Did Oliver Cromwell ban Christmas or is this an unfounded rumour?

According to the Oliver Cromwell Society, he personally didn't ban Christmas:

  There is no sign that Cromwell personally played a particularly large or prominent role in formulating or advancing the various pieces of legislation and other documents which restricted the celebration of Christmas, though from what we know of his faith and beliefs it is likely that he was sympathetic towards and supported such measures, and as Lord Protector from December 1653 until his death in September 1658 he supported the enforcement of the existing measures. — Oliver Cromwell - Faq 4

He just happened to be there, and went along with the will of the people, though I doubt reluctantly.

But the Puritans (and other Protestant groups) were definitely more than just implicated:

  Christmas has at times been the subject of controversy and attacks from various sources. Historically it was prohibited by Puritans when they briefly held power in England (1647–1660), and in Colonial America where the Puritans outlawed the celebration of Christmas in 1659. The Parliament of Scotland, which was dominated by Presbyterians, passed a series of acts outlawing the observance of Christmas between 1637 and 1690; Christmas Day did not become a public holiday in Scotland until 1958. — Christmas - Wikipedia

One of the reasons the Puritans fled England was to free themselves from the paganism within contemporary Christianity:

  Christmas celebrations in New England were illegal during parts of the 17th century, and were culturally taboo or rare in former Puritan colonies from foundation until the mid-18th century. The Puritan community found no scriptural justification for celebrating Christmas, and associated such celebrations with paganism and idolatry. — Christmas in Puritan New England - Wikipedia

It doesn't take much research to determine that almost everything we, in the 21st century, associate with Christmas has nothing to do with the Biblical record.  It's all paganism and recent invention.

The Puritans had problems with that other pagan holiday too:

  The early Puritans didn’t like Easter any more than they liked Christmas. They banned Christmas in 1659, fining anyone five shillings for celebrating the holiday. They ignored Easter, Whitsunday and other holidays. May Day celebrations, which included the hated Maypole, were punished severely. — Puritan Easter, or The Devil's Holiday - New England Historical Society

UPDATE:

Some comments have disagreed with my "almost everything we, in the 21st century, associate with Christmas has nothing to do with the Biblical record.  It's all paganism and recent invention" statement.

  It is not all paganism as you so simply declare.
  virtually none are pagan.

No, the vast majority of things associated with Christmas really are a result of Roman Catholic syncretism and of the modern advertising industry.

All I can suggest is to pick almost anything associated with Christmas and do a little research.  There's a lot of information available in almost any encyclopedia, including religious encyclopedias.

E.g. this is from "The Catholic Encyclopedia":

  Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see … . — CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Christmas

Here are just a few examples:

Many traditions predate Jesus's birth:

Celebrations are a continuation of the Roman Saturnalia, with partying and gift giving.
Evergreen wreaths were used to decorate houses during Saturnalia.
Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun, was celebrated by Romans on December 25.
Mithras and the Sun God were born on December 25.  Jesus was born a few months earlier.
It was not Jesus, but Mithras that was born in a cave.
Nativity scenes with madonna and child are directly taken from Egyptian images of Isis nursing Horus.

Nordic and German paganism:

Winter was celebrated with evergreen trees.
Holly, ivy, and mistletoe were used for decorations.
Yule logs were burned for 12 days.

Slavic:

The Koliada festival celebrated death and rebirth, with people wandering from house to house greeting the inhabitants with songs.

Catholic:

December 25th wasn't associated with Jesus until the 4th century.
Saint Nicholas, whose name was corrupted to Santa Claus, was a 4th century Roman Bishop famous for gift giving.

American:

Much of the modern western Christmas was introduced to North America by Pennsylvania German settlers, with enthusiastic celebrations, Christmas trees, Yule logs, and other Germanic traditions.

Secular:

Office parties, street decorations, parades, lavish gifts, etc. are all recent innovations.
Christmas cards date back less than two hundred years, following the development of regular postal delivery systems.
Rudolph the reindeer was created by a Jewish copywriter as advertising for Montgomery Ward.
The current image of Santa Claus was largely created for by Coca Cola advertising, and has nothing to do with Christianity.


In 1 Corinthians 1, who were Crispus and Gaius?

In the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue at Corinth.  He is understood to be the same Crispus that is mentioned in Acts 18:8:

  And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and
  were baptized.

He is believed to have later become the bishop of the Greek Island of Aegina and, by some accounts, is understood to have been one of the Seventy Apostles.1

Gaius may have been the same Gaius who is mentioned in Romans 16:23:

  Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.

If so, he was, again according to Orthodox tradition, Bishop of Ephesus after Timothy.2

1 Life of Apostle Crispus fo the Seventy
2 Life of Apostle Gaius of the Seventy


Where do the writings of John place chronologically according to preterists?

You will find exactly what you are looking for in Ed Stevens's paper "Introduction to the New Testament Canon" - for the Preterist Bible Project, written April 2011.  He covers the "why" of the Preterists position as opposed to the theory of canon formation held by Roman Catholic as well as some Protestants, even evangelical theologians who all hold creeds like the Nicene and the Apostle's creed as legitimate and authoritative.  But the Preterists only believe the apostles of the first century to be authoritative (and thus became the basis of the NT canon), and the later generations merely recognize the already established books in the canon.

Secondly, the Preterists also believe all NT books to have been written before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, including all of Apostle's John's writings.  The paper I referenced above includes one dating scheme of all NT books.  Because most Christian scholars have dated the book of Revelation to mid AD 90, Preterists became well known for their extremely early dating of Revelation, which heavily affects their interpretation of the prophecies within the book of Revelation.  See this short 1985 book by Arthur Ogden "An Introduction to the Book of Revelation" as an example of how Preterists defend the pre-AD 70 dating of Revelation including extensive argument and historical background to support it.

Here's Ed Steven's dating scheme of all NT books:

  1 Thessalonians (AD 52)
  2 Thessalonians (AD 52)
  Galatians (AD 52-53)
  1 Corinthians (AD 57)
  2 Corinthians (AD 57)
  Romans (AD 58)
  Matthew (pre-AD 58)
  Mark (pre-AD 58)
  Luke (AD 58-61)
  Acts (AD 58-61)
  John (AD 60-62)
  1, 2, 3 John (AD 61-62)
  James (AD 62)
  Revelation (AD 62-63)
  Ephesians (AD 63)
  Colossians (AD 63)
  Philemon (AD 63)
  Philippians (AD 63)
  Hebrews (AD 63)
  1 Timothy (AD 63)
  Titus (AD 63)
  1 Peter (AD 63-64)
  2 Timothy (AD 64)
  Jude (AD 64-65)
  2 Peter (AD 64-65)


What role do the people of Rome play in the election of a pope?

I'm not knowledgeable about papal elections in 1059 or today, but Edward Gibbon's history has the following remark:

  The freedom of elections subsisted long after the legal establishment of Christianity, and the subjects of Rome enjoyed in the church the privilege which they had lost in the republic, of choosing the magistrates whom they were bound to obey. As soon as a bishop had closed his eyes, the metropolitan issued a commission to one of his suffragans to administer the vacant see, and prepare, within a limited time, the future election. The right of voting was vested in the inferior clergy, who were best qualified to judge of the merit of the candidates; in the senators or nobles of the city, all those who were distinguished by their rank or property; and finally in the whole body of the people, who on the appointed day flocked in multitudes from the most remote parts of the diocese … it was everywhere admitted, as a fundamental maxim of religious policy, that no bishop could be imposed on an orthodox church without the consent of its members. The emperors, as the guardians of the public peace, and as the first citizens of Rome and Constantinople, might effectually declare their wishes in the choice of a primate; but those absolute monarchs respected the freedom of ecclesiastical elections, and, while they distributed and resumed the honours of the state and army, they allowed eighteen hundred perpetual magistrates to receive their important offices from the free suffrages of the people.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith?

I am asking specifically for the biblical basis of the belief that
  good works are the fruits of faith.

Hebrews 11 addresses this directly.

Verse 6 is instructive, for it tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God. The rest of the chapter goes on to tell us how the ancients expressed their faith. Their works were the fruits -- the outflow, the results -- of their faith. Another way to put it is that these men and women would not have acted the way they had if they did not have faith in God and what He said to them.

Noah heard God tell him about the ark and the coming judgment. He believed God, so he built it.

Moses heard God tell him about leading the exodus. He believed God, so he obeyed and led the Israelites out.

Abraham believed God and showed it by following through on what was said of him. Throughout the chapter, we see that faith motivated them to act.

If faith means "to believe without proof," then these passages don't make any sense. When you apply the biblical definition to the verses -- having a firm conviction that something is so -- then all the verses give light. This is how you know someone has a firm conviction of God's word -- she follows through on the words.

The biblical idea of faith in these verses indicate that if you really believe that what you heard or read comes from God, then you will act on what you believe. There are no armchair Christians pleasing God. As James 2:36 says, "Faith without works is dead." The faith of those in Hebrews 11 was not dead.

Note that in Galatians, the works of faith are being distinguished from ongoing religious rituals, forms, rules, and laws. The “faith that works through love” (Galatians 5:6) is a faith that responds in obedience to what God has said, and the works reflect love for the individual being helped, or one’s love for God, not routine forms of conduct. Read the works of Hebrews 11 and the works of the apostles in Acts and you won’t find faith showing itself as adherence to sets of religious rules and laws, but as obedience to God and love for neighbor.


What is an overview of how Christian commentators have explained rulers to be a terror to bad conduct?

I think most commentators have understood "terror to good conduct" a little differently than you are understanding it. The phrase is φόβος τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ (phobos tō agathō ergō) — literally, "fear [to] the good work". This is nonsensical English, so the ESV has used "terror", which works. I think the idea they intend convey, though, is made more explicit in the NASB (bold mine):

  For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.

The fear/terror is the emotion experienced rather than the objective historical fact of what is being done. Douglas Moo’s (widely regarded) commentary supports this view and further points out that "good behavior" and "evil" are likely personifications. We could expand the translation: rulers are not a cause of fear for those who do good works.

This still requires a bit of a leap: rulers do sometimes do things that are apt to cause virtuous people to fear. James Denney’s (older, but still highly regarded) commentary on Romans solves this problem with the little phrase about the term translated fear: "φόβος, as in Isa. viii, 13". Quoting the ESV:

  But the LORD of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.

Understood in this context, "not a cause of fear" in Rom. 13 assumes a realization of this exhortation. Those who do good are also those who submit to this view of reality. For them, fear of other authority is irrelevant.

This "idealization" view seems to have been taken by both Origen and Augustine who went on to assert that the praise promised in the latter part of the verse is praise from God (see Moo, p. 800, fn. 50). Moo explicitly disagrees with that view, pointing out the parallel with fear aroused by the secular ruler in the first part of the verse. His position is that Paul was thinking of a specific situation in ancient Rome. Paul is drawing out an axiom that is useful insofar as it is generally true, but it need not apply in every situation.

Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 800.

J.D. Denney, The expositor’s Greek Testament. (Hodder & Stoughton, 1897) vol. 2, 696.


Which Reformation theologians used the analogy of water and ink for sin?

Expanding the search a bit to account for polluting agents other than ink, the closest I can find in Calvin is in his commentary on Isaiah 1, referring to the line in v. 22 that he translates as "Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water".

Even here though, the sense is not the same as what Volf is going for; Calvin says that the image is one of hypocrisy:

  The comparisons here employed are exceedingly well adapted to this end, for dross bears some resemblance to gold; and in like manner, the color of wine mixed with water resembles that of pure wine; and yet both are very far from having that purity of which they make an outward show. In like manner hypocrites, by their hypocrisy, may be said to assume a false color of silver, though they are of no more value than dross.


Novena of Abandonment is definitely from the mystic written works of Father Dolindo Ruotolo.
Unfortunately, his works are no yet completely known in the English world to know which works we need to deal with.

Father Dolindo Ruotolo
These instructions comes to us through contemporary scholar-mystic, Father Don Dolindo Ruotolo, a Neapolitan priest (1882-1970), stigmatized miracle worker and "mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit".
Father Ruotolo had extraordinary communications with Jesus throughout his heroic life, a life that was totally devoted to God and Holy Mother Mary. He referred to himself as "the Madonna's little old man" and the Rosary was his constant companion.
While the writing may be that of Father Ruotolo the words are unmistakably from Jesus.
It is Jesus teaching us how to find peace and happiness in these uncertain and anxious times.
Jesus tell us what he wants from us and how in turn he "swears on his love" he will care for us spiritually and materially.
As you can see much of what our Lord wants flies in the face of normal human inclination and reason. We can only rise to this level of thinking through the grace of God and the help of the Holy Spirit.
We must let go of our problems, stop thinking about them and trying to resolve them ourselves. We must believe, trust and allow our Lord to rescue us from ourselves and supply our wants, needs and resolve our problems as only He can.
According to Saint Faustina, a Roman Catholic nun and mystic from Poland (1905 - 1938). We give Jesus pleasure when we give Him our troubles. Jesus speaking - " You will give Me pleasure if you hand over to Me all your troubles and griefs.  I shall heap upon you the treasures of My grace."
Therefore, Jesus, I abandon myself to you, you take over, should be the first words that come to mind and flows from our lips. After all, we have tried to do things our way and look where it has gotten us.
Just do as the instructions from Jesus say, open our hearts and minds in love and close our eyes in trust and ask Jesus to take care of it and as he promises, He absolutely will.

Some of Father Ruotolo’s writings were published in 1949 in the book Come Holy Spirit, which combines theology with meditations to deepen the presence of the Holy Spirit in souls.  It has become a classic in Italy as an explanation of the role of the Holy Spirit as bestowed in Confirmation. Your source of information may be contained within this book.

Jesus said there is no better novena than this one, and it has only 11 words
Ordained at the age of 23, Don Dolindo spent his life in prayer, sacrifice and service. He heard confession, gave spiritual guidance and cared for those in need. Don Dolindo was a contemporary of the more widely known saint, Padre Pio. When some pilgrims from Naples, where Don Dolindo resided, went to Padre Pio in Pietrelcina, Padre Pio responded: “Why do you come here, if you have Don Dolindo in Naples? Go to him, he’s a saint!”
Don Dolindo wrote what Our Lord revealed to him about divine abandonment from the perspective of Jesus addressing the soul. The prayer of surrender can be read in its entirety, or prayed in nine shorter segments as a daily novena.

Interesting is also to note that Fr. Dolindo Ruotolo may have been the initial inspiration of Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary that Pope John Paul II added to the Most Holy Rosary in 2002!


Did King James have any words put into the book of Deuteronomy in the translation of the Bible?

King James VI of Scotland (who later became King James I of England) tried to prove that witches existed and that the Bible said they must be killed.  James developed an obsession with witchcraft from an early age, blaming witches for the death of his mother, Mary Queen of Scots.  In 1597 he published a book that he had written on the subject of witchcraft, his Daemonologie.  After the union of the Scottish and English crowns in 1653, James’ obsession with witches spread into England.  As a result, many women were put on trial, tortured and executed.  More information here: Daemonologie.
He used Exodus 22:18 as justification for his witch-hunts and executions: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” (KJV)
The NIV reads: “Do not allow a sorceress to live”.
A female sorcerer is a witch, a female practiser of magic, according to various dictionaries.   The male version would be a wizard.
As for tampering with the book of Deuteronomy 18:10-11, I doubt there is any evidence to support the claim that King James wanted “to include words against witchcraft.”  Below is the wording from the King James Version, followed by the New International Version translation:

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. (KJV)

Let no-one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practises divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. (NIV)

The KJV says “a witch” while the NIV says “engages in witchcraft”.  Someone who engages in witchcraft is a witch.
I have no idea whether St. Andrews University has a letter from King James asking for the Bible to be changed with regard to witchcraft and witches.  Unfortunately, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, I doubt any enquiry about that would be dealt with anytime soon.  I think the University is in lockdown.
Here is the link to St. Andrews University Library: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/library/
The phone number (in the U.K.) is 01334 462331


Is it against the Bible not to have a funeral for a family member who dies?

The Bible neither requires nor prohibits the funerals of anyone. In general this is a wisdom issue - would not having a funeral offend the family? Would it damage relationships?
Jesus does however say something that might be taken to say that Christians shouldn't be involved in the funerals/burials of nonchristians:

Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”
And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” (Matthew 8:21-22, ESV)

This shouldn't however be taken as a blanket prohibition of Christians attending funerals for their fathers. These verses, and the ones immediately before them, tell us that there is a high cost to following Jesus, that following Jesus will require us to make sacrifices and that our ties with our families will be strained. And indeed, there are many Christians who have been unable to attend funerals because they are serving God in circumstances that don't permit them to return, such as missionaries in foreign countries.


Are there Christian denominations that promote making themselves eunuchs?

While not a denomination, the Church Father / Heretic Origen is probably your most famous practitioner.  Then again, even the other Church Fathers had a difficult time with his understanding of Scripture on several accounts.

There are few denominations that would encourage the practice, as it tends to reduce the number of followers dramatically.  Historically, any group that discourages procreation - such as the Shakers - found it difficult to survive more than a generation.  While they may not have castrated themselves, their celibacy functionally made them eunuchs.

Jesus was not necessarily implying normative behavior here - indeed, a better reading would say, "there are a few who went this way."  Priestly celibacy is really the natural outcome - but notice it is considered a ascetism for the few.  Not all can handle it.


Where does the idea come from that the KJV is the proper bible to be used?

People have various reasons for preferring the KJV.

There is no copyright so it can  be used without worry that someone will sue them.
Some people believe that it is supernaturally "preserved" by God to be the accurate translation.
Some prefer that the language contemporary with Shakespeare is preferable.
Some prefer the fact that is translated from the TR as opposed to many newer translations based on the Alexandrian Greek manuscript.

There is a natural defensive reaction to stick with the familiar when the new encompasses much that is suspicious. Readers Digest has a condensed "Bible" version. There are gender neutral bibles and other "bibles" that either emphasize some viewpoint or push some agenda.


There are several views of the covenants within the Reformed/Calvinist camp, broadly defined.

The traditional view is that the covenants are unified and that the New Covenant is new in the sense of "new and improved" rather than radically new (cf. Rom. 11 for how Gentiles are grafted into the continuing tree started with Abraham and in Gal. 3 how the law was added to the Abrahamic covenant). This view is held by conservatives in paedo-baptist circles such as Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Anglican, and non-denominational / Congregationalist churches (note: form of church government is not really an overlapping issue here but is a convenient way of identifying folks since they generally correlate). Examples: R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Meredith Kline, most of the Puritans (e.g., those who wrote the Westminster Standards), etc. See An Old Testament Theology by Bruce Waltke and Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson for recent examples of this view.

There are also many "young, restless and Reformed" types who are in credo-baptist circles, typically Baptist, Charismatic, and non-denominational (all of which are usually Congregationalist in their form of government, but like I said, that's a different matter). They typically see the New Covenant as replacing rather than being continuous with the Old Testament covenants. Sometimes they call their view "New Covenant Theology". Examples include John Piper, D.A. Carson, Albert Mohler, old-timer John Gill, etc. See Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants by Gentry and Wellum for a recent example of this view.

As far as Arminians go, views also vary. Those who self-identify as classical Arminians can be pretty close to the traditional Reformed views on the Covenants, though not always. Some distinctions they draw between themselves and traditional Calvinists are that covenants are always conditional (see e.g., "An Arminian Covenant Theology").

Other Arminians are more distant from the traditional Calvinist view. They can be similar to the Reformed Baptist "New Covenant" view or be better categorized as Dispensational. (John MacArthur is an example of someone who is Calvinistic in his soteriology but a "leaky Dispensational" in his understanding of biblical history and the nature of the covenants.)

In short, I don't think there's a tidy division of people who advocate Calvinist vs. Arminian soteriology with those who advocate "traditional Covenant Theology" vs. "New Covenant Theology" vs. Dispensationalism (in any of its forms). There are some correlations, but they are not strong and there are a goodly number of outliers.


The origins of the preparation for the sacrificial lamb go back to the Exodus when God told his people to prepare a lamb for slaughter prior on the evening before they were to be released.  It was called the Passover, because God’s angel would literally pass over the homes of the Hebrews who had followed God’s instructions as detailed in Exodus 12: 1-10.

Each household was to choose a year old unblemished male lamb (or female kid).  It was taken into the house on the 10th day of the month Abib (pronounced Aviv) and kept until the 14th, before it was slaughtered and its blood was splashed with a bunch of hyssop on the doorposts and the upper part of the doorway of the dwelling in which they were to eat it.  The lamb (or goat) was slaughtered, skinned, its interior parts cleansed and replaced, and it was roasted whole, well-done, with no bones broken. (See also 2 Chronicles 35:11 and Numbers 9:12)

No mention is made of the lamb “eating from the table” of the Hebrews.  The animal was to be kept indoors for four days and fed, but lambs don’t eat human food.  Lambs need milk from their mothers and then they move on to eating grass.  I should like to see any biblical reference to the lamb literally “eating from the table”.  I think that is a figure of speech, not a literal description.

Neither does the Bible suggest the purpose was to “bond” with the lamb and feel an emotional attachment to it.  The purpose was to obey God’s instructions so the angel of death would pass over the house.  Jews still celebrate the Passover, although these days, I don’t think they have to bring the sacrificial lamb into their house for four days!

Instructions on the preparation of the Passover lamb:

  Exodus 12: 1-10: “And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.  Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.  And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.  And they shall eat he flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.  Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.  And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.”

Information on the sacrifice of a goat from Leviticus: http://www.blbclassic.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=goat+offering&t=KJV&sf=5

Information on ‘Offer’ and ‘Offerings’:  http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app43.html


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that the Jews rejected their king?

Why do Christians consider Jesus to be the king of the Jews?

Jesus is the heir of David:

  And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end. (Luke 1:31-33)

Jesus often spoke about his kingdom

  Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)

  Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

In this last verse Jesus is not denying that he is the king of the Jews, but explaining that he was not reigning as king in an earthly political fashion in this life. But he will reign in that fashion after the second coming in the new earth.
Jesus is in fact not just the king of the Jews, but the king of the whole world

  Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15)

Why do Christians think that the Jews rejected Jesus as their king?

Verses such as this show this directly:

  Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber. (John 18:38-40)

Because they didn't refute Pilate's statement that Jesus was their king, this is seen as tacit approval of that truth. Of course almost all of them wouldn't have actually believed that he was their king, but this kind of public statement would have some legal force. All four gospels record the crowd's demand for Jesus to be killed.
The Sanhedrin heard the gospel preached to them by Stephen, in Acts 7. This included the claim that Jesus was the "Righteous One", the messiah, who stands at the right hand of God. Because Stephen mentions David and Solomon Jesus's kingship can be understood as clearly implied. But despite having over 500 witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, they refused to believe, and stoned Stephen.

So both the people and the nation's leadership rejected Jesus, both before and after his resurrection, and many of these verses show that they did so in the context of claims that he was their king.


Where can one access Aland's 23rd edition which was used for the first edition of the New American Standard Bible (NASB)?

The 23rd edition of Nestle-Aland was published in 1957, and unfortunately, Google Books often does not have preview available for books of this age. This edition is no exception, at least right now. It thus appears that used book stores are going to be your only option.

Depending on your country, the most appropriate online book shop may vary.  Abe Books is a good bet in the US at least.  A search for 1957 editions currently reveals one potential match.


The International Church of Christ, has its origins in the Restoration Movement (sometimes called the Campbell-Stone movement). When it developed and then split from the churches of Christ group in the 1980s and 90s it retained the Trinitarian views of its background.

The London ICoC website: http://www.thelondonchurch.org//ChurchWide/ContentPage.aspx?PageTitle=Beliefs&Region=London notes in the "What We Believe" section -

  Number 1. There is one true God, the only God that exists, the God of Abraham, Jacob and the sons of Israel, who reveals himself to the
  world as The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah
  45:5; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

  Number 2. Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied Messiah, the Son of God and the one and only Saviour of humanity (Mark 14:62; John 1:29-34; Acts
  4:12).

  Number 5. Rebirth and entry into the Kingdom of God is by repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Holy
  Spirit (Acts 2: 36-41; John 3:3-5; 1 Peter 3: 20-21; Romans 6: 3-7).

  Number 7. The life of the church is to be characterised by the fruits of the Holy Spirit, by each member’s individual devotion to Jesus Christ and
  by the Christians’ corporate responsibility to one another (Galatians
  5:16-25; Ephesians 4:1-3?).


What is the biblical basis for 'Holy laughter'?

Is there a  biblical basis for Holy laughter?
The short answer seems to be yes!
There seems to be a time for everything according to the Holy Book, at least Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 says so:

A Time for Everything
3 For everything there is a season,
a time for every activity under heaven.
2 A time to be born and a time to die.
A time to plant and a time to harvest.
3 A time to kill and a time to heal.
A time to tear down and a time to build up.
4 A time to cry and a time to laugh.
A time to grieve and a time to dance.
5 A time to scatter stones and a time to gather stones.
A time to embrace and a time to turn away.
6 A time to search and a time to quit searching.
A time to keep and a time to throw away.
7 A time to tear and a time to mend.
A time to be quiet and a time to speak.
8 A time to love and a time to hate.
A time for war and a time for peace.

Here follows 14 Bible Verses about Joy in the Old Testament:

“A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.” — Proverbs 17:22

“Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with cries of joy.” – Psaml 47:1

“God has a smile on His face.” — Psalm 42:5

“God, who sits in Heaven, laughs!” — Psalm 2:4

“He that is of a merry heart has a continual feast.” — Proverbs 15:15

“I commend mirth.” — Ecclesiastes 8:15

“I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them and give them gladness for sorrow.” — Jeremiah 31:13

“Let the shield exult and everything in it. Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy.” — Psalm 96:12

“Let your heart be merry.” — Judges 19:6

“Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth; break into joyous song and sing praises.” — Psalm 98:4

“The pastures of the wilderness overflow, the hills gird themselves wiht joy; The meadows clothe themselves with flocks, the valleys deck themselves with grain, they shout and sing together for joy.” — Psalm 65:12-13

“Then our mouth was filled with laughter, and our tongue with shouts of joy; then it was said among the nations, the Lord has done great things for them.” — Psalm 126:2

“You have turned my mourning into dancing; You have taken off my sackcloth and clothed me with joy.” — Psalm 30:11

“You shall go out in joy, and be led back in peace; the mountains and hills before you shall burst into song, and the trees of the field shall clap their hands.” — Isaiah 55:12


How was the term 'The Cross' understood by the audience of Jesus? (Catholic perspective)

John 6:60 New International Version

  On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

Matthew 13:

  10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
  11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

We don't know for sure, but Jesus had a reputation for speaking "hard sayings" and parables.    The Cross was a well known method of both execution and torture.   It was usually given to rebels and other notorious criminals.   So I propose that the disciples might have understood it in a literal fashion.   That following Christ might lead them to an end where they would share that fate, or in a more metaphorical sense that people who followed him would have to face suffering of various kinds.


What is the origin and development of the calender of the Western Church?

According to a number of sources, liturgical calendars (which is what the 'church year' is more formally known) have been around in some form since the fourth century, and were fully developed (though not in  their present form) in medieval times. The liturgical seasons, and the celebration of saints days, were part of the same process. The Lutheran church and other Protestant churches retained the basic form when their division from the Roman church took place, dropping a large number of saints days but retaining others.

The actual seasons have remained largely unchanged since then, with most of the modifications (in both Protestant and Catholic circles) being to the saint days celebrated.


What religious significance is there in marriage for Catholics and Protestants?

In the Bible, the scriptural reason for getting married is to portray the image of Christ and the Church through the marriage.  Ephesians 5:22-33 gives not only the reason, but the order of marriage within the church.

  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is
  the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his
  body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ,
  so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself
  up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the
  washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to
  himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that
  she might be holy and without blemish.  In the same way husbands
  should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife
  loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and
  cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members
  of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and
  hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This
  mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the
  church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let
  the wife see that she respects her husband.

So here's the scripture on husbands and wives, and it clearly lays out why marriage exists:  Marriage itself is intended to portray the relationship of Christ to the church.

Opening that up a little more, we say that a husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church.  So in that sense, the husband is a type of Christ, that is, he represents the picture of Christ within the marriage in the way that he selflessly loves his wife.  This doesn't mean he himself is a messiah or savior, it simply means that his role is congruous to the role that Christ plays in respect to the church, mainly by virtue of self-sacrificial love.

Countering that point, the wife is to submit to and respect her husband.  Recognizing him as leader within the marriage (and mind you, he ought to be a good leader... see the exhortation to the husband), she is to submit to him and respect him for the love that he selflessly offers her.  Her role is to represent the church in this image, and to portray, in the marriage, the Church's response to Christ.

So marriage is to be an image of Christ and the church, with the husband representing Christ's love for the church, and the wife representing the church's response to Christ.

A Brief Aside on Homosexuality's Compatibility with Biblical Marriage

In her case, I'm not exactly sure that you can separate out the fact that she's a lesbian from the Biblical backing for why she would want to get married in the church.

It's not that two people of the same sex cannot be fond of one another, and that they can't even have sacrificial love towards one another.  They most certainly can.  The problem lies with the roles in the relationship.  They cannot clearly portray the image of Christ and the church, because there is no clarity regarding whose role is whose.  In other words, who, in this picture, is Christ, and who is the church?

The Biblical purpose intended for marriage cannot be supported in a homosexual relationship, because the Biblical purpose of marriage is to represent Christ and the church.  The specific roles assigned to the male and female within the institution are what make this possible.


If Christ took our sins on him, why do we still need an imputation of God's righteousness on us?

The words ‘righteousness of Christ’ never occur in scripture. What does occur is ‘the righteousness of God’ And that is the answer to your question - why if sins were borne by Christ , do we still need an ‘imputation’ ? That is a very intelligent question; very valid.

The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, Romans 1:17. It is revealed at Golgotha. It is revealed when God drew near and resolved all righteousness in the sufferings and death and bloodshed of Jesus Christ, his own beloved Son.

Jesus Christ bore the sins of others, in his body, on the tree, I Peter 2:24. And Jesus Christ was made sin - sin, as such, the thing itself  was contained within him, unto death, II Corinthians 5:21. When he died, it was taken away. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, John 1:29.

When one believes this gospel, sees and believes that God’s own righteousness was met and satisfied in Jesus Christ himself as he suffered and died - then God sees that faith and sees, within that faith, his own righteousness.

The righteousness of God is seen within the faith of the believer. And God, seeing that faith, seeing his own righteousness reflected in that faith - God accounts that person to be right. For he is right. He is right to believe that he is a sinner. And he is right to believe in Jesus Christ. And he is right to see that God’s rightness was fully met and satisfied within Christ.

This is a massively important subject. This is the heart of the gospel.
The gospel reveals this. Nothing else does.

And I am not ashamed of this gospel; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed - out of faith - unto faith. Romans 1:16.


Why are the wicked resurrected only to be destroyed and sent to the Lake of Fire?

I think the misunderstanding here is that the wicked are resurrected and then killed.  I'm not sure there's a Biblical backing for the idea that those who rejected Christ will again be separated from their bodies.  Their souls will be in bodies when they are cast into the lake of fire.  Therefore, the punishment is eternal, physical, punishment in the presence of God and the angels (Revelation 14:10).

The underlying belief here is that the soul was never meant to live without a body, and so it will not, for all eternity, but the question is, will the body be glorified, or will it not be?  From Romans 8:30, we see that the foreknown Christian is predestined, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called
  he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

So a Christian is glorified, but a non-believer will not be.

In 1 Corinthians 15:12-14, Paul specifically states that the dead are raised.  He doesn't say that only Christians are raised, but all are raised:

  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.

Not only this, but Christ himself states that all people will be raised, in John 5:28-29:

  Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the
  tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to
  the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the
  resurrection of judgment.

So it's not only Christians who are resurrected, but ALL people, though their resurrection may be followed immediately by very different experiences.  All will worship, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be justified in the eyes of God.  All others will bear their own sin.

As for the underlying idea that annihilation might be preferable to eternal suffering, and eternal torment, I can only conjecture that the reason why eternal torment is taught instead of annihilation, is because annihilation is simply "not complete enough" of a penalty to pay for the sins that have been committed against an all-holy, perfect, just, and loving God.  The object of the transgression must be taken into consideration as well.  Whereas death may be a sufficient penalty here on earth when sins are committed against humans, it is not sufficient in eternity, when committed against an infinitely good God.

(As a side note, some of our discomfort with eternal torment in western culture comes from the western culture's over-emphasis on love and forgiveness at the expense of justice.  In Islamic cultures, they may find our emphasis on love and forgiveness somewhat offensive, preferring to value justice more highly.)


The Gospels, Matthew and Luke, are based off of the gospel of Mark and the gospel of John is based independently on its own source.

The Savior said He was not to be touched until He has ascended to God. Perhaps He was to present Himself Resurrected to His Father. As far as we can tell by His conversation with the disciples versus His conversation with Mary, this had occurred by the time he was with the disciples.

Also, I believe it is implied in Acts that the Savior visited people after that ascension after Mary saw him. So yes, he had ascended before the time they saw His final ascension in the first chapter of Acts.

Edit:

Places where the Savior shows up after resurrection (not comprehensive):

Matthew 28:9-10 (held him by the feet),
Matthew 28:16-20,
Mark 16:12 =? Luke 24:13-33,
Mark 16:14 =? Luke 24:36-49 =? John 20:26-29,
John 20:19-23,
John 21,

Acts 1:3
Acts 7:55
Acts 9:5
Acts 9:10
Acts 9:27
Acts 10:40
Acts 13:31
Acts 18:9
Acts 22:18
Acts 23:11
Acts 26:16

1 Cor. 15:6


In answer to your question;

(note) all Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

The key word in:

  Hebrews 10:26  For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

is the word truth.

  John 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

If we break down Hebrews perhaps we can understand it better.

(if we sin willfully.) the first thing we have to know is what sin is Paul referring to. We get our first clue in:

  Hebrews 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Our second clue comes in:

  Hebrews 10:14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

and third:

  Hebrews 10:18  Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

So this is telling us that once your sins are forgiven by Jesus death and resurrection, it cannot be done a second time.

Now notice that it says * knowledge*.

So the sin referenced here  refers to Knowing Jesus and the willful part has to do with denying that Jesus is the way to Salvation.


According to Catholicism, what does 'come upon thee' and 'overshadow thee' mean?

The phrases you point out indicate to the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit was responsible for Jesus' conception:

  The Annunciation to Mary inaugurates "the fullness of time," the time of the fulfillment of God’s promises and preparations. Mary was invited to conceive him in whom the "whole fullness of deity" would dwell "bodily." The divine response to her question, "How can this be, since I know not man?" was given by the power of the Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 484)

Or again:

  The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and "overshadows" her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus.

(Catechism, paragraph 697)

Aquinas, in his Catena Aurea, quotes Gregory of Nyssa on this passage:

  O blessed is that womb which because of the overflowing purity of the Virgin Mary has drawn to itself the gift of life! For in others scarcely indeed shall a pure soul obtain the presence of the Holy Spirit, but in her the flesh is made the receptacle of the Spirit. ... Moreover, the power of the Highest shall overshadow you. Christ is the power of the most high King, who by the coming of the Holy Spirit is formed in the Virgin.

(emphasis added)

One sees the same thing in the Creeds:

  For us men and for our salvation
   he came down from heaven,
   and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary

  (Nicene Creed)

  and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
  who was conceived by the Holy Spirit

  (Apostles' Creed)

(emphasis added)


According to "continuationists" what explains the 1900 year hiatus?

I'm a Continualist.    Continualism is the just the assumption that the supernatural gifts never disappeared from the Church in the way that Cessionists describe (People who claim that the gifts "died out with the original apostles").    Many traditional Christians like Orthodox and Catholics are defacto unofficial continualists by virtue of their official theology (they believe in saints through history have done various miracles and possessed other supernatural gifts of healing, prophesy etc.).

There are different opinions on the Pentecostal revival:

A) Some see it as being a legitimate work of the Holy Spirit.   (This is some of the reason why the Catholic Charismatic movement took place during the time of Vatican II of the 1960s where Ecumenicism between Protestants was also under way.   Catholics began attending Full Gospel churches and brought Pentecostalism back with them in their Churches.    This made the bishops nervous but was ultimately accepted by the Church hierarchy as something that was beneficial to the Church, but they started their own movement within Catholicism so Catholics would not adopt other Protestant beliefs that were at odds with official dogma and the Magisterium).

B) Others like many Eastern Orthodox will interpret it as being a kind of delusion.   There is a Russian Orthodox term known as Prelest (Spiritual Delusion) that describes when demons grant supernatural gifts to people to feed their pride and so that they may lead themselves and others into heresy and eventual destruction.  That sort of opinion is common among Eastern Orthodox. A monk who convert to Orthodoxy (from Buddhism) named Seraphim Rose wrote a number of anti-Charismatic books and pamphlets.   There however are a number of converts to Orthodoxy who come from Pentecostal and Charismatic churches.  Some of these people have even become clergy, writers and pundits in the Orthodox Church.   Anyway some of these formerly Charismatic Orthodox,believe the movement to be positve, but also flawed or incomplete (Their background set the stage for them to seek Orthodoxy where they claim to have found "The Fullness of the Faith").

C) Personally I believe the Pentecostal revival is something that is both Spiritual (Of God and at times Satan), but also "Socially Constructed".    By Socially Constructed, I mean the assumption that "spiritual gifts disappeared until 1900" is a reality that was originally created by believing in the assumptions of Cessionism (That I believe are historically and Biblically wrong).    So in other words, it was not that the Gifts totally disappeared, but that Protestants have made an interpretation of history in that direction (By ignoring and disregarding the Church History, and hagiographies of Ancient and Medieval times etc.)


Does the Lutheran view of pope as AntiChrist stem from doctrine of justification?

Despite my love for Martin Luther and the doctrine of justification, I believe the answer to your question is (for the most part) yes.

While I don't believe that most modern Lutherans believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, Martin Luther did say it as a criticism of papal supremacy and the sale of indulgences.  So as you put it, a conviction that it's a simple statement of the doctrine of justification: no one is "ante" (stands before, between Christ and sinner) in the mechanism of salvation might be most correct for the original view held by Luther himself.

  "This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God."
  --Martin Luther

Some Lutherans may still have strong views regarding the Pope, but most do not.  The WELS webpage about this topic may give you additional insights into the view of some Confessional Lutherans, or at least some within WELS.


Why didn't C.S. Lewis convert to Catholicism?

C. S. Lewis wrote in Christian Reunion:

The real reason, I take it, why you cannot be in communion with us is not your disagreement with this or that particular Protestant doctrine, so much as the absence of any real "Doctrine", in your sense of the word, at all. It is, you feel, like asking a man to say he agrees not with a speaker but with a debating society.
And the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he's going to say.
To you the real vice of Protestantism is the formless drift which seems unable to retain the Catholic truths, which loses them one by one and ends in a "modernism" which cannot be classified as Christian by any tolerable stretch of the word. To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei - the tropical fertility, the proliferation, of credenda. You see in Protestantism the Faith dying out in a desert: we see in Rome the Faith smothered in a jungle.
I know no way of bridging this gulf.

That said, Lewis usually takes great pains to avoid sectarian division (perhaps influenced by growing up in Northern Ireland), and is often sympathetic to Catholic viewpoints. For example, he received advice on Mere Christianity from Catholics as well as Protestants before its publication, to ensure that it expressed sentiments that were universally agreeable.
The book C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church by Joseph Pearce (Ignatius Press, 2003) explores the development of Lewis's thought on this matter. The foreword by Thomas Howard summarises as follows:

Lewis wishes us to accept his identity as a "mere" Christian; but we find the truth of the matter is that he is a mere Protestant. [...] But there are more anomalies. Although he loathed the whole business of "High", "Broad" and "Low" churchmanship in the Church of England, he could not avoid it all. He had nothing but contempt for the Broad churchmen who diluted the Faith until it was a mere sickly gruel (see his Anglican bishop in The Great Divorce). And he detested the "smells-and-bells", lace-cotta, biretta sort of thing that one finds at Anglo-Catholic shrines, and which formed the metier of T. S. Eliot. He just wanted to be left alone, to go to church and be done with it.
But it was not so simple. In spite of himself, Lewis moved more and more toward what can only be called a "catholic" Anglicanism. Again - he hated the epicene punctilio of the Anglo-Catholic party: but his faith came to embrace all sorts of doctrines and practices that his evangelical readers (who are his most enthusiastic clientele) must sedulously ignore. He spoke of "the Blessed Virgin", and made his confession to his priest regularly, and believed in purgatory, and even came to refer to the Eucharist as - heaven help us all - the Mass!  Lewis's anti-Romanism remained with him until his death, however.


What does Karl Barth imply by God entrusting us with a "nobile officium"?

You did well, I believe, in beginning your search for the meaning of nobile officium vis-à-vis the powers of the General Assembly in the Church of Scotland.  You might also take a dip into the strictly legal/civil application of the concept to centuries of Scotch and English Common Law.  See, for example, a condensed version of Black's Law Dictionary at thelawdictionary.org.

Barth, though a "professional" theologian, was at one time a church pastor.  We should not be surprised, then, he would view theology as vital to the task of a pastor.  In his own words:

  "Theology is committed directly to the community and especially to those members who are responsible for preaching, teaching, and counseling. The task theology has to fulfill is continually to stimulate and lead them to face squarely the question of the proper relation of their human speech to the Word of God, which is the origin, object, and content of this speech" (Evangelical Theology:  An Introduction, p. 41).

I would not be surprised, then, if by nobile officium Barth was alluding to what we call the “Great Commission.”  Jesus said in Matthew 28:18-20:

  ”’All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’”

There could not be a charge more noble than Jesus’ command to “Go therefore and

Make disciples
Baptize disciples,
Teach disciples to obey all Jesus’ commands

Barth himself said, "the hearing, understanding, and application of the biblical message . . . is the fundamental task of all theological study" (id., p. 175).

One difficulty I have with Barth’s theology, however, is his view on what constitutes the “biblical message.”  While Barth sees Scripture as a witness to the Word of God, he does not consider the written Word of God (as canonized and preserved through the centuries) to be the Word of God.  Perhaps out of fear of being labeled a “fundamentalist” and a “literalist” he preferred to elevate the authority of biblical witnesses over the authority of the written record of the witnesses' testimony.

Moreover, according to Barth, “even the smallest, strangest, simplest, or obscurest among the biblical witnesses has an incomparable advantage over even the most pious, scholarly and sagacious latter-day theologian". (id., pp. 31-32).  In other words, Barth would call the Bible a “witness of divine revelation,” and as in all human testimony, whether in a court of law or in the world of fallible people, “A witness is not absolutely identical to that to which it witnesses” (ibid., my emphasis).

A question naturally arises, then:

  If all Christians in general, and Christian pastors in particular, have a divine mandate—or nobile officium—to teach the kerygma (loosely, the content of the gospel) to every creature, how can we know what parts or aspects of the kerygma are the Word of God, and which are not?

From my point of view, and the view of many evangelical Christians and theologians throughout the world, I regard the Bible’s witness, in and of itself, revelatory.  As theologian John Murray said,

  ”Scripture is God's own witness to us, borne through the instrumentality of men but borne by such a unique mode that the witness of men is God's own witness” (Collected Writings of John Murray.  4: Studies in Theology, p.3).

Put differently, God does not speak to us through Scripture so that the Bible becomes the Word of God. No, God reveals himself to us in the witness of the written Word of God. That God was both willing and able to accomplish this revelation without bypassing each biblical writer’s personality, background, education, and culture, and yet still communicate accurately and completely His will and Word for humankind, is a miracle of the first order.  Does one therefore have to be an inerrantist to pass theological muster?  No, but to be an inerrantist is not necessarily the same as being a “wooden literalist.”  But I digress.

A more significant question is, Who determines what the message of the Word of God is?  Theologians?  Pastors?  Average Christians?  Missionaries?  Academics?  Who?  What happens when one preacher, teacher, or exegete of the Word comes to a completely different conclusion from that of another preacher, particularly when the other preacher considers his conclusion to be a non-negotiable tenet of the faith?  Who is to settle the contradiction, and how?  Or is the message sufficiently flexible to accommodate almost any teaching and interpretation so long as it doesn’t go too far afield. Who determines, however, whose view is too far afield and whose is not?  I’m not sure how Barth would answer these questions, though I am sure he would.

In short, Barth’s concept of nobile officium is likely at odds with that of many evangelical theologians and students of the Bible, which of course does not make Barth wrong.  Moreover, he certainly has many worthwhile insights.  If the heart of any “noble charge” emanating from God resembles a plebiscite more than a fiat from on High, however, then theologically and practically we are on shaky ground indeed.  Peter said,

  ”If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God . . .” (1 Peter 4:11 KJV).

As a pastor friend of mine likes to pray before he preaches and teaches:

  "Lord, make my words a true echo of heaven."

When as communicators of the oracles of God we say humbly, yet fervently, “Thus saith the Lord,” we are simply obeying the nobile officium of God Himself, and He alone can take His Word, through the instrumentality of mere vessels of clay, and can cause that Word to echo His truth in convicting power.

When an earthly court, tribunal, or council is faced with the dilemma of having to make a decision in equity but there is no existing law enabling them to do so, they choose to err on the side of fairness, grace, and mercy and not on the letter of the law.  That is nobile officium.

What a privilege is ours as believers in Jesus Christ to bear witness to the truth on behalf of the One who said “I am the truth” (John 14:6).  Moreover, He is the one of whom John said,

  "And we beheld His glory, the glory of the only Begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth" (1:14, my emphasis).

In God's dealings with human beings, His grace always precedes His truth.  The truth of God condemns us, and rightly so; His grace, on the other hand, when received by faith, delivers us from condemnation (John 3:16,17).

Praise God that

  "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1).


When did the Church in the West begin communicating in Latin, instead of Greek?

The first major Christian theologian to write primarily in Latin was Tertullian (155–240): his association with a heretical movement is all that prevents him from being universally considered the first of the "Latin Fathers." Jerome provides a brief summary of his early life:

  Tertullian the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was the son of a proconsul or Centurion. (On Illustrious Men, chapter 53)

Carthage was a Roman city at the time, so Latin would have been Tertullian's native language.  As a result, it's not surprising that he would write in that language, not just for his own comfort but also to reach an audience that did not speak Greek.

Perhaps the most important cause of Latin's dominance in the Western church is Constantine's conversion in the 4th century and the subsequent official status that Christianity enjoyed in the Roman Empire.  Latin served as the Western Empire's lingua franca, and the dominance of the language continued in Europe even after the Western Empire declined and finally fell in the 5th century.

In the Greek-speaking Eastern Empire, Greek fathers like Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus wrote into the early medieval period.  Their influence on the Western church was perhaps not as great as that of Latin fathers like Jerome, Augustine and Gregory the Great, who were more associated with, and geographically close to, Rome.  But it was Great Schism, beginning in the 11th century, that ultimately resulted in Greek-speaking populations disassociating themselves from the Catholic Church, leaving Latin without a significant competitor.


What is the difference between a covenant and a contract?

Many reformed theologians would begin a discussion on the topic of covenants with the way they understand the biblical covenants to be formulated.  God uses language and objects we understand to relate His truth to us.  Many Reformed theologians also believe that he used a covenantal structure called a suzreinty vassal treaty which was common among the Hittites at the time of Moses, to structure His covenant with His people so that they would better understand what he meant by it.

A SV treaty has a specific form and purpose which is well explained in the link above and this has a very high level of similarity to the Book of Deuteronomy and other parts of OT scripture.

The important issue here is that there is a distinct difference between this treaty or covenant and a contract.  A contract is entered into by two (or more) parties who both come of their own free volition and they are generally at an equal level as they sign the contract.  In sharp contrast with this is a SV treaty where the suzerain has either conquered or come to the defense of the vassal and imposes the structure of the covenant on the vassal.

On the other side, the suzerain not only imposes his will but also binds himself with duties toward the vassal.  So basically it was something like this:  I (suzerain) delivered you from your enemies, therefore you (vassal state) will pay me tribute and you will send men to serve in my army every year.  In exchange for this I vow to defend you from your enemies.

Many Reformed theologians believe that the covenant God has made with His people is of a similar structure: I created you and even though you rebelled against me I sent my Son to die for you.  I have conquered your enemy the Devil and will continue to defend you from him.  Therefore you will serve me and offer me praise.

Reformed theologians believe that God has created this sort of a covenant with His elect people unilaterally, and that we only love God, because He first loved us and imposed His gracious covenant on our rebellious hearts.


What kind of Elijah did the Jews expect?

Some Jewish history explains that neither Enoch nor Elijah had sinned, and accordingly they did not die. The traditional expectation and view of Elijah were different from John the Baptist.

First, Elijah was someone who was always working for the church.

According to one Jewish historian “from the time of his appearance in the days of Ahab to that of his return as the forerunner of the Messiah” Elijah’s relationship to Israel is represented “as continuous, and that he is almost constantly introduced on the scene, either as in converse with some Rabbi, or else as busy about Israel’s welfare, and connected with it.” ('The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', by Alfred Edersheim)

With respect to his final ‘coming’ he was supposed to come very closely before the Messiah. However Elijah was not supposed to come in ‘spirit and power’ but in person, in his flesh. He was to have a similar but lesser role to that of Messiah. For example, just as with the Messiah (see this post for what they expected of Messiah) Elijah was “to appear, then to disappear and to appear again in the wars of Gog and Magog” (Seder Olam Rabbah.7.). But after Elijah would discharge his peculiar functions along side of the Messiah, everything else fell under the work of the Messiah only.

Regarding Elijah’s close relationship with Messiah he was to appear suddenly, not on a Sabbath or feast-day, possibly “three days before the Messiah” (Yalkut, vol. 2)

This verse leads to an interesting expectation:

  How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, "Your God reigns!" (Isaiah 52:7)

On the first of those three days, “Elijah would stand on the mountains of Israel, lamenting the desolateness of the land, his voice being heard from one end of the world to the other, after which he would proclaim: ‘Peace’ cometh to the world; ‘peace’ cometh to the world! Similarly on the second day he would proclaim, ‘Good’ cometh to the world; ‘good’ cometh to the world! Lastly, on the third day, he would, in the same manner as the two previous days, make proclamation: ‘Jeshuah6423 (salvation) cometh to the world; Jeshuah (salvation) cometh to the world,’” ('The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', by Alfred Edersheim)

Conclusion: Although the differences are substantial, it further conforms that prophecy was never meant to be absolutely understood, but did provide a certain level of expectation that would be satisfied and more fully explained, when the event actually took place.

For understanding the conflicting ambiguity and uncertainty of prophecy my recent addition to this post.


Roman Catholic: Is piracy of information and media wrong in all circumstances?

The Catechism is explicit.

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
1756 It is an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Theft of food in order to sustain life is not a moral act and cannot be justified by circumstances, even though responsibility might be diminished by starvation. That is, although the act is wrong, culpability is reduced and punishment might be mitigated because of the extreme circumstances.
"Piracy of information and media" is not essential to the preservation of life.


Are there any references to "four canonical Gospels" prior to 100 AD?

I am not sure  I'm understanding the question. I see two possible things you might be asking...

I don't know about evidences of others calling them the four Gospels (not sure that's exactly what your last sentence is asking), but there is first century manuscript evidence for at least some of the Gospels.

There is potentially evidence for the book of Matthew in a few fragments, but the dating of it is a matter of debate.  The original, cursory examination gave them a date of the forth century, but a later examination gave them a date of A.D. 66.

From  http://www.equip.org/articles/eyewitness-to-jesus-amazing-new-manuscript-evidence-about-the-origin-of-the-gospels/

  The Matthew fragments redated by Thiede are at Magdalen College
  (Oxford). They are called The Magdalen Papyrus (listed as Greek 17 and
  p64). There are three fragments written on both sides, together
  representing 24 lines from Matthew 26:7-33. Two of the three fragments
  are a little larger than 4 x 1 cm.; the other is smaller, 1.6 x 1.6
  cm. Another two fragments, located in Spain, are called the Barcelona
  Papyrus (P. Barc. inv. 1/p67) and contain portions of Matthew 3:9, 15;
  5:20-22, 25-28.

Also, while less specific, faithfacts says...

Early fragments: John Ryland manuscript 130 A.D. in Egypt; Bodmer manuscript containing most of John's gospel 150-200 A.D.; Magdalen fragment from Mat. 26 believed by some to be within a few years of Jesus' death; Gospel fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls dated as early as 50 A.D.

Several other sites list the Dead Sea scrolls dating to the first century A.D.

DTS lists another fragment dating to the first century.

  Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? by
  Daniel B. Wallace on February 9, 2012 in Articles

  Note: Several websites (NT Blog, Gospel Coalition, Andreas Köstenberger, Evangelical Textual Criticism, Hypotyposeis, etc.) have
  been writing about Dan Wallace's comments to Bart Erhman about the
  discovery of several New Testament papyri. Dr. Wallace has already
  written a summary of the debate, and below he clarifies what these
  papyri might mean.

  On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on
  whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This
  was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000
  people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been
  discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of
  them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in
  about a year.

  These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many
  as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one
  from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses
  are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the
  first-century fragment.

  It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he
  was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it
  would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up
  until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the
  New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been
  P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of
  the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

  Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel.
  Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had
  Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This
  new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

Getting back to the distinction I mentioned in the first few sentences of this answer...

If you're not asking whether we have manuscript evidence from the first century, but rather writings establishing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the only canonical gospels....

I don't know that we should necessarily expect the early Church to refer to the four "canonical gospels" in that way. The way canon was established was at least partially on establishing what the established, trusted writings were. The best we could hope for is to establish whether the first century Church accepted these writings, and whether they interpreted this to mean that these four, and only these four are acceptable as canonical (thereby excluding others. For that, we have no evidence, but that is more likely because it wasn't until later that they became concerned with formally establishing canon.

From http://www.churchhistory101.com/new-testament-canon.php

  A Natural Delivery

  The NT was NOT dropped from heaven.
  The NT was NOT delivered by an angel.
  The NT was NOT dug up in a farmer's field as golden plates like the Book of Mormon.
  The NT was NOT suddenly "discovered" in a clay jar with 27 "books" intact like the Dead  - Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts.

  The NT canon developed, or evolved, over the course of the first
  250-300 years of Christian history. If the NT had been delivered by an
  angel, or unearthed as a complete unit it would not be as believable.
  Part of the historical validity of the NT comes from the fact that we
  can trace its development, albeit not as precisely as we might like.


Why do LDS use water and leavened bread in communion when the Jews used wine and unleavened bread?

The LDS church proscribes wine (or any alcoholic beverage, really), so water is used instead, although it doesn't matter what is used for the symbols of the sacrament, according to Doctrine and Covenants in the LDS canon:

D&C 27:2

  2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

It just so happens that regular bread and water are more available and make for a simpler ceremony, especially considering that it's usually the young men in the church who prepare and administer that ordinance.

There are accounts of Latter-day Saints using alternative emblems for the sacrament. The citation I linked to, about halfway down, mentions French saints making use of potato peelings when that was all they had available.

Note: The Word of Wisdom, which is the revelation forbidding the consumption of alcoholic beverages, was not received until later. It could be that this revelation about the emblems was a precursor, in part, to that more general revelation. (Read D&C 27 in context for more information.)


What support is there for the Jehovah’s Witness translation of John 1:1?

For information on how the Greek grammar supports the New World Translation, there are some related answers over on Biblical Hermeneutics to the question:

In John 1:1c, should the Greek word θεὸς be translated into English as “a god” or “God”?

Answer 1 by user2924
Answer 2 by elika kohen

In addition to an Appendix article of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References edition, the Study Edition of the New World Translation also supports John 1:1 saying:

the Word was a god: Or “the Word was divine [or, “a godlike one”].” This statement by John describes a quality or characteristic of “the Word” (Greek, ho loʹgos; see study note on the Word in this verse), that is, Jesus Christ. The Word’s preeminent position as the firstborn Son of God through whom God created all other things is a basis for describing him as “a god; a godlike one; divine; a divine being.” Many translators favor the rendering “the Word was God,” equating him with God Almighty. However, there are good reasons for saying that John did not mean that “the Word” was the same as Almighty God. First, the preceding clause and the following clause both clearly state that “the Word” was “with God.” Also, the Greek word the·osʹ occurs three times in verses 1 and 2. In the first and third occurrences, the·osʹ is preceded by the definite article in Greek; in the second occurrence, there is no article. Many scholars agree that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant. When the article is used in this context, the·osʹ refers to God Almighty. On the other hand, the absence of the article in this grammatical construction makes the·osʹ qualitative in meaning and describes a characteristic of “the Word.” Therefore, a number of Bible translations in English, French, and German render the text in a way similar to the New World Translation, conveying the idea that “the Word” was “a god; divine; a divine being; of divine kind; godlike.” Supporting this view, ancient translations of John’s Gospel into the Sahidic and the Bohairic dialects of the Coptic language, probably produced in the third and fourth centuries C.E., handle the first occurrence of the·osʹ at Joh 1:1 differently from the second occurrence. These renderings highlight a quality of “the Word,” that his nature was like that of God, but they do not equate him with his Father, the almighty God. In harmony with this verse, Col 2:9 describes Christ as having “all the fullness of the divine quality.” And according to 2Pe 1:4, even Christ’s joint heirs would “become sharers in divine nature.” Additionally, in the Septuagint translation, the Greek word the·osʹ is the usual equivalent of the Hebrew words rendered “God,” ʼel and ʼelo·himʹ, which are thought to convey the basic meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” These Hebrew words are used with reference to the almighty God, other gods, and humans. (See study note on Joh 10:34.) Calling the Word “a god,” or “a mighty one,” would be in line with the prophecy at Isa 9:6, foretelling that the Messiah would be called “Mighty God” (not “Almighty God”) and that he would be the “Eternal Father” of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, “Jehovah of armies,” would accomplish this.—Isa 9:7.

TL;DR: It states that the grammar of John 1:1c is in stark contrast to the surrounding verses which use a definite article ("the god"). The particular formulation used in John 1:1c is used in Greek to indicate a quality of the subject. It describes the nature of "the Word" and not the identity. It, therefore, emphasizes the mightiness that "the Word" possesses. This is further supported by the early Sahidic Coptic translation which uses an indefinite article in John 1:1c to form "a god," emphasizing the qualitative nature of the clause.
For an extremely thorough examination of the Greek grammar of John 1:1 that also examines bias in several common Bible translations (including the KJV, NIV, and NWT), read Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason D. BeDuhn. Chapter 11 focuses on John 1:1, and comes to the conclusion that the New World Translation is the only translation he discusses that captures the qualitative distinction given to "the Word". He argues that the best translation of John 1:1c would be, "And the Word was divine." (The NWT puts "divine" as an alternate rendering of "a god" in the footnote for John 1:1c.) Professor Jason BeDuhn also refutes several common arguments that translators use for translating "the Word was God," including the misapplication of Colwell's Rule.
In Philip Harner's scholarly article on Greek grammar, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, he suggests John 1:1 would be best translated as "the Word had the same nature as God." He criticizes the RSV and The Jerusalem Bible for translating "the Word was God" because "the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express." Philip Harner establishes his grammatical observation in his conclusion (emphasis mine):

In interpreting clauses of this type it is important to recall that Greek writers also had other types of word-order available. If a writer simply wished to represent the subject as one of a class, he could use an anarthrous predicate noun after the verb. If he wished to emphasize that the predicate noun was definite, he could supply the article. The availability of these other types of word-order strengthens the view that in many instances we may look primarily for a qualitative emphasis in anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb.

A summary of reasons why "a god" is appropriate in John 1:1 can also be found on Wikipedia.


Can anyone provide any sources where earlier English Theologians distinguished between Holy Ghost and holy Spirit?

The word in the original Greek scripture is pneuma (spirit, or wind or breath) and it is indistinguishable (other than context) whether it means the divine person of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of a person (whether divine or human), or breath or air movement.  While I have yet to find sufficient material to fully answer the question but this was somewhat helpful:
(Wikipedia suggests 93 occasions of 'Ghost' in the KJV) :

The English terms "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" are complete synonyms: one derives from the Old English gast and the other from the Latin loanword spiritus. Like pneuma, they both refer to the breath, to its animating power, and to the soul.

The Old English term is shared by all other Germanic languages (compare, e.g., the German Geist) and it is older, but the King James Bible used both interchangeably, and 20th-century translations of the Bible overwhelmingly prefer "Holy Spirit", probably because the general English term "ghost" has increasingly come to refer only to the spirit of a dead person.[20][21][22]

[20]  Robin W. Lovin, Foreword to the English translation of Karl Barth's The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life (1993 ISBN 0-664-25325-3), page xvii
[21] Millard J. Erickson, L. Arnold Hustad, Introducing Christian Doctrine (Baker Academic 2001 ISBN 978-0-8010-2250-0), p. 271
[22] "Norfolk schools told Holy Ghost 'too spooky'". The Guardian. London. 2005-04-11. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
Wikipedia - Holy Spirit in Christianity

Additional Edit :
Focusing just on Romans, I have checked on 5:5, 9:1, 14:17, 15:13 and 15:16 (the places which have πνευματος αγιου in the original). The Wycliffe 1382, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, Matthew;s 1537, Great Bible 1539, Geneva 1560, Bishop's bible 1568, and the Douay Rheims (Challoner) all have 'Holy Ghost'.
Only Young's Literal Translation departs from this, Robert Young consistently using 'holy spirit' throughout, but not using capitals.
It seems to me that no theological point was being made. It was simply an attempt to distinguish those places in scripture where the words 'holy' and 'spirit' were juxtaposed and clearly indicated a reference to the Divine Person.
Reference - Textus Receptus Bibles

Further EDIT from comments :
With regard to Luke 11:13; Eph 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thess 4:8 (where, although pneuma and agion are present they are not juxtaposed, but separated by the article or by other grammar) . . . .
In each of those four places, there is interpolation in the text (between pneuma and agion) separated by article or insertion (promise).
The activity is on the part of the Father, not the initiation and sole agency of the Spirit.
Perhaps it is only when the Holy Spirit is in view independently that the word 'Ghost' is used.


What is the theological justification for only the priest drinking the wine in a Catholic Mass?

Communion under Both Kinds article at Catholic Encyclopedia has answer to both of your questions

Does anyone know when this practice first became accepted?

During early times public Communion in the churches was received under both kinds. But side by side with the regular liturgical usage of Communion, there existed from the earliest times the custom of communicating in certain cases under one kind alone. Examples of receiving communion in one kind alone can be seen as early as 3rd century in the writings of Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius and others. In these writing we can get an idea of why this practice might have been started. Some primary reasons are:

That Communion of the sick is easier to transport and administer under the species of bread alone
In the Early Church the Holy Eucharist in the species of wine alone was given to children even before they attained the age of reason. Probably because it is easy to swallow and risk of children spitting it out is considerably reduced
During the Mass of the Presanctified and all fast days during Lent, the faithful received Communion only under the species of bread.

What is the theological basis for only one or the other (body and blood) being necessary?

Catholic Church does not say it is necessary to receive Communion in one species alone. It says it is sufficient to receive Communion in one species alone.

  There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.)

  By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii).

1 Corinthians 11 : 27-29 states 'if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood.' Here St. Paul attaches the same guilt "of the body and the blood of the Lord" (copulative) to the unworthy "eating or drinking"(disjunctive). In its article The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Catholic Encyclopedia points out that based on this verse Catholic church believes that Jesus, in the species of bread alone, is fully present with his entire body, blood, soul and Divinity.

Hence as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation.

The main reason for the Catholic faithful not to partake in the cup is because of practical purposes. It is quite impossible to provide the cup for hundreds of people in a mass and protect the sacred species from spilling to ground. This is the only reason for which currently faithful are not required to receive in both forms on any given day.

As pointed out by @curiousdannii and @Andrew Leach, Theologically speaking preventing the sacred species from spilling to ground is a big deal because of what the Church believes it it be. That is Christ himself. So spilling the species (desecration) is among the gravest of sins. (Such actions, if done willfully, can be forgiven only be the Pope on the recommendation of the concern Roman curia. This shows the gravity of the matter in the Catholic Church) Hence it must be avoided whenever possible.

You might now ask: When can the faithful receive Communion under both kinds? The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 283 and Eucharisticum Mysterium - 32 points out that apart from the priests who celebrate/concelebrate the mass following can receive communion in both species :

  To newly baptized adults in the Mass which follows their baptism; to confirmed adults in the Mass of their Confirmation; to baptized persons who are received into communion with the Church;
  To bride and bridegroom in the Mass of their wedding;
  To newly ordained in the Mass of their ordination;
  To abbesses in the Mass of their blessing; to virgins in the Mass of their consecration; to professed in the Mass of their first or renewed religious profession, provided that they take or renew their vows during the Mass;
  To lay missionaries, in the Mass in which they are publicly sent out on their mission, and to all others in the Mass in which they receive an ecclesiastical mission;
  In the administration of Viaticum, to the sick person and to all who are present when Mass is celebrated in the house of the sick person, in accordance with the existing norms;
  To deacon, subdeacon, and ministers, who carry out their ministry in a solemn or pontifical Mass;
  When there is a concelebration:

  a) to all who exercise a genuine liturgical function in this concelebration, including lay people and to all seminarians who are present;

  b) in their churches, to all members of institutes practicing the evangelical virtues and of other societies in which the members either through religious vows or offering or a promise dedicate themselves to God; and also to all those who normally live in the house of the members of these institutes and societies.
  To priests who take part in large celebrations, but are not able to celebrate or concelebrate;
  To all groups which are making retreats or following spiritual exercises, in a Mass which is celebrated during the retreat or exercises for those who are taking part; to all those who are taking part in the meeting of some pastoral commission, in the Mass they celebrate in common;
  To those listed under nos. 2 and 4, in their jubilee Masses;
  To the godfather, godmother, parents and spouse of a baptized adult, together with the lay catechists who have prepared him, in the Mass of initiation;
  To the parents, relatives and special benefactors, who take part in the Mass of a newly ordained priest.

But as with most disciplinary regulations of the Church, the diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese permitting the parish priest to decide on whether to administer the sacrament in both kind (GIRM 283), as long as there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.


Does the Pope have the authority to baptize aliens (martians)?

[In case of necessity], [a]nyone [, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention], can baptize [CIC, can. 861.2.], provided he use water and the correct [Trinitarian baptismal] form[ula]: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." [cf. CCC V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?, 1256]

In the case of extraterrestrials, there is doubt whether they are human, so a conditional baptism would be required: "If you are human, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

From the Roman Ritual:

  A monster or abnormal fetus should in every case be baptized at least with the following expressed condition: If you are a human
  being, I baptize you, etc. When in doubt as to whether there is one or
  several persons in the deformed mass, one part is to be baptized
  absolutely, and the others each with the condition: If you are not
  baptized, I baptize you, etc.

[cf. CCC IV. WHO CAN RECEIVE BAPTISM?, 1246]


What Christian denominations/groups believe in biblical prophecies based on number of The Beast being 666?

"Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia" - the fear of the number 666.

The Bible Rev. 13:15-18 requires the reader to interpret: "Here is Wisdom, Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast." and the questioner is asking about any possible interpretations, such as obtained by adding letter values or gematria. That includes the catholic church because in Quia Maior, the encyclical calling for the Fifth Crusade, Pope Innocent III identifies Muhammad with the beast of Revelation.

  Given enough time (and armed with the numerological tricks of the
  Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and English alphabets), one can make
  anyone's name add up to 666. . . .

  Likely candidates have been Martin Luther, Henry VIII, Robespierre, Napoleon
  Bonaparte, George Washington (and his alleged Illuminati double, Adam
  Weishaupt), Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Franklin
  Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Harry S. Truman, Prince Charles, King
  Juan Carlos of Spain, Mikhail Gorbachev, Bill Clinton, Osama Bin
  Laden, and both George Bushes - and, oh, I almost forgot, all the
  Popes.

Source: 666: What's in a Number?

The christian mystic Aleister Crowley claimed himself to represent 'the Beast 666' based on his interpretation of a Hebrew Kabbalah teaching (see link above).


Is Baptism of a child still valid if one of the pouring during baptism misses?

Although the triple pouring is required for lawful baptism in the Western Rites of the Catholic church, it does not seem to be required for validity.  (Source: Moral Theology by Fr. Heribert Jone, a book that was recommended to me by a traditional Catholic priest, and which I therefore consider reliable.)  So if one or even two of the pourings miss  the target, this could be a sin on the part of the baptizer but it would not render the baptism invalid.

Fr. Jone mentions that "several authors hold the flowing of one or two drops insufficient."