The strongest words with respect to the benefits of paying tithing, and the consequences for not doing so, can be found in Malachi 3: 8-12:

  8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have
  we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

  9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole
  nation.

  10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be
  meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of
  hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out
  a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

  11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not
  destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her
  fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts.

  12 And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a
  delightsome land, saith the Lord of hosts.

However, it appears that in the Christian period, just as with many other provisions of the Law, tithing was superseded by a higher law.  Towards the end of both Acts 2 and Acts 4 it explains that the Christian community had all things in common, consecrating not a tithe (tenth) of their belongings but instead everything they owned to the general welfare of the church in order to do away with poverty.  (It's worth noting that, while there are many obvious differences and incompatibilities between Christianity and communism, Karl Marx's famous "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was inspired by this part of Acts.)

The location of the chapter break between Acts 4 and Acts 5 is unfortunate, as Acts 5 begins with a direct continuation of the discussion of the treatment of the consecration of property that Acts 4 ended with.  Here we see the story of a man and his wife who sold their property and gave part of the money to the Apostles, but kept back part of it to enrich themselves.  Apparently the Lord takes this very seriously, (Galatians 6: 7--God is not mocked,) as He struck both of them dead when they tried to reaffirm their lie when questioned by Peter!

I'm not aware of any church today that practices this doctrine of total consecration, but the principle is still there.  At the very least, a true believer should be willing to give up all that he posesses if it is needed to further the Lord's cause.  (See Matthew 13: 44-46, Luke 18: 18-25, and especially Luke 18: 29-30 for the Savior's own words on this matter.  See also Luke 12: 34/Matthew 6: 21--"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."  The entire point of the Gospel is to improve our hearts and turn them towards heaven instead of the things of this world.)


In which denomination(s) are Christians allowed to bury and hold a Christian funeral for their deceased nonreligious or just non-Christian relative?

I haven't had to organize any funerals in this fashion, so this is going to be more of an opinion than anything.

I think that you should be able to perform a Christian Funeral for anyone, whether they be Christian or otherwise.

@Mawia, I don't think that a Christian Minister would have a hard time preparing a message.

I grew up LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints {Mormon}) and when my Brother Passed away, my father asked me to speak.  So I picked something that I thought was relevant, I talked about when Jesus was on the Cross, his conversation with the two thieves, and the one acknowledged who Jesus was pretty much with his last breath, and Jesus said that he would be standing next to him in Heaven.  by doing this Jesus Said I don't care when you decide to believe in Me, I just want you to Believe in me.  pretty much saying you don't necessarily have to be baptized, that he knew this man's life was lived in Sin, but that the man saw the error of his ways and accepted that Jesus would save him, and that was enough for God's Grace.

I think this message given at a Funeral might seem like a low blow, but when someone is at a funeral they need that hope that there is life after death, and need to know that God Cares, and that He is patiently waiting for you to Accept His Son, and give you Salvation.

I no longer claim to be LDS and at the time I didn't claim to be LDS either.  I claim to have a relationship with Jesus, and any church that helps that relationship grow is a good one.

I think that most churches that claim to be Christian would have no problem performing a funeral service for someone that was not Christian.  The real question comes down to what the family wants.


Should Jewish Christians not work on Saturday or Sunday?

In the book of Romans Paul clearly shows that this is a matter for each individual to make up their own mind about. All Christians have freedom from the Mosaic Law, so decide for yourself what you think will help you to practice godliness and be in the best position to serve others. And keep reconsidering it, because it may be wise to change your decision later.

  One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Romans 14:5-9, NIV)


How can we tell when Scripture is talking about one of the persons of the Trinity and when it's talking about all three?

Basically, when the bible talks about God, it means the Trinity or Godhead, while when it says one of their names, such as the Father, it means the Father. But as the Trinity is known--Three in person, One in essence--Then if you talk about the Father, you must be talking in a round-about way, of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, though all are separate.
One link I found, says that there are 4 rules to the Trinity:

There are three persons who have a complete divinity, not a part of divinity, therefore, The Father is a complete God, the Son is a complete God and Holy Spirit is also a Complete God.

Each person is separated from the others, i.e. the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is neither of them.

There is only one true God,

There is an equality characteristic between the persons of trinity

As the Orthodox Church believes:

Following the Holy Scriptures and the Church Fathers, the Church believes that the Trinity is three divine persons (hypostases) who share one essence (ousia). It is paradoxical to believe thus, but that is how God has revealed himself. All three persons are consubstantial with each other, that is, they are of one essence (homoousios) and coeternal. There never was a time when any of the persons of the Trinity did not exist. God is beyond and before time and yet acts within time, moving and speaking within history.
The source and unity of the Holy Trinity is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and also from whom the Spirit proceeds. Thus, the Father is both the ground of unity of the Trinity and also of distinction. To try to comprehend unbegottenness (Father), begottenness (Son), or procession (Holy Spirit) leads to insanity, says the holy Gregory the Theologian, and so the Church approaches God in divine mystery, approaching God apophatically, being content to encounter God personally and yet realize the inadequacy of the human mind to comprehend Him.

So don't get exasperated when you can't comprehend the Godhead. God are impossible to fully realize and know. Here is a nice story that shows this (Actually only the first part is the story, but it is all good).
In response to this:

My question is, what about all the other verses (especially in the Old Testament) that are not so obviously talking about The Godhead or one of the Persons?

If it just says God, then take them all, they're all One though Three. If it just says the Father, then take them all, they're all Three though One.
By the way, have you ever read or watched Flatland? Somewhat on topic.


Does "Kehilat Bethlehem" community believe that the Law of Moses are the commandments Jesus is referring to in John 14:15?

EDIT : The question has been edited since I answered. This answer contains general information about Kehilat Bethlechem.
The questions one would first ask of the website are the very questions which the website does not discuss.
Notably, I could find no place in which they confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. They mention Jesus. Separately, they mention God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They mention Messiah. But they never actually say (that I can find) that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God.
Presumably, one has to watch many hours of videos to actually find out information which ought to be on its front page, regarding law, circumcision, faith and works.

The link you provide has extensive information but most is in video form. The website has a large library of videos which form a methodical form of indoctrination.
The website invites donations and the donations are payable to :

Kehilat Bethlechem

Some written material is available :

Our service consists of Jewish liturgy in Hebrew and English, modern Messianic Jewish praise and worship music followed by the message. We also have a Torah service on the first Shabbat of every month. Once the service is over, we meet over a light snack for building community and fellowship.

everyone is not only respected, but encouraged to walk in the faith of Yeshua, our Messiah.

We partner globally with Ahavat Ammi Ministries in United States on all their educational programs.

Kosher Pastor is a program that explores the Jewish Roots of Christian faith by connecting the life of Jesus in its context

Joseph John is the President/ Senior Pastor of Kehilat Bethlechem, a Messianic congregation in Hyderabad, India. He was an Assemblies of G-d pastor when he had a supernatural encounter with the Lord while reading the Book of Romans.

he “saw” that the non-Jewish believers in Yeshua were engrafted into Israel!

Kehilat Bethlechem gathers on Shabbat and is committed to discipleship and training of workers to build the Kingdom of G-d by revealing the true identity of the Jewish Messiah and His Kingdom.

This organisation is affiliated to and is part of the IAMCS -the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America.

The IAMCS is a subsidiary of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA). The MJAA, founded in 1915, is the largest association of Messianic Jews and non-Jewish believers in Yeshua (Jesus) in the world. Its purpose is threefold:

• To testify to the large and growing number of Jewish people who believe that Yeshua (Hebrew for Jesus) is the promised Jewish Messiah and Savior of the world;

• To bring together Jews and non-Jews who have a shared vision for Jewish revival; and

• Most importantly, to introduce our Jewish brothers and sisters to the Jewish Messiah Yeshua.

The IAMCS has a page in which they state some of their beliefs. In particular there is reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit :
See IAMCS Belief


Are devotional materials in Slavic-speaking Orthodox countries typically translated today?

In Russia, Bibles for personal reading are in Russian. One have to search to find it in Church Slavonic.

Memorized prayers are in Church Slavonic.

Prayer books, akathists are in Church Slavonic though there are some with translation to Russian. At least one 20th century akathist that I know was written in Russian.

Living of the Saints, Philokalia and other books are in Russian.

In some churches after reading of the Gospel at the Liturgy in Church Slavonic, it is repeated in Russian.

Also, when I read some 19th century writings, for example, the letters of St. Ambrose of Optina, he cites Philokalia in Church Slavonic, while in modern books almost always citation is in Russian, sometimes Gospel citations are in Church Slavonic but very rarely.


How Did Ussher Determine That the World Began on "Sunday Evening, October 23, 4004 B.C."?

How Did Ussher Determine That the World Began on “Sunday Evening, October 23, 4004 B.C.”?
There is probably no name more indelibly linked with rigid church fundamentalism than that of Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656), who today is almost exclusively known as “the man who fixed the time of Creation at midday on October 23, 4004 BC”.

Ussher's methods
The chronologies of Ussher and other biblical scholars corresponded so closely because they used much the same method to calculate key events recorded in the Bible. Establishing the chronologies is complicated by the fact that the Bible was compiled by different authors over several centuries with lengthy chronological gaps, making it difficult to do a simple totaling of Biblical ages and dates. In his article on Ussher's calendar, James Barr has identified three distinct periods that Ussher and others had to tackle:

"Creation to Abraham's migration." This section is fairly easy to calculate, using the chronological data in Genesis 5 and 11, which gives an unbroken male lineage, with numbers of years, from the creation to Abraham being called out of Ur of the Chaldeans. Ussher used the chronology found in the Masoretic text instead of the alternative chronologies found in the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch. Ussher fixed this period as 2082 years, from 4004 to 1922 BC.

"Abraham's migration to Solomon's temple." Ussher wrote that the time from Abraham leaving Haran to the Exodus was 430 years (based on Abraham's descendants suffering a period of 400 years of persecution, commencing 30 years after Abraham left Haran)[5] 1 Kings 6 states that 480 years elapsed from the Exodus to the beginning of construction of Solomon's temple in the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Thus the temple foundations were laid 910 years after Abraham left Haran; these 910 years spanned from 1922 to 1012 BC.

"Period of the temple laid to the Babylonian captivity." This period is the most difficult to calculate, due to repeated difficulties in correlating the regnal years of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The simple addition of the reigns of Judah's kings results in a total of 430 years, but by positing a few overlapping reigns, Ussher shortened this to 424 years: 1012 to 588 BC.

After reckoning the years from creation to the last kings of Judah, Ussher used 2 Kings 25:27 to establish the length of time from the creation to the accession of Babylonian king Amel-Marduk (also known as Evil-Merodach). He then used information from Babylonian, Greek, and Roman sources to fix the date of Amel-Marduk's enthronement at 562 BC (after Nebuchadnezzar's death), from which he was able to deduce a creation in 4004 BC.
In fixing the date of Jesus' birth, Ussher took account of an error perpetrated by Dionysius Exiguus, the founder of the Anno Domini numbering system. Ussher chose 5 BC as Christ's birth year[7] because Josephus indicated that the death of Herod the Great occurred in 4 BC.[8] Thus, for the Gospel of Matthew to be correct, Jesus could not have been born after that date.
The season in which Creation occurred was the subject of considerable theological debate in Ussher's time. Many scholars proposed it had taken place in the spring, the start of the Babylonian, Chaldean and other cultures' chronologies. Others, including Ussher, thought it more likely that it had occurred in the autumn, largely because that season marked the beginning of the Jewish year.
Ussher further narrowed down the date by using the Jewish calendar to establish the "first day" of creation as falling on a Sunday near the autumnal equinox. The day of the week was a backward calculation from the six days of creation with God resting on the seventh, which in the Jewish calendar is Saturday—hence, Creation began on a Sunday. The astronomical tables that Ussher probably used were Kepler's Tabulae Rudolphinae (Rudolphine Tables, 1627). Using them, he would have concluded that the equinox occurred on Tuesday, October 25, only one day earlier than the traditional day of its creation, on the fourth day of Creation week, Wednesday, along with the Sun, Moon, and stars Genesis 1:16. Modern equations place the autumnal equinox of 4004 BC on Sunday, October 23 (by the Julian calendar).
Ussher's understanding of creation placed the "first day" referred to in Genesis 1:5 on October 23, but with a "pre-creation" event, which he identified as the "beginning of time" occurring the previous night. Ussher referred to his dating of creation on the first page of Annales in Latin and on the first page of its English translation Annals of the World (1658). In the following extract from the English translation, the phrase "in the year of the Julian Calendar" refers to the Julian Period, of which year 1 is 4713 BC, and therefore year 710 is 4004 BC.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ge. 1:1 This beginning of time, according to our chronology, happened at the start of the evening preceding the 23rd day of October in the year of the Julian Calendar, 710.

Ussher provides a slightly different time in his "Epistle to the Reader" in his Latin and English works: "I deduce that the time from the creation until midnight, January 1, 1 AD was 4003 years, seventy days and six hours." Six hours before midnight would be 6 pm.

Others may agree with Usshers chronology, but many do not.

Modern geologists can use complex dating techniques to assess the age of a piece of rock. But transport them back to 1650 and they'd find that the only way to calculate an age for Earth was to follow Ussher's technique, treating the Bible, "God's truth", as an accurate historical record.
Ussher chose October 23rd for his moment of Creation as, under the old calendar, it was the autumn equinox, a traditional start to the year.
He believed the 23rd would have been a Sunday, as time would surely have begun on the first day of the week, and he specified the previous evening, as traditionally this was when each day began. Many scholars agreed with Ussher that Earth was about 5,650 years old.
The Venerable Bede, for example, believed the Creation had happened in 3952 BC; Isaac Newton plumped for 3998 BC. The date was still hotly disputed, however; John Lightfoot, an eminent Hebrew scholar at Cambridge, believed the Creation took place at 9 a.m. on the day of the equinox and not, as Ussher suggested, the previous evening.
When it came to printing English Bibles, however, and adding a chronology in the margins, Ussher's calculation was the one chosen, and in time his work was accorded the same respect as the scriptures themselves.
The work was still widely accepted in the late 19th century, but by then scientists were exploring other ways of calculating Earth's age, based on the amount of salt that had accumulated in the oceans, for example, or the time Earth took to cool from a molten mass to a solid planet. - How an archbishop calculated the Creation


Why did Paul Thank God he didn't baptize some individuals?

The First Epistle to the Corinthians opens with an expanded address (1 Corinthians 1:1-7), identifying its writer as the apostle Paul who, with Sosthenes, was writing to the church community in Corinth. After a warm opening address, Paul urges the Corinthians to agree in what they say, and to be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. The reason for this is that Chloe's people had reported to Paul that were rivalries among them.  This rivalry seems to originate from divisions among the Corinthians as to whether their chief loyalties were to Paul, Apollos, Cephas or Christ. By this, the reason for the unusually expanded opening address becomes apparent, because in that address Paul is emphasising the primacy of Jesus.

Paul subtly nullifies these allegiances, first by saying he is thankful that he baptised none of the Corinthians except Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas, so that no one involved in these disputes can say they were baptised in Paul's name. Then, in 1 Corinthians 1:31, he concludes his demolition of any self-importance his rivals may feel, by citing an Old Testament saying, "Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord."

Paul does not regret the baptism of the Corinthians. Instead, he recognises that the divisions and contentions of which he speaks in 1:10-11 originated because sectarian loyalties to individual apostles were taking precedence over faith in Jesus, and he does not want to be part of that. He also recognises, as we can see in 1:31, that these apostles were encouraging sectarian divisions among the Christians in Corinth.


How Christians are expected to accommodate or view the existence and presence of other religions vis a vis Christianity?

I'm going to answer the main portion of the question from a purely Biblical perspective.  I anticipate that this question as well as this answer is going to generate a lot of debate, so I'm framing my answer as one from an in-arguably Christian perspective - one that's based on Scripture.

The presence of other religions is addressed in Romans 1.  (Quote below is KJV)

  20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
  clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
  eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

  21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
  neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
  their foolish heart was darkened.

  22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

  23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made
  like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
  creeping things.

In short, man decided to reject God, and searched for other gods fashioned after their own imaginations.  The Biblical answer to your question is that yes, all other religions are man-made.

*And yes, I realize that there are plenty who would say Christianity is man-made as well, but that's not what the question is asking.  Answers on this site are supposed to represent a Christian perspective, which is what this is, and is what the question specifically asked for.  Whether or not this perspective is true or not is off-topic for this site.*


Do Mormons secretly pray about you and then consider you included in their church?

If they were wearing name tags, they were probably official LDS missionaries. Even if not, Latter-day Saints are allowed to (and in fact, are encouraged to) proselytize informally and refer potential converts to official LDS missionaries. The LDS have a specific set of procedures and practices for seeking out, encouraging, vetting, and accepting new members, which you can read about in the official LDS Preach My Gospel guide. In general, the procedure involves meeting with official LDS missionaries over a period of several weeks of learning, study, and prayer that leads to the receipt of baptism.

Some LDS missions are known for keeping informal notes of contacts made, but you cannot become a "member" of the church without baptism. Accepting materials from missionaries, including the Book of Mormon, tracts, or anything else, cannot make you a Mormon. Only you can make yourself a Mormon by accepting the LDS gospel and receiving baptism by a holder of the LDS priesthood. As to whether or not you should do so, that is solely dependent on your own conscience.


What is the biblical basis for NOT keeping a literal physical Sabbath rest every seventh day?

The need for a literal, physical Sabbath rest began at the Fall in the Garden of Eden when God cursed the ground for the sake of Mankind:

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

Prior to that event Adam enjoyed the provision of the produce of all of the trees in the Garden save one:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” - Genesis 2:15-17

Adam was created to be a servant and, as the above verse shows, he had work and responsibilities in the garden of God but this work was not toil and vanity, for those (and the need for physical rest) entered as a result of the curse and expulsion from the Garden.
Since God rested from all of His creative labors on the seventh day, by which we are to understand a lasting rest, not as though He commenced work again on day eight, we can envision Adam working in the Garden during God's Sabbath rest.
Jesus Christ, as the second Adam, also went about doing the works of God, not only on the weekly Sabbath prescribed by the Law (many examples too numerous to list) but also always during that rest of God's perpetual seventh day.
When Adam was expelled from the Garden he was essentially expelled from God's presence and rest.  Ruined by sin and toiling in a cursed creation apart from the presence of God, Mankind needs not only a prescription for physical rest but a prescription for remembrance of the Creator and Sustainer of all despite the curse.  Herein lies the reason that God's people, when placed under the tutelage of the Law to bring them to Christ and, through Christ, back to Himself were given a weekly rest Day.  The weekly Sabbath, like all of the Law, is intended to bring us to Christ:

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. - Galatians 3:19-26

Christ has declared Himself to be Lord of the Sabbath and this declaration is given in explanation of why His disciples do what is unlawful on the (weekly) Sabbath:

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” - Matthew 12:2-8

In saying that He is greater than the temple (by which we can infer the Law and the Levitical system) it is to be understood that the Sabbath that He is Lord of is that Sabbath rest of God which is greater than the weekly Sabbath of the Law (this, incidentally, is strong Trinitarian evidence).  If He is Lord of the greater rest then He is assuredly Lord of the lesser.

And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” - Mark 2:27-28

In saying that the (weekly) Sabbath was made for man, not man for the (weekly) Sabbath he demonstrates that weekly Sabbath keeping was not the original purpose of Mankind but rather to live within the perpetual Sabbath rest of God.
In this way the writer of Hebrews indicates that there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God (under the Law) to enter:

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. - Hebrews 4:1-10

Since

It is God's Sabbath rest that remains for God's people to (re)enter
That rest is God's intended purpose for Man
That rest is greater than the weekly Sabbath rest of the Law
Jesus is Lord of both and violates the lesser while honoring the greater
The greater rest represents restored fellowship with God

Those who are "in Christ" may demonstrate the greatest understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ by de-emphasizing the lesser and striving for the greater.  Jesus has come to bring us into the pre-fall rest of God's perpetual Sabbath.

This does not indicate that weekly Sabbath keeping is inherently wrong for Christians but that insistence upon it in order to "be" a Christian is, for then the lesser (Sabbath) is elevated above the greater (Lord of Sabbath):

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. - Romans 14:1-6


What is the archaeological evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah?

The search for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have been a common archaeological pursuit over the years. There have been some proposals, and I do recall seeing a documentary about a couple such sites, near the Dead Sea, which may be very likely the Biblical cities stated. It is difficult to say for absolute certain whether these are the cities mentioned in the Bible or not, but there are some interesting arguments for their identification as such.

The documentary that I saw was on the History Channel, and mentioned the sites named Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira as candidates. They existed near each other and both were destroyed, somehow, around the same time.

There are other cities that have been proposed, however. You can see a quick writeup on Wikipedia here.


According to Reformed - 1 Corinthians 11:29-30, the words [weak, sick, died] literal or not?

There does not seem to be a clear statement from the Reformed tradition whether the words as written by Paul to the Corinthians are to be taken literally. Most of the Reformed statements concerning this verse are addressed to current believers. In this case, the concesus seems to be that the words are to be understood as spiritual but literal -- that profaning the Lord's Supper will result in condemnation and spiritual death.

John Calvin

We begin with Calvin. His views are not necessarily binding on the Reformed, but it is difficult to ignore his thoughts when discussing Reformed theology. Calvin's commentary on Corinthians shows that he believed the Corinthians were quite literally and physically suffering sickness and death for their actions:

  [Paul] now instructs the Corinthians as to the chastisement which they were at that time enduring. It is not known whether a pestilence was raging there at that time, or whether they were laboring under other kinds of disease. However it may have been as to this, we infer from Paul's words, that the Lord had sent some scourge upon them for their correction. Nor does Paul merely conjecture, that it is on that account that they are punished, but he affirms it as a thing that was perfectly well known by him. He says, then, that many lay sick --- that many were kept long in a languishing condition, and that many had died, in consequence of that abuse of the Supper, because they had offended God.

After denouncing the Catholic Church for her practices concerning the Lord's Supper, Calvin goes on to suggest that the Reformed are not honoring Christ in the Supper as fully as they should. He states that current wars, plagues, and famines are due to hypocracy and irreverence concerning the Supper:

  Nay even among ourselves, who have the pure administration of the Supper restored to us, in virtue of a return, as it were, from captivity, how much irreverence! How much hypocrisy on the part of many! What a disgraceful mixture, while, without any discrimination, wicked and openly abandoned persons intrude themselves, such as no man of character and decency would admit to common intercourse! And yet after all, we wonder how it comes that there are so many wars, so many pestilences, so many failures of the crop, so many disasters and calamities --- as if the cause were not manifest!

Note that this guilt seems to collectively affect both the innocent and guilty. This seems to be consistent with Calvin's speculation that the Corinthians may have been enduring a plague. However, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (and this may be seen as a more 'official' stance), Calvin focuses the spiritual effects of eating and drinking the Supper unworthily. These concequences are limited to the unrighteous only in which the condemn themselves:

  For, inasmuch as they do not believe that body to be their life, they put every possible affront upon it, stripping it of all its dignity, and profane and contaminate it by so receiving; inasmuch as while alienated and estranged from their brethren, they dare to mingle the sacred symbol of Christ's body with their dissensions. No thanks to them if the body of Christ is not rent and torn to pieces. Wherefore they are justly held guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which, with sacrilegious impiety, they so vilely pollute. By this unworthy eating, they bring judgment on themselves. For while they have no faith in Christ, yet, by receiving the sacrament, they profess to place their salvation only in him, and abjure all other confidence. Wherefore they themselves are their own accusers; they bear witness against themselves; they seal their own condemnation. (Institutes vi.xviii.xl)

Moving on from Calvin, we focus on some of the classical statements of the Reformed tradition: the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. These documents represent the formalization of the Reformed Christianity as practiced on Continental Europe during the Reformation. They are still respected and used by Reformed groups today. Neither of these can be said to diffinitively rule out a literal physical effect, but a real spiritual effect seems more likely -- more consitent with Calvins Institutes rather than his commentary.

The Belgic Confession

The Belgic Confession explains in Article 35 does not expand much on the effects of receiving the Supper unworthily, but it is consistent with real, spiritual effect:

  The wicked person certainly takes the sacrament, to his condemnation, but does not receive the truth of the sacrament, just as Judas and Simon the Sorcerer both indeed received the sacrament, but not Christ, who was signified by it. He is communicated only to believers...Therefore no one should come to this table without examining himself carefully, lest "by eating this bread and drinking this cup he eat and drink to his own judgment."

The Heidelberg Catechism

The Heidelberg Catechism does not say much more than restate Scripture:

  Question 81. For whom is the Lord's supper instituted?

  Answer. For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ; and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy; but hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

If we place this question in the context of the one before it we see that the benefits are spiritual:

  Question 80. What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the popish mass?

  Answer. The Lord's supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us. But the mass teaches....

The benefits, full pardon and ingrafting, are spiritual. It seems reasonable in lack of evidence to the contrary to understand the consequences are spiritual too.

The Westminster Confession of Faith

Finally we turn to the The Westminster Confession of Faith. This document originated in the Church of England, but is now primarily associated with Presbyterian groups within the Reformed Tradition. Its statements are similar to the Belgic and Heidelberg, it is a little more explicit:

  Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

While the other documents spoke of judgment and condemnation, the WCF states that receiving the Supper in an unworthy manner is a great sin and brings damnation.

Conclusion

The Reformed tradition understands the warnings of sickness and death in 1 Corinthians 11 to indicate serious spiritual death and damnation.


Why do Rastafarians believe it is okay to use cannabis?

Disclaimer: I am not Rastafarian. I do not personally agree with some of the things I'm about to write, but I will try to answer the question with respect to their beliefs.
Rastafarianism is a unique sect of Christianity. They hold many Orthodox positions, but they also have a few views that many may find strange. So they're really no different than any other sect of Christianity in that aspect.
One position in particular is their view of cannabis as a "sacred herb". They call cannabis "Ganja", and though it is not the most important aspect of their religion, it is the one that they are usually associated with.
Most Rastafarians use cannabis strictly as a religious sacrament, believing it to be too sacred to use for recreational purposes. Some believe nothing should be held in such a high regard, so they use it for whatever purpose they deem appropriate, and some do not use it at all. One thing that they all have in common is that they believe the so-called War of Drugs is a war against people, and they quote Yeshua as a reason for why it should be put to an end:

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." Matthew 5:9

Medicinal Purposes
One reason Rastafarians believe it is okay to use cannabis is because of its medicinal properties. They quote Revelation, which says:

"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." Revelation 22:2

They believe cannabis is this tree of life. Although many would believe this interpretation is a bit too far fetched, it is interesting that cannabis has shown to possess unequivalent healing properties. It was discovered in the 1990's that the human body contains what is known as the endocannabinoid system, with cannabinoid receptors in the brain and central nervous system. The name comes from the fact that these cannabinoid receptors are identical to the molecular structure of the cannabinoids present in cannabis. According to Wikipedia, the endocannabinoid system is:

Known as "the body’s own cannabinoid system", the ECS is involved in a variety of physiological processes including appetite, pain-sensation, mood, and memory, and in mediating the psychoactive effects of cannabis.

Some scientist even believe that a lot of human health problems stem from what is known as a cannabinoid deficiency, and the US government actually own a patent on the cannabinoids present in cannabis- Patent 6630507.
Religious Sacrament
Most Rastafarians use cannabis as a religious sacrament. They gather together and smoke the dried buds of the cannabis plant, then accompany this with Scripture study. In this sense, cannabis is viewed as a sacramental incense (the burning of dried plant matter), similar to what the Catholics do for their religious services. They believe cannabis brings them closer to God (whom they call Jah) by healing their mind and spirit:

"For so YHVH said unto me, I will take my rest, and I will consider in my dwelling place like a clear heat upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest." Isaiah 18:4

Illegality of Cannabis
Many people are surprised when they learn that cannabis is harmless and yet still illegal, especially since the Drug Enforcement Agency openly admits that there has never been a reported death as the result of cannabis consumption; but this is no shock to the Rastafarian. They believe it's illegal status is part of the prosecution against their people. The reason for this belief is because it's thought that the West (which they call Babylon) wishes to suppress people from a particular side effect- which seems to be a keen awareness of exposing things Rastafarians deem unhealthy to the soul; such as consumerism, economic exploitation, political deception, social injustice, and media brainwashing.
God Made It
If I was to agree with anything that Rastafarians believe, it would be that God made cannabis, and He gave it to us as a food, a medicine, a tool, and a blessing. To the Rastafarian, cannabis is not to be confused with alcohol, which must be fermented and manufactured. Alcohol is well known, in both the world and the Scriptures, for its devastating effects on the human mind and body (which explains why "Babylon" is so eager to push it on society). Cannabis grows everywhere, whether man plants a seed or not. The first chapter in the Scriptures say:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it [was] good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day." Genesis 1:11-13

Then...

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it [was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Genesis 1:29-31

Other verses include:

"He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man." Psalm 104:14

And...

"Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith." Proverbs 15:17

And...

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." Matthew 15:13:20

Conclusion
I'll conclude this with a quote from a popular Rastafarian philosopher:

“Herb, herb is a plant. I mean herbs are good for everything. Why, why these people who want to do so much good for everyone, who call themselves governments and this and that. Why them say you must not use the herb?...Them just say, ‘no, you mustn’t use it, you mustn’t use it because it will make you rebel.’ Against what?”- Bob Marley

...One Love :)


According to biblical inerrantists, are the apostles' recorded speeches in the book of Acts inerrant?

One way to demonstrate that, according to inerrantists, the apostles' recorded speeches are not necessarily inerrant, would be to find a speech that inerrantist theologians admit contains an error.  At least one such example exists.  In Acts 20:25, Paul speaks to the elders of Ephesus, and says:

  And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. [ESV]

It's a matter of some debate as to whether or not Paul actually did return to Ephesus.  If he did, that would perhaps indicate that Paul was mistaken.  So how do inerrantist scholars deal with this verse?

The Moody Bible Commentary establishes itself as an inerrantist work in its treatment of 2 Timothy 3:16 ("inerrancy in both historical fact and in doctrine").  Regarding Acts 20:25, it reads:

  Because Paul did not know exactly what would happen in the future, he told the elders they would never see him again.  Paul did see the Ephesians again after he spent two years in Rome under house arrest; but at this point he did not know he would return to the area, so his concern was to prepare the elders for ministry in his absence.

Similarly, the Reformation Study Bible, whose general editor, R. C. Sproul, signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

  Paul's statement was based on his own judgment of the situation rather than on divine revelation.  [...] Paul considered it likely that he was seeing the Ephesian elders for the last time.  However, it appears that Paul was later able to return to Ephesus after his release from prison in Rome.

Millard Erickson addresses the issue more broadly:

  Stephen, in his speech in Acts 7, may not have been inspired, although he was filled with the Holy Spirit.  Thus, his chronological statement in verse 6 is not necessarily free from error.  It appears that even Paul and Peter may on occasion have made incorrect statements.

So when is a biblical statement considered inerrant?  Erickson continues:

  When, however, something is taken by a biblical writer, from whatever source, and incorporated in his message as an affirmation, not merely a report, then it must be judged as truthful.

Summary
Evangelicals holding to inerrancy have no issue with errors being reported by the biblical writers, even when such errors are spoken by apostles.  Thus the speeches of the apostles recorded in the inerrant book of Acts are not necessarily inerrant.  The biblical writer must directly affirm or teach a falsehood in order to contradict inerrancy.


Why (and when) did the empty cross v.s. crucifix split happen?

While I cannot tell you when the practice of wearing an empty cross began, I can give you the reason that I was given for doing so.

As a Southern Baptist I was taught that the empty cross symbolizes that Jesus is no longer dead, but that he took up his life again as he said he would.

This is not my interpretation nor is it my feeling, I wear a crucifix since it reminds me that he died for my sins. a lot of people died on a cross, and so to my mind, the empty cross does not conjure up thoughts about Jesus dying for my sins, but the crucifix does. None of my fellow Christians have ever criticized my wearing of the crucifix.

So I suppose it only matters what the cross or crucifix means to you personally.


Nice question! I think the key here is to look at the context. Both quotes are included in The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7); both are spoken by Jesus and probably both were spoken on the same day.
Matthew 5
First the context. Jesus says (in Matthew 5:13-16):

‘You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
‘You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

I interpret this to mean we should be doing good deeds for other people because this will encourage them to glorify God. So our motivation is to help people to turn to God, not to bring glory to ourselves.
Matthew 6
Again the context; Jesus says (in Matthew 6:1-4):

‘Be careful not to practise your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
‘So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honoured by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

This clarifies what I said above - the glory should not go to us. But note this is specifically talking about giving. If a number of people give to a church (or temple or synagogue, in this case), then the church can then in turn give to the needy. The recipients will then hopefully praise God, knowing only that this was given in His name but not knowing specifically by whom.
Giving can be anonymous in a way that other forms of light (eg visiting the sick or those in prison) are not.
Also, giving (like the things that follow in chapter 6: prayer and fasting) is between you and God - so only God needs to know about it.


There are really only two opinions on this and they stem from differing definitions of the word immortal which often conflates or coincides with opinions on the nature of the afterlife.

Traditionally, immortal meant that you simply did not age, and therefore would not die from old age. This is often extended to illness as well. Your body still had requirements, such and food, water, and rest. Naturally, then, there was fruit in the garden for Adam to eat. Proponents of this view often point out that the Tree of Life was in the Garden too. They suggest that they Tree was necessary for immortality and was eaten regularly. This leave the question of harm to your body. Yes, that would be possible under this view.

In much of Christianity, immortal has come to mean that the person cannot die by any cause. The doctrines that dictate there is an immortal soul that is separate from the body use the word immortal in this sense. The pre-fall existence is often conflated with this, despite it being a significantly different thing. So they say the body had no requirements to sustain itself. Proponents of this view would likely point out that eating is a pleasurable exercise, hence, there was fruit in the Garden.

Ancient Greek religion originally tended more toward the first definition, but moved toward the second later. It had a significant impact on Christianity while the second definition was prominent. More precisely, it had an impact on the Jews of that time.


What is the Catholic interpretation of Romans 14:5?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia The sabbath in the New Testament:

  St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are
  not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10;
  Romans 14:5).  The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday
  (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish
  Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day.

Catholics interpret Romans 14:5 as meaning that the Bible supports the Roman Church's decision to move God's holy day from the Sabbath to Sunday.

For denominations that don't follow Rome's teachings, the interpretation is quite different though.  The entire chapter of Romans 14 talks about one common theme:  new Gentile converts and how they should be handled.

New converts are coming from a completely different view of the world.  Many of them are Vegetarians, Ascetics, or other sects that believe that physical deprivation improves the soul.  It will take some time for them to adjust to the new reality of Christianity, and the current Christians should be careful not to push the process too quickly.

For instance, Vegetarians believe that eating meat is a sin.  Christians know that it isn't, but if they try to force meat onto someone that still feels as if it is a sin, they risk causing that convert to leave them.  Paul points out that it is not a sin to refrain from eating meat, so there is no point in pushing this aspect of Christianity.  Instead, one should stick to the more fundamental beliefs of Christianity, and the converts will eventually accept less important aspects of their new life, such as eating meat without feeling guilty.

  Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and
  things wherewith one may edify another.  For meat destroy not the work
  of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who
  eateth with offence. -- Romans 14:19-20

Arguing a Vegetarian into eating meat, even though he (incorrectly) feels that it is wrong, might cause him to reject his new relationship with God.

Similarly some converts might have no concept of a special day of the week, while other might think that the day the Romans dedicate to Apollo the Sun God should be treated specially.  Eventually the new converts will understand the truth, but forcing them to behave in a way they still feel is wrong is going to do far more harm than good.  It is far better to concentrate on teaching the doctrines of salvation first.


Where, exactly, were Christ's body and soul during the Descendit?

This will take a bit of work...But thankfully, the work has already been done :)

If you go to Volume 2 of Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology, p 591, you will there see a pretty good treatment of Christ's Death and Burial. (Search for "Christ humbled Himself even unto death, and continued under the power of death for
a time." minus the quotes in the pdf)

Because Hodge presents various historical views on the subject, I am not game to try and fill in the table for you, but would be very interested to see what others can make of Hodge's treatment of this. I think the table could be filled in from reading Hodge. It certainly helped me with your questions in mind.

Here is a snippet or two from Hodge....
That Christ died is universally admitted by all Christians. That His suffering finished when He died is also held firm for He cried “It is finished”. Hodge then goes on to say that what happened was Christ descended into Sheol (the place of the dead) or the invisible state.
He then quotes from the Westminster Larger Catechism “Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day, which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.” This Hodge argues is the correct view of Scripture.

“Hence to be buried, to go down to the grave, to descend into hell, are in Scriptural language equivalent forms of expression”.

“In Scriptural language, therefore, to descend into Hades or Hell, means nothing more than to descend to the grave, to pass from the visible into the invisible world, as happens to all men when they die and are buried." (As an aside, Christ did not go to Hell (Gehenna - the place of torment) as His sufferings finished on the cross. )

“This view is confirmed by the fact that these words were not in the creed originally.
They were introduced in the fourth century, and then not as a separate or distinct article,
but as merely explanatory. “He was dead and buried,” i.e., he descended into hell. That the
two clauses were at first considered equivalent is obvious, because some copies of the creed had the one form, some the other, and some both, though all were intended to say the same thing”.


How do Calvinists explain Calvin's use of Baruch?

Actually, in his magnum opus "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (ICR), he cited Tobit, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Siriach. The Geneva Bible, which Calvin accepted and fostered, also contains the Deuterocanonical books. This doesn't say however that Calvin accepted them as having the same rank as others books. In fact, he wrote precisely about this.
First, to give context, recall that ICR was written in 1536. The Council of Trent, in response to the reformation wave, was held between 1545 and 1563. Among all the conclusions of the council, the fourth session (1556) issued a decree, with full doctrinal power, about the Canon of the Bible, reasserting the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books.
In response to this decree (and every other decree of the council), Calvin wrote "Acts of the Council of Trent, with the Antidote" (albeit published posthumously, in 1547, it seems). The specific section about the biblical canon is quite long, but I present some extracts below (emphasis mine):

Secondly, in forming a catalogue of Scripture, they [the Synod of Trent]  mark all the books with the same chalk, and insist on placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with the others. [...]
Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. [...]
I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors? [...]
Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times.
And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine. I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine; but as he testifies that all of his age did not take the same view, let us assume that the point was then undecided. But if it were to be decided by arguments drawn from the case itself, many things beside the phraseology would show that those Books which the Fathers of Trent raise so high must sink to a lower place. Not to mention other things, whoever it was that wrote the history of the Maccabees expresses a wish, at the end, that he may have written well and congruously; but if not:, he asks pardon. How very alien this acknowledgment from the majesty of the Holy Spirit!

Based on this, it seems Calvin did approve of these books, but did not consider that doctrine could be derived from them.
PS: for a Catholic rebuttal to Calvin's criticism, see here.
PS2: I'm not a Calvinist.


Where did the rich young ruler hear of eternal life?

The Pharisees were the dominant religious sect of Judaism in Jesus's time. They taught strict adherence to the Law and all of the other laws added to it. They also taught the resurrection of the dead. In their contemporary writings, the Pharisees talk about eternal hell and they used very specific terms we know mean eternal hell because they explain it at length. They also believed in eternal life as an alternative if one followed the laws to a T.

The rich young ruler said he'd kept the Commandments since he was a boy, so it's possible he held Phrisetical beliefs. He would have also heard teachings about eternal life from the Pharisees.

It's important to note that Jesus did not use the same terms to describe hell that the Pharisees used. Jesus used words that normally mean age-bound correction. But due to doctrinal beliefs shifting in the 5th Century A.D., the Latins began translating His words as eternal judgment and eternal punishment. Due to the difference in terms that Jesus used, it's possible the rich young ruler was drawn to Jesus' more loving teachings of God rather than the harsh Pharisetival teachings he'd grown up seriously adhering to. The Greek Church Fathers taught that hell was temporary and everyone there would eventually be purified and go to heaven. They were the first Church Fathers and spoke the New Testament's Koine Greek as their native language and therefore understood it perfectly well.

Also, in the Old Testament, eternal life doesn't appear, just as eternal torment doesn't appear either, not when translated properly. The Ancient Hebrews of Abraham's day were nomads and their Paleo-Hebrew language (Pheonecian) was built around the way they thought and lived--with nomadic terms.

"Olam/Owlam" is their word we translate to mean eternal. However, "olam" doesn't mean eternal. It literally means "over the horizon," which is their way of saying "future," because they didn't know what was over the horizon until they got there. They had another saying that meant the distant future (I forget the exact phrase), which literally means "over the horizon and back." In their culture, they didn't speculate on things they didn't know for certain. So they simply described the afterlife as the unseen or as the future or distant future.

Life was described the same way, as "future" life or "distant future" life. Our translators simply translated their mainstream doctrinal and cultural beliefs into the texts, which is nearly impossible not to do if you understand how translation must be done and how much has to be guessed at due to cultural differences and unknowns such as their exact beliefs back then. Translation isn't nearly as simple as "Casa" means "home" in Spanish. It's extremely difficult and pretty much impossible to get a 100% accurate translation.

Despite what I just said about the word eternal, that doesn't mean eternal life isn't stated in the Bible. When the Koine Greek word aion/aionios/aionion (age or age-bound) is paired with something we know to be eternal (like God), then we translate aionios as "eternal." The problem, though, is that we don't know for certain if judgment or punishment is eternal, yet we translate aionios to mean "eternal." Since the Church Fathers use the term aionios punishment/judgment just like Jesus but in the same sentence say that the person being judged/punished is purified by it and then goes to heaven, this likely proves that the term doesn't actually mean "eternal" when paired with judgment/punishment.

Furthermore, the Koine Greek words Jesus & Paul used for punishment and judgment are corrective terms rather than vengeful terms. Corrective implies an end purpose of purification rather than annihilation or eternal torment.

In other words, the word used to describe eternal is a very controversial term, but when used in relation to life, we're pretty sure it means eternal life, but in the Old Testament, we don't know for certain that the idea of eternal life, as we conceptualize it, is ever used. We do know that the general beliefs and ideas from the Old Testament are being conveyed in the New Testament by Jesus and the other writers, though, because they quote the Old Testament so frequently.

I hope that wasn't too in-depth or too widely focused to answer your question to your liking.


How does reformed theology reconcile the universal resurrection with limited atonement

The Reformed understanding of the wages of sin being death is that the preeminent death we suffer is not physical, but rather spiritual. In Genesis 2:17, Adam was told "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." Yet when he ate of it, he did not immediately physically die. In the New Testament, several passages explain this more clearly.

  For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 5:21-24

Here we see that those who hear and believe have passed from death to life (even while their bodies are still alive).

  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Romans 6:3-5

We are united with Christ through baptism into his burial, and just as he was physically resurrected, so too are we able to walk in newness of life (presently, not just after the physical resurrection).

  Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

1 Corinthians 15:12-17

Christ's physical resurrection is not just a promise for us of our future physical resurrection, but an acknowledgement of the power of Christ to take us out of the death of sin into the newness of life in Christ. If Christ was not resurrected, we are still in our sins because that would mean Christ cannot defeat spiritual death. Spiritual life means we are no longer in our sins.

  And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Ephesians 2:1-3

Here it is very clear; we were once dead. In what sense? It cannot be physical death, so it must be spiritual death.

  For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

1 Peter 4:6

The gospel is preached to those who are dead, not physically (or how could they hear it?) but to those who are spiritually dead, and might live in the spirit (that is, become spiritually alive).

So when people are physically resurrected, this doesn't mean they have been spiritually made alive. They are still spiritually dead, which is far more important than physical death. In addition, there is a sense in which the lake of fire is a perpetual state of physical death in some way, but I don't think that's particularly pertinent. The punishment of sin is primarily spiritual death, not physical death.


What is the biblical basis of the "goats are evil" trope?

The Overall Significance of Goats in the Bible

Goats in the Bible generally have a good significance. They were among the clean animals that could be eaten (see Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:3-21), and they were commonly used in sacrifices (see, for example, Leviticus 1:1-2, 10). Goat's hair was spun to make cloth for use in the Tabernacle (see Exodus 35:4-29).

The negative significance of goats comes mostly from their being made into idols and worshiped as gods in pagan religions. This is reflected within the Bible itself in a prohibition against offering sacrifices to such idols. For example:

  The priest shall dash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and turn the fat into smoke as a pleasing odor to the Lord, so that they may no longer offer their sacrifices for goat-demons, to whom they prostitute themselves. This shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations. (Leviticus 17:6-7, NRSV)

The Hebrew word here translated "goat-demon" is שָׂעִיר (sa`iyr), "he-goat, wood demon, satyr." Goats worshiped as idols in pagan religion is the most likely source of the Baphomet imagery linked in the question.

However, there are also three Bible stories within the Judaeo-Christian tradition itself that have been drawn on, rightly or wrongly, in lore connecting goats with evil and the Devil.

Leviticus 16: The Scapegoat

Leviticus 16 contains instructions for the rituals that the Israelites were to observe each year on the Day of Atonement. A key part of that observance was the ritual of Azazel, traditionally translated "scapegoat":

  Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. He shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. (Leviticus 16:6-10)

In the Hebrew Bible, the word עֲזָאזֵל (`aza'zel) occurs only in these three verses plus verse 26 in the same chapter. As covered in the linked definition, its exact meaning and origin has been a matter of some dispute.

Azazel, or the scapegoat, had a positive function in Israelite worship, in that it symbolically carried away the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement. However, because of its association with sin, in ancient lore it was also sometimes associated with evil and the Devil. For example, in the book of Enoch in the Apocrypha, Azazel is the name of a fallen angel.

This function of the goat as "Azazel," or "the scapegoat" is one source in the Bible for the association of goats with evil.

Daniel 8: The Ram and the Goat

Daniel 8 contains a vision of two great beasts: a ram and a male goat. In the chapter itself, the ram, the goat, and their various horns as described in the vision are identified with the kings of various kingdoms. The male goat, in particular, is associated with Greece and its kings. The final horn that grew on the forehead of the male goat in the vision is described in this way:

  Out of one of them came another horn, a little one, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the beautiful land. It grew as high as the host of heaven. It threw down to the earth some of the host and some of the stars, and trampled on them. Even against the prince of the host it acted arrogantly; it took the regular burnt offering away from him and overthrew the place of his sanctuary. Because of wickedness, the host was given over to it together with the regular burnt offering; it cast truth to the ground, and kept prospering in what it did. Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one that spoke, “For how long is this vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled?” And he answered him, “For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.” (Daniel 8:9-14)

This prophetic vision, and its interpretation later in the same chapter, is another source in the Bible for the association of goats with evil and the Devil.

Matthew 25:31-46: The Sheep and the Goats

Moving to the New Testament, in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus speaks of the judgment of the nations using the imagery of sheep and goats:

  When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. (Matthew 25:31-33)

The king then praises the sheep for doing good deeds for him by doing them for "the least of his brothers and sisters" (verse 40), and condemns the goats for failing to do good deeds for him by failing to do them for "the least of these" (verse 45). And he concludes:

  Then they [the goats] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous [the sheep] to eternal life. (Matthew 25:46)

Because Jesus here uses goats as symbols of evil people who fail to do good deeds for God and the neighbor, in Christianity goats have also commonly been associated with evil and the Devil.

Summary

Although goats generally have a positive meaning in the Bible, there are a few stories in the Bible and in related extra-biblical literature that provide a basis for the common association of goats with evil and the Devil.


Does the Bible support slavery and (white) superiority in the context of American slavery?

As stated, slavery was a fact of the Ancient World, and so when the Bible addresses the topic, it should not be compared against the sensibilities of the modern world, but rather against the sensibilities of the ones to whom the Bible was addressed.

It is an anchronism to apply questions of, for example, feminism or communism, to the Scriptures, because the original audience would have had no means of apprehending it as such.  It would have made no sense, for example, to put an apologetic against evolution into Genesis,  because until the 1860s, no one had ever conceived of the notion. Likewise, to rail against the evils of slavery would not have made sense to the original audience.

What was the status Quo on Slavery?

As Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary puts it:

  People could become slaves in several ways. The poor who were unable to pay their debts could offer themselves as slaves (Ex. 21:2–6; Neh. 5:1–5). A thief who could not repay what he had stolen could also be sold as a slave. Children born of slave parents became “house-born slaves” (Gen. 15:3; 17:12–13). Sometimes children would be taken as slaves in payment for debts (2 Kin. 4:1–7).

What did the Bible teach?

That said, when Scripture is compared to prevailing attitudes, Scripture is remarkably anti-Slavery in comparison.

The laws concerning the treatment of slaves were remarkably liberal:

a.  Israel was instructed by the law not to rule over a fellow Israelite harshly (Lev. 25:39; Deut. 15:14).
b. If a master beat a slave or harmed him, the law provided that the slave could go free (Ex. 21:26–27); and the killing of a slave called for a penalty (Ex. 21:20).
c. Slaves were allowed to secure their freedom. Under the law, no Hebrew was to be the permanent slave of another Hebrew. After six years of service, a slave was to be released (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
d. In the Year of JUBILEE, no matter how long a slave had served, he was to be released (Lev. 25:37–43). If a slave desired to continue with his master, he would have a mark made in the ear; this mark would signify that he had chosen to remain a slave (Ex. 21:5–6).
e.A slave could also buy his freedom, or another person could buy his freedom for him (Lev. 25:47–49).

N.B. In fairness, there is no evidence that the Hebrews ever actually did the Jubilee, but it is instructive that the concept was embedded both in the Law and the Prophets. Additionally, the fact that it was never practiced shows how radically out of step with the time it was.
The prophets are remarkably on the side of the slave and against the master.

  The Bible contains warnings about the practice of slavery. The prophet Amos spoke woe to Gaza and Tyre for their practices of slave-trading entire populations (Amos 1:6–9). The Book of Revelation declares that disaster awaits those who sell slaves (Rev.18:13). ...  Paul appealed to Philemon to receive back Onesimus, a runaway slave who was now a Christian and therefore a brother (Philem. 1:16). Elsewhere Paul counseled believing slaves to seek freedom if they could (1 Cor. 7:21). Since slave practices were part of the culture in biblical times, the Bible contains no direct call to abolish slavery. But the implications of the gospel, especially the ethic of love, stand in opposition to slavery.

Additionally, Paul is as clear as you can get that there should be no difference between slave and free:
Galatians 3:28 says:

  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The Good News of the Kingdom of God in Isaiah is that Jubilee (Lev 25:37) would actually come about. Mary is also equally clear that she thinks the tables are going to be turned, and the "oppressed" would be free.

What was actual practice?

I'm not going sugar-coat Christian history. Whites treated Blacks horrendously.  The AME Church was founded by a black minister who was savagely beaten at the altar of St. George's Church. Slave masters often tried to stress the value of obedience amongst slaves.  Theological cases (like Ham in Genesis 10) were often made to to try to say that the white man was superior.

But interestingly, it was still within the church that opposition to slavery was at its greatest.

William Wilberforce and John Newton are widely credited with the abolition of slavery in Great Britain, and the ban in 1808 on the trading of slaves. Both unashamedly said their opposition to slavery was born out of their understanding of Christianity.
The Quakers were remarkably opposed to the subjugation of people - their refusal to simply take land from the Indians to their united opposition to slavery was a constant force in the abolitionist movement.
Finally, from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to even the Reverend Jesse Jackson - most of the stalwarts of the Civil Rights movement were leaders in the Christian Church.

What did the rest of the world believe?

In contrast,

Hinduism explicitly teaches that you should remain in your caste
Buddhism explicitly teaches that if you are a slave it is because you deserve It
Islam explicitly teaches that masters are better people than their slaves

While slavery was practiced worldwide, the Christian church was the first to react heavily against it. It was the Christian church that first abolished and then "forced" that view on many of what I freely admit were its subjugated colonies.  Still, the point is this - it is not natural to set your property free.  It takes something engrained in a society to make it change, a "religion" of freedom, and Christianity seems that most likely force.


What do Catholic Deacons do that a Priest would never do?

What can Deacons do that a Priest woud never do?
The short answer is nothing, at least liturgically speaking. Permanent deacons are permitted to be married and have a family, whereas priests are generally celibate. A few permanent deacons go on to the priesthood after the death of their spouse.
However, permanent deacons are of great value to the Church.
For example, they run parishes in communities that do not have access to priests. In Canada, this becomes more and more true as one goes further north.
At mass, deacons read the Gospel and aid the priest in the distribution of Holy Communion.
In the Words of Pope Francis: “they are dedicated to the service of the poor, who carry within them the face of the suffering Christ.”
Deacons were instituted by the Apostles so as to help the poor and widows. Thus this would free up time for the Apostles so that they could be more dedicated to preaching the Gospel.

The name deacon (diakonos) means only minister or servant, and is employed in this sense both in the Septuagint (though only in the book of Esther, e.g. 2:2; 6:3) and in the New Testament (e.g. Matthew 20:28; Romans 15:25; Ephesians 3:7; etc.). But in Apostolic times the word began to acquire a more definite and technical meaning. Writing about 63 A.D. St. Paul addresses "all the saints who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Philippians 1:1). A few years later (1 Timothy 3:8 sq.) he impresses upon Timothy that "deacons must be chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience." He directs further that they must "first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime", and he adds that they should be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses. For they that have ministered well shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." This passage is worthy of note, not only because it describes the qualities desirable in candidates for the diaconate, but also because it suggests that external administration and the handling of money were likely to form part of their functions.
Origin and early history of the diaconate
According to the constant tradition of the Catholic Church, the narrative of Acts 6:1-6, which serves to introduce the account of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, describes the first institution of the office of deacon. The Apostles, in order to meet the complaints of the Hellenistic Jews that, "their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations" (diakonia), called together

“the multitude of the disciples and said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve (diakonein) tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continuously to prayer, and to the ministry of the word (te diakonia tou logou). And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost”

(with six others who are named). These they placed "before the Apostles; and they, praying, imposed hands upon them."
Now, on the ground that the Seven are not expressly called deacons and that some of them (e.g. St. Stephen, and later Phillip (Acts 21:8) preached and ranked next to the Apostles, Protestant commentators have constantly raised objections against the identification of this choice of the Seven with the institution of the diaconate. But apart from the fact that the tradition among the Fathers is both unanimous and early — e.g. St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, xii, 10 and IV, xv, 1) speaks of St. Stephen as the first deacon — the similarity between the functions of the Seven who served the tables and those of the early deacons is most striking. Compare, for example, both with the passage from the Acts with 1 Timothy 3:8 sq., quoted above, the following sentence from Hermas (Sim., IX, 26):

“They that have spots are the deacons that exercised their office ill and plundered the livelihood of widows and orphans and made gains for themselves from the ministrations they had received to perform.”

Or, again, St. Ignatius (Ep. ii to the Trallians):

“Those who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ must please all men in all ways. For they are not deacons of meats and drinks [only] but servants of the church of God.”

St. Clement of Rome (about A.D. 95) clearly describes the institution of deacons along with that of bishops as being the work of the Apostles themselves (Ep. Clem., xlii). Further, it should be noted that ancient tradition limited the number of deacons at Rome to seven (Eusebius, Church History VI.43), and that a canon of the council of Neo-Caesarea (325) prescribed the same restriction for all cities, however large, appealing directly to the Acts of the Apostles as a precedent. We seem, therefore, thoroughly justified in identifying the functions of the Seven with those of the deacons of whom we hear so much in the Apostolic Fathers and the early councils. Established primarily to relieve the bishops and presbyters of their more secular and invidious duties, notably in distributing the alms of the faithful, we need not do more than recall the large place occupied by the agapae, or love feasts, in the early worship of the Church, to understand how readily the duty of serving at tables may have passed into the privilege of serving at the altar. They became the natural intermediaries between the celebrant and the people. Inside the Church they made public announcements, marshaled the congregation, preserved order, and the like. Outside of it they were the bishop's deputies in secular matters, and especially in the relief of the poor. Their subordination and general duties of service seem to have been indicated by their standing during the public assemblies of the Church, while the bishops and priests were seated. It should be noticed that along with these functions probably went a large share in the instruction of catechumens and preparation of the altar services. Even in the Acts of the Apostles (8:38) the Sacrament of Baptism is administered by the deacon Phillip.
An attempt has recently been made, though regarded by many as somewhat fanciful, to trace the origin of the diaconate to the organization of those primitive Hellenistic Christian communities, which in the earliest age of the Church had all things in common, being supported by the alms of the faithful. For these it is contended that some steward (oeconomus) must have been appointed to administer their temporal affairs. (See Leder, Die Diakonen der Bischöfe und Presbyter, 1905). The full presentment of the subject is somewhat too intricate and confused to find place here. We must content ourselves with noting that less difficulty attends the same writer's theory of the derivation of the judicial and administrative functions of the archdeacon from the duties imposed upon one selected member of the diaconal college, who was called the bishop's deacon (diaconus episcopi) because to him was committed the temporal administration of funds and charities for which the bishop was primarily responsible. This led in time to a certain judicial and legal position and to the surveillance of the subordinate clergy. - Deacons

A great example for deacons can be found in the person of St. Lawrence who distributed alms to the poor, whom he called the riches of the Church.

St.Lawrence was thought to have been born on December 31, AD 225,2 in Valencia, or less probably, in Huesca, the town from which his parents came in the later region of Aragon that was then part of the Roman province of Hispania Tarraconensis. The martyrs Orentius (Modern Spanish: San Orencio) and Patientia (Modern Spanish: Santa Paciencia) are traditionally held to have been his parents.
Lawrence encountered the future Pope Sixtus II, who was of Greek origin and one of the most famous and highly esteemed teachers, in Caesaraugusta (today Zaragoza). Eventually, both left Spain for Rome. When Sixtus became the Pope in 257, he ordained Lawrence as a deacon, and though Lawrence was still young appointed him first among the seven deacons who served in the cathedral church. He is therefore called "archdeacon of Rome", a position of great trust that included the care of the treasury and riches of the Church and the distribution of alms to the indigent.

St. Lawrence is one of the patron saints of deacons.
As a personal note, I celebrate his feast day by praying for all deacons in the Church. If possible I have an outdoor barbecue in his honor. St. Lawrence was cooked to death on a gridiron on 10 August 258 in Rome.
Besides going to mass on his feast day, I listen to John Denver’s song "Rocky Mountain High", Which refers to his experience watching the Perseid meteor shower (also known the tears of St. Lawrence) as during a family camping trip in the mountains near Aspen, Colorado, with the chorus lyric, "I've seen it raining fire in the sky."

In August, watch this meteor shower named for a saint


Zechariah 14 and Acts 1 according to those who reject the deity of Christ

Yes, from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses, these scriptures are talking about two different lords. The one in Zechariah is Jehovah God. The one in Acts is Jesus Christ, God's Son.

The prophecy in Zechariah 14 doesn't actually use the word "Lord" anywhere. The translators of the DRB have substituted the word "Lord" in place of God's name, which is usually pronounced "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" in English. The New World Translation uses the name Jehovah throughout all of Zechariah 14.

Also, the prophecy at Zechariah 14 wasn't fulfilled by Jesus' ascension from the Mount of Olives or by Jesus' coming as King, but rather the prophecy was figurative of God establishing His Kingdom. - Stay in Jehovah's Valley of Protection, w13 2/15


What does John 3:13 mean, NO MAN has ASCENDED to heaven?

In the risk of sounding way too much catholic :p here is my answer:

Ascension and Assumption are two different things. Catholics believe that only Jesus came down from heaven and went up to heaven on his own power. This is called Ascension. Others like Enoch, Elijah and of course Bl. Virgin Mary were taken up by God. (i.e., not by their own power) This is called Assumption. Catholics and Orthodox have always explicitly differentiated Ascension and Assumption.

Also it is interesting to note that in 2 Corinthians 12:2, Paul speaks of a man who was caught up to the third heaven (presumably by God) and came back alive.


What type of angel was the Morning Star?

You have hit upon a very popular misconception which many have turned into a fable. The only place in the Bible which names "Lucifer" is in Isaiah 14:12.

  " How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"  (KJV)

This verse is contained within a section that is discussing the king of Babylon.  We can know this by looking at the entire chapter, and we find in vs. 4 that the text actually says "king of Babylon" and also calls him "the oppressor".

Then, in vs. 16 it identifies him as "the man"...

  "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;"

The entire section is one of prophetic judgment which was pronounced against the king of Babylon for his pride and conceit and claim to be like the most High.

Adam Clarke's commentary is most helpful here, and regarding "the parable" of vs. 4 includes:

  "The Septuagint in this place render the word by θρηνος, a lamentation. They plainly consider the speech here introduced as a piece of poetry, and of that species of poetry which we call the elegiac; either from the subject, it being a poem on the fall and death of the king of Babylon, or from the form of the composition, which is of the longer sort of Hebrew verse, in which the Lamentations of Jeremiah, called by the Septuagint Θρηνοι, are written."

And regarding vs. 12 he has:

  "O Lucifer, son of the morning - The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל halal ."

And on vs. 13:

  "I will ascend into heaven - I will get the empire of the whole world. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God - above the Israelites, who are here termed the stars of God. So the Targum of Jonathan, and R. D. Kimchi. This chapter speaks not of the ambition and fall of Satan, but of the pride, arrogance, and fall of Nebuchadnezzar."  Source: here

Clarke's entire discussion of this chapter would be helpful to you.

Young's Literal Translation of Isa. 14:12 does not use "Lucifer" at all.

  " How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations." (YLT)

Prophetic language of the Bible has some common metaphors which can be identified through scripture.  "Heaven" or "Heavens" is used for the kingdoms and realms of authority of kings as they have a higher authority over the people of the land.  As God has authority over all men, and as He raises up and brings down the rulers / kings over men, then the king's rule is a "heaven" / authority appointed by God.

"Casting down to earth" was being removed from power.  The earth was a metaphor for the realm of the common people who had no authority above one another.

The "stars of God" were those stars of heaven that are identified through metaphorical statements as the children of Israel / Jacob and his father Abraham.

Gen. 26:4, remembering the oath to Abraham,

  "And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven,..."

Joseph's dream in Gen. 37:9,

  "... and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me."

is defined in verse 10:

  "...What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?"

The eleven stars were Joseph's brothers.  So all of the children of Jacob / Israel were referred to in prophesy / poetical language as "the stars of heaven."

We need a Prophetic Language Class 101 so that these metaphors can be more readily recognized.

I do not know that the particular king spoken of in Isa. c. 14 was Nebuchadnezzar as verses 19 & 20 says he slaughtered his people, and destroyed his land.  As Nebuchadnezzar returned to his sanity (Dan. 4:22-37), and seemed to have repented of his pride, this king in Isa. c. 14 might very well have been Nebuchadnezzar's grandson Belshazzar.  Belshazzar was the last king of ancient Babylon mentioned in Dan. c. 5.

This may not be of help to you in your novel.  Contrary to what most people believe, "Lucifer" is actually a mistranslation, and is not a reference to any fallen angel, nor to Satan.

Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural references are from the KJV.  All bold emphasis is mine.


How has the Chinese Patriotic Society modified the Bible in China?

I have not found anything regarding the Chinese Patriotic Society but there are reports that Xi Jinping has done as you suggest :

Catholic churches were torn down or denuded of their crosses and statues. Images of the Madonna and Child replaced with pictures of “People’s Leader” Xi Jinping. Signs posted outside evangelical churches forbidding anyone under the age of 18 from entering. The Ten Commandments painted over with quotes from Xi.

These are just some of the ways that the Chinese Communist Party is persecuting Christians in China.

How Xi Jinping Destroyed Religion and made himself a god
(Publicised  by the Central Tibetan Administration)

The Chinese President, like Chairman Mao before him, is trying to propose himself as an object of worship worthier than god. Bitter Winter has selected some typical reports about this bizarre, yet worrying development.

The Ten Commandments have been removed from nearly every Three-Self church and meeting venue in the county and replaced with quotations from Xi Jinping.

Bitter Winter .org