaughlin, while still affirming the general point:

I would hope to see great tolerance for those ignorant/agnostic in these areas. A lack of understanding of these doctrines deprives one of rich opportunities for growth and worship, but it does not threaten souls. However, there can be great danger in holding to misconceived ideas about these matters. For example, those who reject the deity and/or humanity of Christ cannot be saved (John 20:30-31; 1 John 2:22; 4:2-3; 2 John 7). In this regard I differentiate rather significantly between passive ignorance and active rejection.6

Summary
Reformed thinkers widely accept the content of the "damnatory clauses" of the Athanasian Creed, either explicitly or implicitly (by not rejecting or qualifying it while discussing the Athanasian creed).  This should not be taken to mean, however, that they believe that only those who affirm and understand the creed (and fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity) can be saved.  Many explicitly indicate that those with imperfect knowledge of the doctrine can still be saved, while regarding those who actively reject the Trinity as worshiping the wrong God.  As Michael Reeves writes:

Which God we worship: that is the article of faith that stands before all others.  The bedrock of our faith is nothing less than God himself, and every aspect of the gospel—creation, revelation, salvation—is only Christian insofar as it is the creation, revelation and salvation of this God, the triune God.  I could believe in the death of a man called Jesus, I could believe in his bodily resurrection, I could even believe in a salvation by grace alone; but if I do not believe in this God, then, quite simply, I am not a Christian.7

References and notes:

Note: Dealing with the exact definition of hell held by each of the theologians quoted here would be excessively complex and would distract from the main point.  However, it's important to note that the long-standing majority view in Reformed theology is that hell is a place of eternal torment.  The "flesh burning" aspect will often be rejected as figurative language for severe suffering more generally (including spiritual suffering).  And some associated with Reformed theology hold to universalism and annihilationism.
Belgic Confession
See Joshua Wilson, English Presbyterian Chapels, 7ff. Wilson quotes a number of historical Reformed theologians who accepted at least the theological content of the damnatory clauses, if not their historical connection to the Athanasian Creed.  But many of the quotes indicate a concurrence with the other authors quoted here—Richard Baxter, for example, writes that "faith in the three articles of the baptismal covenant makes us Christians" (8) – a very simple test that does not require an extensive knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity nor of the Athanasian Creed's language.
Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I
Newton, Letter 1 to Rev. Mr. S., June 23, 1775, in Works
McLaughlin, Does the Doctrine of the Trinity Matter?
Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity, 15–16


According to Mormonism, how does a person get saved?

The simplest answer to this is given in the Articles of Faith:

  3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be
  saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

  4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel
  are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third,
  Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of
  hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

An additional principle made clear in scripture but not cited in this summary is that it is necessary to "endure to the end" in exercising faith, repenting,  and obedience to the commandments of God. The LDS consider salvation to be a process more than an event, a process which is usually not complete until one has died. (This is why they typically have difficulty giving a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question "Have you been saved?")

Race and gender do not matter. The degree of accountability or responsibility  a person has does. In addition,

Doctrine and Covenants  137:7-10

  "All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel who would have
  received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the
  celestial kingdom of God. Also, all those who shall die henceforth,
  who would have received it with all their hearts,  shall be heirs of
  that kingdom. For I, the Lord, will judge all man according to their
  works, according to the desire of their hearts. And I also beheld that all
  children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved
  in the celestial kingdom of heaven".

Most references in the scriptures to salvation refer to salvation in the celestial kingdom.  Two other degrees, and the requirements for each of these degrees, are described in Doctrine and Covenants section 76. There is also a state of no salvation described there.

Faith in Jesus Christ is understood to include acceptance of his latter-day prophets and apostles (Joseph Smith and successors) and the additional Testament he has given (the Book of Mormon) as well as the Old Testament and the New Testament. Anyone may repent and all are commanded to, but repentance must be genuine and involve a permanent change of conduct, not lip service only. The ordinances of baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost must be performed by those who have been ordained to the same priesthood given to Joseph Smith and according to the order of the Church.


It has been well said that mankind's greatest enemy is death.  Whoever would be the Savior of all mankind must then, of necessity, conquer mankind's greatest enemy.  Had Jesus merely died and returned to Heaven without overcoming death, then man's greatest enemy would remain unconquered.  As it is, we can ask along with the apostle Paul, "Where, O Death, is your sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:55)  Death's sting has been thoroughly defeated.  So, the first reason is that death had to be conquered.

Secondly, the resurrection proves that Jesus is not merely a great, albeit misunderstood, teacher, nor is He merely a prophet or a narcissist.  No, the resurrection proves that Jesus is divine, as Paul states:

  Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart
  for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his
  prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was
  descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to
  be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his
  resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.  Romans 1:1-4 ESV

Indeed, it was and is the resurrection of Jesus that brings credibility to His otherwise incredible claims.  If there were no resurrection, Christianity would be nothing.  Indeed, Paul also says that very thing:

  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are
  still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in
  Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only,
  we are of all people most to be pitied.  1 Corinthians 15:17-19 ESV

It is also the resurrection of Christ that gives us the hope of resurrection for ourselves.

So, three significant reasons are 1) to conquer death, mankind's greatest enemy, 2) to prove His Divinity, and 3) to give followers of Jesus the hope of resurrection.


What is the theological justification for believing in the real presence of Mary in the Eucharist?

The short answer to your question is that   theological justification for believing in the real presence of Mary in the Eucharist would be by the same means that believing in pray to Mary and all the attributes (dispenser of all graces, power over all the angels, etc.) are justified, which is by extrapolation. Based upon the premise that  Mary "never left the side of Christ," then it is reasoned  that she  is present in the Eucharist with Christ, kneeling beside him. (http://www.wrldrels.org/articles/palmarian%20catholic%20church/palmarian%20catholic%20church..pdf)

The longer answer, and which tell more of the Palmarian sect, is that technically   the tiny  Palmarian sect is debatably not sedevacantist, since unlike them they accept the validity of Popes John 23 and Paul 6, and  have their own popes, starting with Gregory XVII,  who later admitted to sexual impropriety involving nuns  (George D. Chryssides, "Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements," p. 268) and left the church,  and living with his girl friend, said that due to investigation he came to  the conclusion that the Palmarian church was a set - up or a scam.  (magnuslundbergblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/the-papacy-of-gregory-xviii-final.pdf)

Which relates to your question, as the extensive researcher/author ("Fighting the Modern with the Virgin Mary) Magnus Lundberg  states concerning access to  texts in general,

"because of the increasingly closed nature of the church, it is not easy to get access to the texts and very little is found in research libraries. They have to be acquired in other, sometimes, complicated ways." (magnuslundberg.net/category/palmarian-catholic-church/page/3)

And rather than  being a group that is based upon the weight of Scripture and tradition,  they began as an Apparition group and get their marching orders and distinctive theology from this Mary. Which does not mean what their  adulation and they attributions they give to their Mary is far removed from what is seen uncensored in historical Catholicism, in which are found  statements such as that Mary is  an almost almighty being,  to whom Jesus owes His Precious Blood to, with the Eucharist being "bread produced by Mary from the flour of Her immaculate flesh, kneaded into dough with her virginal milk.” (catholictradition.org/Mary/virgin-eucharist.htm)

However,  Palmarian Church even went beyond this. Lundberg  finds,

Within weeks of its foundation in 1978 , the Palmarian Church would develop this body of articles of faith at a rapid pace. For t hem , the Virgin has come to have an almost e qual status with that of Christ. In short, it is a very Mario - centric theology. Among other things, the Virgin has been declared Co - mediatrix, Co - redemptrix and Co - reparatrix. None of these titles w as unknown in the Roman Catholic tradition, but they had not been made dogmas. Other Palmaria teachings, however, are less traditional.

According to Pope Gregory XVII, the soul of the Virgin was shaped before the creation of heaven and earth. In fact, it had existed in the mind of God eternally. Therefore, the pontiff declared Mary to be God's "companion" in the creation of the world, that she in fact was a co - creator ( PD 34; PKO , 5 , 11 )..

After this, the Palmarians took one further step in declaring that both Christ and the Virgin Mary are present in the Eucharist , as she never left the side of Christ. It is also stated that her presence in the Eucharist is in no was symbolical, but real. Not only the body and blood of Christ is present in the Eucharist, but also the Virgin, kneeling beside him. In one of the papal document this is explained in the following way: We teach as in fallible doctrine that - - - [s]he who is able by grace really and truly to suffer the Sacred Passion of Christ, also by grace is able to be present in the Sacred Eucharist, since, at no moment has Mary ever been, or will be, removed from her Son. (wrldrels.org/articles/palmarian%20catholic%20church/palmarian%20catholic%20church..pdf)

For those unfamiliar with Catholic Eucharistic theology, when the Catholic priest utters the words of consecration over the bread and wine then they lo longer exist, despite the physical evidence of them, for instead that have become the "real" body and blood of Christ that was crucified on the cross, which is consumed by believers in order to obtain spiritual life. Protestants reject this, usually holding to a metaphorical understanding.


How would Reformed Christians deal with homosexual marriage of individuals prior to their conversion to Christianity?

John Piper addressed a portion of this question in the context of Minnesota's "Same-Sex Marriage Amendment".  Having listened to his sermons on Romans 1 and other statements by him, the following principles are his consistent teaching on the question:

  Marriage is created and defined by God in the Scriptures as the sexual and covenantal union of a man and a woman in life-long allegiance to each other alone, as husband and wife, with a view to displaying Christ’s covenant relationship to his blood-bought church.
  There is no such thing as so-called same-sex marriage, and it would be wise not to call it that.
  Same sex desires and same sex orientation are part of our broken and disordered sexuality owing to God’s subjection of the created order to futility because of man’s sin.
  Therefore, same-sex intercourse, not same-sex desire is the focus of Paul’s condemnation when he threatens exclusion from the kingdom of God.
  Therefore, it would contradict love and contradict the gospel of Jesus to approve homosexual practice, whether by silence, or by endorsing so-called same-sex marriage, or by affirming the Christian ordination of practicing homosexuals.
  The good news of Jesus is that God saves heterosexual sinners and homosexual sinners who trust Jesus, by counting them righteous because of Christ, and by helping them through his Spirit to live lives pleasing to him in their disordered brokenness.

I extracted these from the text of his June 16, 2012 sermon, but left off the last two points that shifted to the Church's attitude toward political action.  Piper obliquely addressed the question of what to do if members of this sort of union were to join his congregation:

  Churches will be faced with new and unheard of cases of discipline. Suppose two so-called “married” men hear the gospel and one of them believes and comes to your church. Will you council “divorce” and moving out?

He also quoted 1st Peter 2:12's encouragement to engage the world with honor:

  Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (ESV)

I believe we can extrapolate from these principles:

Like any other sin, homosexual practice should be resisted.  If a new believer continues in their habitual sin, it's the responsibility of the Church warn against the dangers of sin.
On the other hand, homosexual desire is like any other temptation.  We should not be afraid of it.  Christians resist temptation with the power of the Holy Spirit.
Same-sex marriage is not binding in the eyes of God and nor should it be binding in the eyes of the church.

So we can safely ignore the teachings on divorce in this case; divorce as understood in the Bible just doesn't apply.  Instead, I think the actual parallel is to the state of voluntary servitude.  That analogy might seem distasteful, but in the Roman world being a bondservant was actually a respectable position.  Many bondservants performed duties that we would recognize as white-collar professions.  More to the point, it was a civic obligation that Paul explained was no longer binding to believers.

Here is Paul's advice:

  Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ.—1st Corinthians 7:21-22 (ESV)

Therefore, it seems to me that a Christian who submitted to a same-sex civic contract before they converted should abstain from sexual intercourse, but honor the other obligations of the union.  That would include financial and parental duties if applicable.  Separation should be seriously considered in order to reduce temptation.  If there is an honorable way to nullify the union, that should be pursued.  If not, nobody should be concerned about it.

Conclusion

It's very likely we will see some missteps and controversy in the next generation.  Our society is increasingly approving of same-sex practice, but the church should not be.  I'll let Piper have the final word:

  One of the most powerful things we can do is fold into our churches men and women who have same-sex attraction and surround them with a bigger vision of life and love and relationships that make it possible for them to flourish in families and friendships. These stories may be one of the most authenticating messages for the Christian gospel.


In the King James Version, verse 8 doesn't say "your audacity," but "his importunity" (literally: inconvenience from a persistent request.)  The basic idea is that he'll get up and do it just to get you to go away and quit keeping him awake with your banging on the door.


The Virgin Mary, "the perfect non-divine human being"

In a response in another thread, one individual mentioned that the virgin Mary was "the perfect non-divine human being."
I am that individual, and by perfect, I meant sinless. Which is perfect in God's eyes.Matthew 5:48
Is this an accepted Catholic belief?
Yes.

"If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema." - The Council of Trent, Canon 23.

It was she (Mary), the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son. - Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, 110

In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott

Why then didn't Mary qualify to be our savior instead of Jesus?
Because Mary was not sinless on her own. Everything that is perfect in Mary comes from God. Mary would not be sinless if Christ did not die on the cross. In other words, God acts outside time, so at the moment of her conception, God used the grace of redemption merited on the cross to protect Mary from original sin by a single act of grace.

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. - Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854)


Conscience: Christ's sacrifice vs the blood of bulls and goats?

The answer to your question is further on in the chapter.

Hebrews 10:11-14 ESV And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Christ's sacrifice was fundamentally different than those of the animals. A person's sins were forgiven by the animal's sacrifice, but they would become immediately guilty again because of their sinful nature. This is why the animals had to be sacrificed over and over again.
Christ's single sacrifice not only forgives us of all of our sins but it also gives us his righteousness so that we are fully justified before God. The forgiveness gained from the sacrifice of animal is temporary--but Christ's sacrifice is permanent and all-encompassing.

1 Peter 3:18 ESV For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
Romans 6:10-11 ESV For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:20-22 ESV For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.


According to Calvinists, how do Job's works correspond to his salvation?

Before you ask what Calvin thought, it might be a good idea to ask, "What did Job think?"

  Job 9:2 Yes, I know what you’ve said is true, but how can a person be
  justified before God?

Job had no illusion that his life, his righteous words and deeds, were capable of rendering him justified before God. If he had confidence that his actions could effect part of his justification, he would have spoken differently.

Here is an excerpt from Calvins Institutes of the Christian Religion:

  . . . In the shady cloisters of the schools anyone can easily and
  readily prattle about the value of works in justifying men. But when
  we come before the presence of God we must put away such amusements.
  For there we deal with a serious matter, and do not engage in
  frivolous word battles. To this question, I insist, we must apply our
  mind if we would profitably inquire concerning true righteousness: How
  shall we reply to the Heavenly Judge when he calls us to account? Let
  us envisage for ourselves that Judge, not as our minds naturally
  imagine him, but as he is depicted for us in Scripture: by whose
  brightness the stars are darkened [Job 3:9]; by whose strength the
  mountains are melted; by whose wrath the earth is shaken [cf. Job
  9:5-6]; whose wisdom catches the wise in their craftiness [Job 5:13];
  beside whose purity all things are defiled [cf. Job 25:5]; whose
  righteousness not even the angels can bear [cf. Job 4:18]; who makes
  not the guilty man innocent [ct. Job 9:20]; whose vengeance when once
  kindled penetrates to the depths of hell [Deut. 32:22; cf. Job 26:6].
  Let us behold him, I say, sitting in judgment to examine the deeds of
  men: Who will stand confident before his throne? "Who . . . can dwell
  with the devouring fire?" asks the prophet. "Who... can dwell with
  everlasting burnings? He who walks righteously and speaks the truth"
  [Isa. 33:14-15 p.], etc. But let such a one, whoever he is, come
  forward. Nay, that response causes no one to come forward. For, on the
  contrary, a terrible voice resounds: "If thou, 0 Lord, shouldst mark
  iniquities, Lord, who shall stand?" [Ps. 130:3; 129:3, Vg.]. Indeed,
  all must soon perish, as it is written in another place: "Shall a man
  be justified in comparison with God, or shall he be purer than his
  maker? Behold, they that serve him are not faithful, and in his angels
  he found wickedness. How much more shall those who dwell in houses of
  clay, who have an earthly foundation, be consumed before the moth.
  From morn to eve they shall be cut down" [Job 4:17-20]. Likewise:
  "Behold, among his saints none is faithful, and the heavens are not
  pure in his sight. How much more abominable and unprofitable is man,
  who drinks iniquity like water?" [Job 15:1 ~16, cf. Vg.]

  Indeed, I admit that in The Book of Job mention is made of a
  righteousness higher than the observance of the law, and it is
  worth-while to maintain this distinction. For even if someone
  satisfied the law, not even then could he stand the test of that
  righteousness which surpasses all understanding. Therefore, even
  though Job has a good conscience, he is stricken dumb with
  astonishment, for he sees that not even the holiness of angels can
  please God if he should weigh their works in his heavenly scales.
  Therefore, I now pass over that righteousness which I have mentioned,
  for it is incomprehensible. I only say that if our life is examined
  according to the standard of the written law, we are sluggish indeed
  if we are not tormented with the horrid fear at those many
  maledictions with which God willed to cleanse us — among others this
  general curse: "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by everything
  written in this book" [Gal. 3:10, Vg.; cf. Deut. 27:26]. In short,
  this whole discussion will be foolish and weak unless every man admit
  his guilt before the Heavenly Judge, and concerned about his own
  acquittal, willingly cast himself down and confess his nothingness.

I found this excerpt here: http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XIX/19-6.htm

Calvin wrote a lot about "double justice". It is beyond me.


How can one tell if God is in favor of a modern value or not?

Your question basically boils down to two things: hermeneutics and doctrine.

Hermeneuetics is the study of texts, and Biblical Hermeneutics is the application of textual study to the scripture and the process of determining what it means. This field is relevant to your question because your question itself contains clear trances of not being backed by any kind of hermeneutics at all. For example you mention that a "woman as property" view is condoned by Scripture. This is commonly made assertion made by commentators with an anti-Christian bias, but it is not based on a good reading of the text. In order to come away with an idea like that one must ignore the difference in literary genres between passages. The difference between narrative and prescriptive passages is very important and how that is determined is part of what the field of hermeneutics addresses.

Doctrines are beliefs about any given topic. Good doctrine is the result of careful application of hereneutics and a good overall understanding of Scripture and general revelation. Bad doctrine looks a lot like humanism and is the result of man using his own internal moral compass to delineate what he wants to believe. One must always choose between doctrines.

There are of course conflicting doctrines out there. Some will say that practicing homosexuality is fine for a Christian, others will say it's a result of man's fallen sinful nature and an abomination in God's eyes. In order to determine which bit of doctrine you are going to subscribe to you need to do some research. If, as in the title of your question, you plan on subscribing to whatever you can determine to be God's judgement on the matter then your first order of business is to figure out what he said on the matter in the past and what it means to you today.

This means approaching Scripture using the lens of hermeneutics, examining the Canon to determine which books and teachings you are going to consider and authoritative witness on which to base your doctrinal conclusions, what methods of interpreting the text you will use and then applying that to the whole of Scripture to deduce a cohesive theology (or understanding of God's nature and the nature of his dealings with men). Once you have that you can use it to help guide your discernment on individual decisions. Is X a sin? What do the scriptures I hold true say about the matter, how do I read and apply those scriptures and what conclusions must I draw?

All Christian traditions have some corpus of accepted doctrines. Part of your process in choosing what tradition to align yourself with should be examining their doctrines and the basis for those doctrines to see if their reasoning and sources are sound and comparing them to any other conclusions based on the same sources. When conflicts arise between conflicting doctrines, you should have some clear idea WHY you reject one interpretation over another that has taken into consideration how the various conclusions got drawn.

Lastly, any true search for God's opinion -- his will in any given matter -- is going to include communicating with him on the matter. Although they vary in how they see this implemented practically, all Christians pretty much agree that God has made some provision for guiding people into a proper understanding of his word through his Holy Spirit left as a counselor to men after Jesus left earth. Not asking Him to guide you in your discernment process would be like trying to map out the objects in a dark room without turning on the light.


Can families do their own communion service with the sacrament being valid as a means of grace?

Different denominations within Protestantism would have different answers to this. The Church of England (especially Anglo-Catholic) would have a very different idea to an Open Brethren Assembly, for example.
The objection of potential 'schism' or 'disunity' cannot apply when circumstances prevail in which the separation (of households) is due, solely, to a definite requirement that cannot be overcome.
Of course, views differ as to the concept of a 'memorial' or a 'sacrament' and as to whether the process is one of the 'remembrance' of Christ by the congregation or the administering of a 'sacrament of grace' to the congregation.
There is no prescription in scripture that any particular individual is required to administer the elements, bread and wine, or the blessings and prayers associated with those elements. In the generality of Protestantism, an elder would normally do so. Or a minister or pastor if one were presiding.
Paul states 'when ye come together', so it is a gathering of the whole church in that particular locality and the partaking represents one body, that is to say His body broken that One Body may be joined, in Him, to God.
Similarly, of the cup, Jesus says 'drink ye all of it' the 'all' being all that is of Christ's body in that particular locality.
But in such a time as circumstances enforce households to be separated, surely Protestantism should, in its being based on scripture rather than tradition and on faith rather than sacraments, allow of household memorials of the sufferings and death of Christ.
For if, in the present state of the Church, a household finds itself in the situation where no local gathering sufficiently answers to the Body of Christ or to the true preaching and teaching of the gospel, should not such an individual household in a particular locality remember the Lord in his death (in the way which he prescribed) until he come ?
For Jesus said 'where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I  in the midst'.
And if only two or three, due to circumstances, are the sum total of the body of Christ in one place at one time, shall they not remember Him who is in their midst, with bread and wine, as He, himself, exampled ?