Is the bonebox called the "James Ossuary" authentic? Is it truly the bonebox of James, the brother of Jesus Christ? An ossuary is a bone box.  The James Ossuary is allegedly the bone box of James the brother of our Lord Jesus.  On its side is written, in aramaic, "James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus".
In first century AD in Israel when someone died they were laid in a place of burial, such as a cave, and a heavy stone rolled across the entrance, just as in the case of Jesus.  Then about one or two years later the stone was rolled back: at that stage all that remained of the dead body was bones.  These bones were then collected up and placed in an "ossuary".  The largest bone in the human body is the femur, the thighbone.  So ossuaries are not especially large: in length they are just slightly longer than the thighbone.  Thousands of ossuaries from the first century AD and the first century BC have been found in Israel.
In October 2002 it was announced that the Ossuary of James, the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, had been found.  It is pretty important archaeologically speaking because if it is genuine then it is the first, and so far the only, direct archaeological evidence that Jesus even existed.
My question is simply: what is the evidence, for and against, that this ossuary was truly the ossuary of James, Jesus's brother?

Paleographic and epigraphic examination of the ossuary by the Israeli Division of Identification and Forensic Science clearly indicate this is a forgery.

First, the inscription of James (above) is dissimilar to the inscription of the sentence "brother of Jesus":

The second is visibly shallower than 'James son of Josef'. The difference in depth is almost double. Character depth in the first part of the inscription is uniform, but in the second half the engraving depth varies. An extreme example of this is the Aramic letter “Khet” in akhui (brother) in which the upper portion is deeply engraved and the lower portion is shallow.
When examining the letter forms in each portion of the inscription, two script systems were identified. The letters forming 'James son of Josef' are more stylized, uniform depth of stamping and ornate than those in the second portion. For example, the Aramic letter “Ayin” in Yeshua and in Yakov (James) are superficially similar; however, a microscopic examination of the letter “Ayin” in James revealed a circular embellishment engraved at the top edge of the letter and a lower line that is finer and shallower than the upper lines forming the letter. The letter “Ayin” in Yeshua lacks all these elements, which were common during the Second Temple period.
Further examination by microscope showed other significant differences in the way the letters were engraved. In the first half of the 'James son of Josef' inscription, the craftsman used circular motions in carving the stone and created letters with circular edge-points, but the engraving strokes in the 'brother of Jesus' portion are visibly linear and lack the circular edge-points. This significant difference in engraving method between the two parts of the inscription seems to indicate the existence of two artisans, i.e. the text 'brother of Jesus' was inscribed by a different person.
Abstracts of Findings: Writing Committee – The Yehoash Inscription
Prof. Shmuel Ahituv

The inscription was written by a speaker of modern Hebrew who borrowed
segments from the original sources, composed a text that seemed
biblical to him/her but failed. Therefore, the text is a forgery.

Prof. Avigdor Horowitz

The Yehoash inscription appears to be a combination of elements
collected from various sources and pasted together … each element
attests to a lack of understanding of ninth century BCE Hebrew. All
the elements together clearly prove that the text is a forgery.

Dr. Hagai Misgav

From the paleographic aspect, it appears that the inscription was
written by someone not living in the First Temple times, but who wrote
according to samples from that period. In other words, the inscription
does not appear authentic.

Prof. Roni Reich

It appeared to me at first that the inscription was authentic, as I
wrote in my report. For one reason, it was difficult for me to believe
that a forger (or group of forgers) could be found that would be
expert in all aspects of the inscription… and could produce such an
object. But I was convinced, in the end, that it is a forgery after
being shown the committee’s data and material.

The Ossuary Inscription Committee
Prof. Amos Kloner

It is clear that the engraving on the bone box dates from a different
period than its original installation. The inscription appears new.
The writer tried giving the letters an ancient appearance by using
samples from contemporaneous inscriptions.

Dr. Tal Ilan

Even if the ossuary is authentic, there is no reason to assume that
the deceased was actually the brother of Jesus. But I am of the
opinion that the inscription is a forgery.

Prof. Roni Reich

The inscription does not exhibit a combination of configurational or
substantial effects that would imply forgery. But I was convinced that
the inscription is a forgery when presented with the findings by the
Materials Committee.

Dr. Esther Eshel

From my examination of the inscription and the data I received, it
appears to me quite clear that the inscription is not authentic, and
was added at a much later date (possible in two stages).

The Materials Committee
Jacques Neguer

The ossuary is authentic. Its inscription is a forgery. All the
various scratches on the ossuary are coated in the original patina and
only the inscription and its immediate surroundings are coated with an
artificial “patina’-like material of round crystalline granules. The
inscription cuts through the original patina and appears to have been
written by two different writers using different tools.

Orna Cohen

Ossuary:  The first part of the inscription is new, cuts through the
original patina and is coated with a granular patina that appears to
have been produced from chalk dust mixed with water and spread on the
inscription. The end of the inscription “brother of Jesus” appears
authentic, in some places there seems to be remains of old patina, but
in order to produce a uniform effect, this too was spread with the
same granular substance.
Inscription: The “patina” on the inscription side was dissolved in
water and therefore looks like earth rather than patina. When the
letters were cleaned, the manner of inscription was exposed. The
technique appears new and does not match the original wear on the
stone. The manner in which the letters were scratched does not
resemble any form of ancient stone inscription.
In summary, both inscriptions are false.

Prof. Yoval Goren

Ossuary: The ossuary itself is authentic based on the accumulation of
patina and varnish (varnish = patina from a biological source).
The inscription was inscribed or cleaned in a modern period. Its
coating is not a result of nature, and was probably accomplished by
crumbling and dissolving chalk (or perhaps the powder falling from the
engraving process) in hot water and spilling the suspension on the
inscription and surrounding area in order to blur the freshly carved
inscription.
Inscription: The stone is greywake, an exotic stone for Israel,
originating in north Syria or western Cyprus.
The original silicate patina exists on the reverse side of the tablet.
hard and firmly attached to the stone. The engraved letters did not
appear to have undergone any corrosive process as would be expected
from an ancient inscription.
The inscription coating has a different composition than that of the
patina on the back of the stone, and appears to be an artificial
mixture of clay, crumbled chalk, carbon, and microscopic granules of
inert metal. It appears that this mixture was dissolved in hot water
before being spread on the inscribed side, after which the stone was
heated to a temperature of no higher than 4000C in order to harden the
new coating and give it the appearance of patina.
Method: The “patinization” is similar in both cases but on the
ossuary, chalk powder only was used, and on the Yehoash inscription a
mixture of clay or red soil, chalk powder, carbon and metal granules.


Is the presence of evil necessary for good to be expressed? In the New Age movement there is no difference between good and evil. 'Good' or 'Bad' actions are just actions that we label as good or bad based on our values.

They say that we are here to remember who we are not. That's why we experience all suffering and 'evil' in the world. Also our human limitations give us the sense of infinity after we die. For us to know what is cold we need to know what is hot and so on...

My question is:
Are evil & suffering necessary for us to experience goodness, love, etc.?

Is Christian perspective, if we stop fighting evil we will lose the sense of love? If not sacrifice, no act of love, etc.?

If this is not Christian perspective, what is it? I'm interested in any denominational opinion. Thanks.

From an LDS perspective, this idea isn't simply believed, but explicitly stated as doctrine in the Book of Mormon.  It uses the central idea of opposition, which is touched on at various points in the Book of Mormon, but most clearly in chapter 2 of 2 Nephi.  The basic idea is that the contrast between two opposing principles is what distinguishes them from one another, and therefore the existence of opposition is a necessary part of God's plan.

  11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.
  If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be
  brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery,
  neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound
  in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as
  dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption,
  happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

  12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught;
  wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation.
  Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his
  eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice
  of God.

  13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no
  sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no
  righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness.
  And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment
  nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there
  is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no
  creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore,
  all things must have vanished away.

  14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit
  and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both
  the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both
  things to act and things to be acted upon.

  15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after
  he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the
  fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must
  needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in
  opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other
  bitter.

  16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for
  himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be
  that he was enticed by the one or the other.

  17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs
  suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had
  fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that
  which was evil before God.

  18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable
  forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said
  unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the
  father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit,
  and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

  19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they
  were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

  20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all
  the earth.

  21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to
  the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore,
  their state became a state of probation, and their time was
  lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto
  the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent;
  for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the
  transgression of their parents.

  22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have
  fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all
  things which were created must have remained in the same state in
  which they were after they were created; and they must have remained
  forever, and had no end.

  23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have
  remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no
  misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

  24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who
  knoweth all things.

  -- 2 Nephi 2: 11-24


Christian response(s) to disaster survival, or Christian self-defense Every year, "end times" and apocalyptic films, books, and articles are produced in both the wider popular culture, and in religious contexts. In almost every post-disaster scenario as typically portrayed in media productions, riots, mobs, and an every-man-for-himself setting is typically envisaged.

As Christians, we know God will take care of us and that whatever happens is for His glory.

For those of us who are married or have children, we have been entrusted, as husbands, to care for our wives, and, as parents, to guard, train, and raise our children in a God-honoring way.

From another question, I believe it has been established that a Christian is free to serve in the military to the limit of their conscience (ie, the Bible neither proscribes, nor prescribes the activity).

Just before He was betrayed, Jesus told his disciples to make sure they had swords to bring with them (they had two).

In the broader context of scripture, what should make up a Christian response to self-defense, and of defending the defenseless?

What passages of the Bible support (or preclude) such action? and to what limit (if any) is that action to not exceed?

Here is an article that goes into this topic far better than I could.

The relevant summary is:

  Though we see sanction and even a qualified directive from Christ to possess personal weapons, we must remember three points. First, in the remainder of the New Testament, we have no further examples of believers taking up the sword. Secondly, the emphasis in the remainder of the New Testament is decidedly not geared toward the issues of physical self-defense or righteous use of lethal force. Rather, we see more emphasis on Godly living, suffering affliction and persecution for Christ, and grasping the precious doctrines of Christ and the Gospel.  Thirdly, possession of weapons and acquiring the skill to use them in self-defense is permitted but not required by Scripture.

And a few choice quotes (see the article for many more) are:

Psalm 82:4 (ESV)

  Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

Psalm 144:1 (ESV)

  Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

Proverbs 3:32 (ESV)

  Do not envy a man of violence, And do not choose any of his ways.

Luke 6:27-29 (ESV)

  27"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either."


How do Theistic Evolutionists reconcile that Eve was called the "the mother of all living?" What is the Theistic Evolutionist's interpretation of these passages that seem to indicate that Eve was the first mother, and therefore the mother of all humanity?

The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (Genesis 3:20 ESV)

The instinctive answer is, "It's a metaphor." But what is the metaphor supposed to allude to? And how does it couple with Luke 3 where Jesus' genealogy is listed as coming directly from Eve (Adam's wife).

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli ... the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:23, 38 ESV)
And Adam knew [Eve] again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him. (Genesis 4:25 ESV)

I'm aiming this question at TE's who assume that the Bible is authoritative scripture.

To TEs who don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Eve being the mother of living is metaphor, just as Eve existing is metaphor.


Do any Lutheran denominations (or parachurch reform groups) successfully represent "repristination theology"? A Tweet by some fans of Franz Pieper recently said,

  God has blessed the "repristination theology" of our fathers with success also in this country. #lcms #lutheran

Growing up in Lutheranism, that was the first time I'd ever heard the term.

Britannica defines it as:

  “The Repristination Theology” (i.e., restoration of earlier norms), led by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802–69), made 17th-century orthodoxy normative for the interpretation of Luther’s teachings and fought the rising historical-critical approach to the Bible by affirming the verbal inspiration...

Do any Lutheran denominations (or parachurch reform groups) successfully represent "repristination theology"?

According to Wikipedia's Neo-Lutheranism article, repristination theology beget Confessional Lutheranism.  There are two major churches in America which describe themselves as "Confessional Lutherans."  They are the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

A Wikipedia article lists some (albeit debateable) differences between non-Confessional and Confessional Lutheranism.


Are there example writings of general refutation from Jesus' time? There is an apologetic argument that goes like this:

If the gospels were not factual, then we should expect to find other writings from the same time which refute them. We do not, therefore the gospels are factual.

One assumption of this argument is that the gospels (or at least one) were originally written soon enough after the events were said to have taken place, that people who witnessed Jesus's life and death would have still been alive.

My questions is: Are there any examples from that time, location and culture which fit this category? In other words, that could compete the sentence: "...we should expect to find other writings from the same time which refute them, just like we do with XXX"

I have never heard of any contemporary account that directly refutes the gospel story, and it is unlikely that a refutation of the gospels was ever written. Although we can never know, it is unlikely that the pagans were at all concerned, or threatened, by the emergence of what they still regarded as a new strand of Judaism. The Jews were, at that very time, preoccupied with the events of the First Roman-Jewish War and its aftermath, including the loss of the temple, the inability to sacrifice to God, the disbandment of the priesthood, and the future direction of the faith.

Philo of Alexandria, who was an early contemporary of Jesus, wrote about all the Jewish sects and movements that he knew of, but never mentions Jesus. That does not mean the gospels are not historical, just that news of Jesus never reached Philo in Egypt.

Josephus wrote about Jewish history late in the first century, but he seems either unaware of or uninterested in the gospel story. His brief mention of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum is clearly second hand and appears to have been heavily redacted by later Christians.

Of course, even if a meaningful refutation had ever been written, we could expect it to have been destroyed along with the pagan and gnostic documents that were burnt during the Christian rampages of the fourth and fifth centuries. Even gnostic Christian books were not spared, with the Nag Hammadi library, sealed and buried in the Egyptian desert to avoid the destruction of these sacred book, as silent testimony to the thoroughness of the sanctioned destruction of literature that did not meet official approval in the fifth century.

Barbara Geller says in 'Epilogue', published in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, page 427, that by the end of the fourth century, both anti-pagan and anti-Jewish legislation would serve as licences for the increasing number of acts of vandalism and violent destruction directed against pagan and Jewish places of worship carried out by Christian mobs, often at the instigation of the local clergy.  Helen Ellerbe says in The Dark Side of Christian History, page 46, the Church burnt enormous amounts of literature.  She says Christians burnt down the library of Alexandria in 391, with its 700,000 rolls - although the number of scrolls may already have been substantially reduced by early fires dating back to the time of Julius Caesar. The destruction of books was random, with books on science, mathematics and engineering joining those on philosophy and religion. On page 44, Ellerbe says that in some cases the Christian church's burning of books and repression of intellectual pursuit set humanity back as much as two millennia in its scientific understanding.


Is it ok to pray in public? Matthew 6:6 (NIV) says:

  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Does this mean that prayer should only be performed in private? If so, why do christians pray collectively in churches and at other gatherings?

A bit of context (Matthew 6:5-6):

  “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

It's primarily instructing us to not pray for the intent of showing people that we're praying, as hypocrites do ("see, I'm praying! look how good I am!"). It instead tells us to do what you can to keep it unobtrusive, and if possible, secret.


According to Pentecostal doctrines, can a widower marry a divorced person without committing a mortal sin? According to Pentecostal doctrines, can a widower marry a divorced person without committing a mortal sin?  Does it make a difference if that person was the victim of marital infidelity?

If there are significant differences between Pentecostal denominations, please give an overview of their different stances.

There are several questions here to be answered:

Are there special rules for a widower as opposed to someone who has never been married?
In what circumstances is it sinful to remarry after divorce?
Is it ever a "mortal sin" to remarry after divorce?

I will answer these questions using publications of the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination, and the writings of prominent Renewal theologian J. Rodman Williams.  While there is likely some variation in pentecostal beliefs among the many dozens of small denominations, I have found no explicit disagreement between these two major expounders of Pentecostal/Charismatic thought.
Remarriage after being widowed
Neither the AG nor Williams explicitly cover the question of widows remarrying in their treatments of remarriage, which isn't surprising given that very few Christians believe that one who is widowed ought not remarry.  However, the AG tangentially addresses the question of remarriage of the widowed in several places, in particular when analyzing the qualifications for church officers (1 Timothy 3).  It rejects the idea that the literal rendering, "one woman man," refers to a prohibition of remarriage after being widowed. Thus, even widowed church officers, being held to a standard at least as high as others, may remarry.1
Remarriage after divorce
Remarriage among those who have been divorced, however, is a more complex question.  Williams writes:

It is a tragic thing to see two people, having become "one flesh," trying to live separate lives because of divorce; but it is an evil thing to see either or both of them trying to contract another marriage.  It is evil, indeed perverted, because the original marriage had made two people one.2

However, he makes an exception in the case of one who was the victim of adultery:

It may be asked, what if, in the marriage, only one partner proves to be unfaithful.  Are there not Scriptural grounds for a legitimate re-marriage of the innocent party?  The answer to that question is "Yes" [...] Re-marriage and not committing adultery is possible if the divorce resulted from "unchastity." The one who has remained chaste may re-marry without committing adultery.2

The same view is taken by the Assemblies of God:

One who has been divorced because of the repeated adultery of a partner is not bound by the former marriage and is free to remarry.3
Jesus clearly assumed that those who were divorced by sinful spouses, or those who divorced sinful spouses for “marital uncleanness” or abandonment, were free to remarry without any tinge of adultery.1

"Mortal" sin?
The term mortal sin, often associated with Roman Catholicism and contrasted with venial sin, appears in some translations of 1 John 5.  In Protestantism generally, and Pentecostalism particularly, this sin is often seen to be the same as the sin Jesus called "unforgivable" or "unpardonable" in Matthew 12:31 and elsewhere.  It is only with this understanding that we can make any sense of the question of "is divorce after remarriage a mortal sin," since Pentecostalism does not classify sin in the same way that Roman Catholicism does.
Turning now to Williams, we find that he does believe that Christians can commit a "mortal" or "unforgivable" sin, which will not be forgiven, he does not say that about remarriage after divorce:

if we have been divorced and re-married, but not on the grounds of the Scripture [...] if we are truly sorry, God, for Christ's sake, will always forgive.2

Rather, the unpardonable sin, quoting the AG, is "more descriptive of a spiritual state or condition than a single act of sin."  It "involves a deliberate or willful act of unbelief," and is not "committed in ignorance" nor is it a "single momentary act."4
Williams writes:

By failing to abide in Christ, to continue in Him and His word, to persevere in the midst of worldly trial or temptation, to make faith firm and strengthen it—thereby allowing unbelief to enter—believers may fall away from God.  Thereby they may tragically forfeit their salvation.5

Summary
Can those who remarry after divorce commit a "mortal" ("unpardonable") sin, according to Pentecostalism?  Perhaps, yes, if they do so willfully and as part of a pattern of unbelief.  However, grace is freely offered to those who truly repent of their sin.
Though remarriage after divorce is generally sinful, exceptions are made for adultery or abandonment: in such cases, the innocent victim may remarry without sinning.

References:

AG, "Divorce and Remarriage" position paper
Williams, The Ten Commandments, "The Seventh Commandment". Emphasis in original.
AG, "Divorce and Remarriage" summary
AG, "Unpardonable sin"
Williams, Renewal Theology, Vol. II, 129


What is the relation between Christianity and Islam There are some common points that exist between Christianity and Islam.
      What are the similarities and disagreement between Christianity and Islam?

The fundamental claim of Islam is that there is only one God and Mohammad is his prophet. This is believed because it is written in the Qur'an. The Qur'an is believed to be true based on Mohammad's testimony that he received it from the angel Gabriel.

Mohammad claimed to be the last in a long line of prophets, including most of the major Old Testament figures like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, etc., as well as Jesus. He claimed that the messages God gave to the other prophets were true (and were one with Islam). Muslims have concluded that the real Jesus and his message have since been lost or corrupted and what we now know to be Christianity is not reliable (because it disagrees with the Qur'an). Islam asserts that it is in accord with the real teachings of the prophet Jesus (which we no longer have in a reliable form). The Qur'an asserts that Jesus was not divine and never died (and, by implication, did not come back to life).

If you don't wholly accept its claim that Islam has been around since the first prophet, Adam, then Islam is post-Christian. Mohammad appears to have known a little about Christianity (and perhaps Judaism). What he wrote down shows some familiarity with Christianity but also a severe misunderstanding of it and complete ignorance of some historical details (e.g. placing Samaritans with Moses).

Its relationship to Christianity is that it attempts to supersede Christianity by incorporating selected elements of Judao-Christian beliefs while simultaneously denying the fundamental beliefs both of Judaism and Christianity. Islam is logically incompatible with both Christianity and Judaism as we understand them. Judaism points to Jesus. Nothing in Christianity points to Mohammad. The movement started by Mohammad is superficially rooted in Judao-Christian history, but differs in important facts all along the way. As a movement, it is completely distinct and separate from Christianity, and its fundamental beliefs are mutually exclusive with those of Judaism or Christianity.


What is the case in favour of adelphopoiesis as a relationship akin to marriage? I've seen a few things lampooning John Boswell's interpretation of adelphopoiesis as a quasi civil union between men. However, I've not seen much on his side other than it being used by Christian gay rights activists as evidence that homosexuality used to be more accepted within the church than it is today.

What is the case in favour of adelphopoiesis as a relationship akin to marriage as Boswell understood it i.e. as a parallel to modern constructions of sexual identity?

I have not read Boswell's book, but I have found a number of reviews of it online (1 2 3).
Based on the reviews, Boswell's argument seems to be threefold.
Marriage
First, he points out that the definition of marriage has changed over the centuries. Even today there are different kinds of marriage. A couple can get a civil marriage (performed by a judge) or a religious marriage (performed by ordained clergy). In some countries a clergy person is authorized to sign the legal paperwork so that one ceremony can satisfy both God and the law. In some locations, common-law marriage (a tradition going back to ancient times) is an option allowing a couple to get married without a ceremony.
In many places today a married person cannot marry anyone else without breaking their current contract (and even then, some churches would not allow a second marriage), but in ancient times polygamy was much more widely practiced. Solomon was said to have 700 wives (and also 300 concubines, which was somewhat akin to marriage but was a different type of relationship.)
Yet another type of marital relationship in ancient times was that of Greek soldiers, who were encouraged to pair up--the reasoning being that when they went into battle they would be fighting alongside their lovers, and would therefore fight more valiantly.
On the other end of the spectrum, many early Christians took a view (following Paul's logic in 1 Corinthians 7 to its extreme conclusion) that abstinence was preferable to sexual activity even within a marriage, as far as it was possible.
So Boswell cautions that we can't necessarily take 20th century (well, 21st century, now) preconceptions of marriage and assume that marriage was always like this.
Brothers
Second, Boswell argues that the word adelphopoiesis (literally, "brother-making") was a euphemism for a ceremony analogous to a heterosexual marriage. He notes similarities; for example, the adelphopoiesis ceremony often included hand holding and a kiss, and concluded with a shared communion celebration. (The reviewers also note that there are differences, but don't elaborate.)
Certainly, the term is not intended literally. As one reviewer notes, only your parents can literally make a brother for you. But how it was generally understood by those who took part in adelphopoiesis ceremonies, we can't be entirely sure.
Opposition
Finally, Boswell notes that both the church and the state began to take a stronger stance against homosexual behavior beginning in the 13th century. Boswell quotes 16th century philosopher Michel de Montaigne, who witnessed an adelphopoiesis ceremony: "...the Church of Saint John of the Latin Gate, in which some Portuguese some years before had entered into a strange 'brotherhood.' Two males married each other at Mass, with the same ceremonies we use for our marriages, taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together." Civil authorities, alerted by Montaigne's essay, arrested and punished participants in the ceremony.
By the end of that century adelphopoiesis was banned throughout Europe. The doucments describing it were locked away, and in at least one case, the pages containing the  adelphopoiesis ceremony were ripped from the book.

Summary
In summary, marriage has had many different meanings. So, too, "brotherhood" has another meaning. (But what is it?) Finally, adelphopoiesis was eventually banned by authorities.
Most scholars don't believe Boswell's case is very strong. It does appear that the adelphopoiesis ceremony may have, in the eyes of some couples, been seen as akin to marriage, but there's no clear evidence it was ever viewed that way by the church.


What is the origin of Angel of God prayer? What is the origin of Angel of God prayer?

What is the origin of Angel of God prayer?

Some have attributed it to St. Anselm, but that remains dubious.

  Angele Dei, also know as the Prayer to One's Guardian Angel, was in the past attributed to St. Anselm (c1033-1109), for it appears in medieval collections of St. Anselm's works. However, it is clear that this prayer was added to Anselm's works sometime after his death. As best can be determined, this prayer is an interpolation of Reginald of Canterbury's (d. c 1109) Life of St. Malchus. St. Malchus (d. c 390) was a famous hermit who was a friend of St. Jerome (c 341-420). The popular English translation given below is from the later half of the 19th century and appears in the Baltimore Manual of Prayers (1888). - Angele Dei, Angel of God

Many scholars think that it may have been written by Reginald of Canterbury.

  For many years it was believed that St. Anselm of Canterbury, a Benedictine monk who lived during the 11th century, was the author of the prayer. However, recent scholars have discovered that the prayer was likely inspired by Reginald of Canterbury, another Benedictine monk who lived at the same time as St. Anselm. Scholars found a prayer in Reginald’s Life of St. Malchus that bears a strong resemblance to the current Angel of God prayer.

  In Latin, Reginald’s prayer begins as follows.

  Angele, qui meus es custos pietate superna,
   me tibi commissum serva, tueare, guberna;
   terge meam mentem vitiis et labe veterna
   assiduusque comes mihi sis vitaque lucerna.

  The Angel of God prayer starts in a similar way in Latin.

  Angele Dei, qui custos es mei, Me tibi commissum pietate superna;
   (Hodie, Hac nocte) illumina, custodi, rege, et guberna.

  It is uncertain if Reginald composed the Angel of God prayer, but it is clear that whoever did had access to Reginald’s Life of St. Malchus.

  What this means is that this prayer has a rich history, dating back almost a thousand years. The Church has preserved it over all these years because of its simple yet profound truth. It recognizes the existence of our guardian angels, and invokes their aid in our time of need. - Who composed the “Angel of God” Prayer?


If Protestants won't ask dead saints to intercede because there is no mediator but Jesus then why do they ask living Christians to pray for them? Protestants reject the Catholic and Orthodox practice of asking deceased saints to pray for them, and I think there are two main reasons why they reject it: it is communicating with the dead, and it is dishonouring to Jesus. The first has been dealt with in many other questions, but I'd like to focus on the second one to see how valid an argument it is.

So the second major reasons why protestants don't ask the deceased to pray for them is that they believe they need no other mediator than Jesus. For protestants, asking anyone other than Jesus to intercede with God for them is dishonouring to Jesus!

But Protestant Christians have no hesitation at all in asking living Christians to pray for them. Why does the argument against dead Christians not apply to living Christians? If you ask your Christian brother or sister to pray for you, why is that not seeking another mediator than Jesus? The Bible clearly instructs us to pray for others, and it frequently show that early Christians asked other Christians to pray for them (ex. in Paul's letters), but does it ever instruct us to ask others to pray for us?

Intercession is not the same as mediation!

As other answers have said perfectly adequately, there is plenty of biblical support for interceding for one another and the example of the Apostle Paul requesting this intercession from other (living!) saints; although there is no particular scriptural warrant to explicitly endorse asking for such intercession from saints who have 'fallen asleep'.

So how is mediation different? Mediation implies there is a separation between parties - one side is estranged or in conflict with the other and does not have the capacity in itself to resolve the situation: this is descriptive of the situation prior to regeneration - our sins separate us from God, we can do nothing to resolve this situation of ourselves; when we receive Christ however, we are reconciled to God - no longer separated. Only Christ (not Mary or any of the other saints) could and can do this.

Although Intercession can be mistaken for mediation because it is sometimes (and biblically) referred to as 'standing in the gap', it does not actually require there to be disagreement between parties; in fact effective intercession relies on agreement between the will of pray-er and God and to a lesser but still real extent, the willingness of the object to receive the answer to prayer. Paul was not far from the Lord when he requested the prayers of the saints on his behalf, he merely sought that they join together with him in prayer that all might be agreed for God's will to be done in Paul's life and to share in the joy of seeing those prayers answered. When we intercede for 'sinners' (most commonly, unsolicited), the aspects of it involving mediation (ie addressing 'the gap') necessarily rely on Christ's work as the mediator, we don't (can't!) do that particular part of the work of intercession.


Why is "elohim" translated as "God" and not "gods"? I was looking at the Holman Christian Standard Bible and I saw that Elohim is plural. Were it to be translated plural it would read something like:

  "In the beginning, gods created the heavens and the earth."

But our English translations all show that "God" created the heavens and the earth, not "gods".

This made me think of a later passage in Genesis (same chapter, though):

  Genesis 1:26 (NIV) (emphasis obviously added)
  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

In both the NIV and HCSB translations, Elohim (plural) says "Let us" in the English translation.

I can't imagine that the entire translation of "God" throughout the bible has been wrong for thousands of years.  Yet, the word is plural!!

Why is the plural "elohim" translated as the singular "God"?

The reason this plural noun is translated into other languages as a singular noun is because it's being used with a singular verb.
This would be comparable to saying "Ants is here to stay" instead of "Ants are here to stay".  It turns this plural word ("ants") into a proper noun.
Example with singular verb
In Genesis 1:1 (referenced in the question), we see a great example of the plural elohim being used with a singular verb:

In this text, elohim is being matched with the singular verb bra.  This indicates elohim is the proper noun and it's translated as "God".
King James Version

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Example with plural verb
However, when Elohim is used with a plural verb, it's translated as plural "gods":

Here, elohim is used with olim, which is also plural.  This is, therefore, translated as "gods" (or sometimes "spirits").
King James Translation (emphasis added)

And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

Plural as Singular
Dori pointed me to a question on Judaism.se discussing this point.  Their answers show that there are some words in Hebrew that, although they end in the im (making them plural), are not actually plural. The Hebrew word for "sky" (shamayim) also ends in im, making it plural in some cases, singular in others: based on the verb.  (Also, this makes the translation "heavens" or "sky" based on the plurality, for what that's worth.)
This accounts for why a word that appears to be plural--indeed many reference sites indicate that it indeed is plural--but is actually used as a singular word.  When we read the original Hebrew, we presume that because it ends in im, it is plural.  The truth is, though, that this may or may not be a plural word; we have to look at the verb.
(There are a couple of analogues to this in English:  For example news, clothes, species, panties, etc.)
Summary
Because of the verb that is being used is singular, we can be confident in our assessment that this is a singular god that is performing all these tasks.  Also, the use of the singular verb converts this plural noun into a proper name.
Source


Why do folks clasp their hands and bow their heads when praying? Is there a reason, other than humility, that we are taught to pray with bowed heads and clasped hands? Other religions, such as Judaism and Muslim – even with the variety of Pagan pantheons – raise their hands and lift their faces Heavenward.  Is it that most find doing so ‘odd’ or ‘strange’ – or is there more to it than just an outward appearance?

IDK about clasping hands, as I don't do it. I do know that we bow our head in respect for the one we are praying to, God.

It is much the same in a legal case. When you approach a judge you address him differently than say a sales clerk. When you talk to the judge, your speech is more respectful as is your body language. When you talk casually to someone your mannerism change completely.

When we do these things for God, we are showing regard for his position of authority. We are also showing that we are in subjection to our father.

The clasping of hands may be to show love  and encouragement for your brothers in the congregation. Hebrews 10:24-25:

  "24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near".


What did Luther think of the Eastern Orthodox and vice versa? When the Reformation began to take hold, the Orthodox may have been in decline, but were definately still present. I'm curious to know what what the two "breakaways" thought of each other - is it a case of "my enemies' enemy is my friend," or was the doctrinal difference too great?

I linked to this article in another question, but it's certainly relevant here:

Luther Had His Chance

Some Lutherans did make contact with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople.  They gave him a copy of the Augsburg Confession and requested his reaction.  The Patriarch politely thanked them and, later, gave a detailed reply, indicating where the various points of the Lutheran document were in conflict with Orthodox doctrine.

The Reformers, in turn, composed a detailed reply to explain themselves and assert that doctrinally the two churches were not really so far apart.  The Patriarch replied at greater length, again explaining which doctrines were not acceptable to the Orthodox faith.

The Reformers sent one more letter, but the Patriarch felt things were at an impasse.  He replied requesting no more correspondence on matters of doctrine, but rather "for the sake of friendship."


Athanasian Creed: taking of the Manhood into God The Athanasian Creed was an expression of western Nicene-Chalcedonian belief, including the hypostatic union.  But there is one sentence where the intention is not as obvious to me as the rest:

  ... unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum.

which the Book of Common Prayer translated as:

  ... one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the Manhood into God;

Which particular misunderstanding or heresy was this particular distinction aimed at?

How is it read with John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh ..." or even the plain etymology of incarnation?

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Apollinarianism provides an excellent background why emphasizing the "taking of the Manhood into God" was necessary.  At the time that the anathema against the heresy was declared in 381, the doctrine of Hypostatical Union was not yet fully developed, so there were a lot of people who believed that Christ's soul was not 100% human, but replaced by the Word.

To answer your question, the creed addressed the ambiguity inherent in the manner of incarnation.

John 1:14 on its own does not seem to sufficiently guarantee that Jesus's soul was fully human.  Reading Pope Damasus's anathema in full makes it clear that the Church needed to emphasize that Christ came in the flesh to also "save the rational and intellective soul of man" which probably what the language "taking of the Manhood into God" refer to.

An extensive discussion can be found in The History and Theology of The Three Creeds Vol II, 1854 by Rev. William Wigan Harvey, M.A, chapter titled "The History of the Athanasian Creed" (starting on page 541).

The chapter begun by discussing the original language, manuscript copies, the liturgical usage in various churches in late antiquity, and the dating which scholars tried to connect with the dating of when various heresies flourished as indicated by some writings of various bishops and church fathers.  Then the chapter made the case of why portions of the creed were tied to the condemnation of the Apollinarian heresy and the confutation of the error of Eutychianism

Relevant quote:

  (page 554-555) The next particular instanced by the Council of Chalcedon is another, in which Apollinaris and Eutyches alike erred, in imagining a mixture or confusion of the two natures in Christ.  It is evident that this notion is condemned in the words of the Creed, 'Unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione Humanitatis in Deum, unus omnino, non confusione Substantiae, sed unitate Personae.'  Both heretics imagined a confusion of substance; the earlier, by declaring the body of Christ to be uncreate and essentially divine, even before the Theophania; the latter by asserting that, after the birth of Jesus, the substance of the Divine Word was, in such a manner, made one with the human body of Christ, as to form of two but one substance.  The later was manifestly a modification of the earlier heresy.  ...

Then in the next chapter titled "The Theology of the Athanasian Creed", starting on page 585, Rev. Harvey provided the theology of every line of the creed.  This is the beginning of the explanation for lines 33 (Unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione Humanitatis in Deum) and 34 (Unus omnino, non confusione Substantiae, sed unitate Personae).  Rev. Harvey pointed out how the two lines should be read together, so I believe the intention of line 33 makes more sense now (see the bold portion below).

  (pages 661-662) We are confirmed again in the opinion that the Creed was written prior to Nestorian times, by the tenour of this article; which first refutes the Apollinarian συναλοιφὴ of two natures, and then subjoins the contrary Catholic tenet, in words that even Nestorius would hardly disclaim; 'One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by the taking of the Manhood into God.'  The impersonation, so to speak, of the Son of Man, was effected by this assumption of the flesh.  The creating of the flesh, and the taking it into God, was but one act.  The Son of Man, before non-existent, now first had a being, the Word, or eternally subsisting Son of God, having taken upon him the flesh; but his personal subsistence was the same; He was the Son of God and the Son of Man, but the person was one, and that person was Christ.  There is a parallelism also of phrase between this verse and the next, that clearly marks this.  The words, 'Unus autem non conversione Divinitatis in carnem,' correspond with the term, 'Unus omnino non confusione substantiae,' the two are in fact identical in meaning; we may look therefore for a correlative identity in the subordinate members; and the statement in the one, 'Sed assumptione Humanitatis in Deum,' will mark the same reality with the words of the other, 'Sed unitate Personae.'   Unity of Person therefore in Christ, both God and Man, has subsisted from the moment that the first rudimental element of humanity was created and 'taken into God.'  Now this truth is very precisely and clearly worked out by Tertullian, in words that run too closely to the purpose to be abridged: 'But we find him expressly declared to be both God and Man; according to the words of the Psalm: "Quoniam Deus Homo natus est in illa, et aedificavit eam voluntate Patris." [footnote Ps lxxxvi. 4. ...]  Surely in every respect, the Son of God and the Son of Man; since [he was] God and Man, and without doubt, according to either substance, distinct in its own property; for neither is the Word any thing else than God, nor is the flesh any thing else than man.  So the Apostle teaches us with regard to the twofold substance; He, "who was made of the seed of David," must be Man, and the Son of Man.  He who hath been demonstrated already to be the Son of God according to the Spirit, must be God, and the Word, the Son of God. ... [the paragraph continues the argument, too long to quote here]  [bold added by me]

The book has been digitized by Google and available to be downloaded in PDF format.


What is old earth creationism? What is old earth creationism? What support does it have from the Bible? What mainstream denominations or groups, if any, support it?

Old Earth Creationism is the belief that the world was created but is contra Young Earth Creationism in terms of age. It does not specify an age, but instead assumes that current scientific dating is at least reasonably accurate.

If one does not literally interpret Genesis 1 in terms of days, we have an uncertain time since the creation of the world. If one does not interpret Paradise (which may have been created in 6 literal days) as the same world that we inhabit (consider other differences as well) then we do not have a certain date from the Bible other than the time at which Adam dwelled on Earth.

Most mainstream Protestant denominations at least support it, and it has support in both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, though it is not considered dogmatic (you have Young Earth Creationists as well.) In general, groups which support Biblical Literalism will be more likely to consider Young Earth Creationism dogmatic or at least doctrinal, whereas other groups tend to leave it open to interpretation.

Among Church Fathers you have some who interpreted Genesis literally and assigned a Young Earth friendly age, whereas others spiritualized the days. The spiritualization of the days as a pattern in interpretation seems to originate with Origen, but probably predates him. Note that Origen is condemned as a heretic in Eastern Orthodoxy, while not all of his interpretive devices are, since non-condemned Fathers supported them.


Did the midwives in Exodus 1 sin by disobeying and lying to Pharaoh? (Catholic/Protestant overview) In Exodus 1:15–16, the king of Egypt orders the Hebrew midwives to kill the sons born to Hebrew women.  However, they do not obey:

  But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. (Exodus 1:17, ESV)

When the king questions them, they respond by saying:

  “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” (Exodus 1:19, ESV)

The following verses show God's response:

  So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. (Exodus 1:20–21, ESV)

What is an overview of Catholic and Protestant understandings of the actions and words of the midwives, especially in light of other passages on civil authority?  Were their actions and words sinful or not?

The consensus among Catholic and Protestant commentators is that the midwives did not sin by disobeying Pharaoh, but if they did lie to him, they sinned.
Handling each point separately:
Disobedience to Pharaoh
Catholic commentator George Leo Haydock cites Acts 4 and Matthew 10:28 in reference to Pharaoh's command to kill the male Hebrew children, indicating that civil disobedience is appropriate in this instance.
John Calvin strongly defends the midwives on this point, saying that obeying Pharaoh here would have been  "an inexcusable contempt of God."  Methodist commentator Adam Clarke writes that the women rightly obeyed God's command from Genesis 9:6 rather than Pharaoh's.
Lying to Pharaoh
The idea that the midwives lied to Pharaoh in verse 19 is contested by Clarke.  He writes:

I contend that there was neither lie direct nor even prevarication in the case. The midwives boldly state to Pharaoh a fact, (had it not been so, he had a thousand means of ascertaining the truth), and they state it in such a way as to bring conviction to his mind on the subject of his oppressive cruelty on the one hand, and the mercy of Jehovah on the other.

Thus, according to Clarke, God rewards the midwives in verses 20-21 for both their obedience to God and their frankness toward Pharaoh, and since they did not lie, they did not sin.
However, Haydock sees the matter differently.  Citing Augustine's Contra Mendacium, he argues:

Perhaps [...] the midwives spoke truth, with regard to the generality of the Hebrew women. But they gave way to a lie of excuse, with regard to some, (ver. 17,) which St. Augustine would not allow, even to save all the Hebrew children.

Thus, according to Haydock, the women sinned:

The midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, which was a venial sin; but for their fear of God.

Augustine likewise says the women are guilty of lying, and that they received their reward for being "merciful to God's people."  To those who say that the midwives would have died if they had told the truth, Augustine answers:

Yea, but see what follows. They would die with an heavenly habitation for their incomparably more ample reward than those houses which they made them on earth could be: they would die, to be in eternal felicity, after enduring of death for most innocent truth.

Calvin similarly sees that the women "escaped by falsehood":

[B]oth points must be admitted, that the two women lied, and, since lying is displeasing to God, that they sinned.

To explain God's reward to them in spite of their sin, Calvin continues:

[I]n [God's] paternal indulgence of his children he still values their good works, as if they were pure, notwithstanding they may be defiled by some mixture of impurity.

References:

Augustine's Contra Mendacium, 32 and 34.
Calvin's Harmony of the Law, vol. 1
Clarke's Bible Commentary
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary


If Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil, how can we say they sinned (according to Roman Catholicism)? When God made Adam and Eve he said they could eat anything except from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It sounds like that tree grants the knowledge, so before they ate they didn't know good from bad.

But I was taught by Roman Catholics that they sinned. Doesn't sin require intention? If a young child takes something that is not his, we don't say he sinned, right?  Because he didn't know better. Or is that wrong and we do say he sinned?

Yes they disobeyed God but why should they know that's bad?  I want to understand why they (and everybody after them) were punished for this.  According to Roman Catholicism: if they did know that what they were doing was bad, how did they know, or if they didn't know, then what makes it a sin?

Your question appears to ignore some important facts that need to be taken into account.

Evil existed before Adam and Eve ate from the Tree.

Rev 12:7  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

The act of eating the fruit was not the beginning of evil that it seems that would
appear to be the rebellion of Lucifer in Heaven and the war that resulted from it.

Sin in all of it's forms actually boils down to disobedience of God.

Therefore we can accurately say that Adam and Eve sinned in the sight of God.

I must disagree with your concept that they and their posterity are being punished for having the knowledge of good and evil.

They and we are held guilty of choosing evil over good and thus disobeying God,
Without the knowledge of good and Evil such a choice would not be available.

Your example of the child taking something that is not his is a prime example of my point.
Both fault and punishment would be contingent on whether or not the child knew that taking the object was wrong. Most assuredly we would not punish a baby for taking a rattle from another baby, but we would not hesitate to punish a teenager who stole a CD from a store.
This Godly precept is the basis for all of our laws in the United States, that being that at a particular point in one's life they are aware that their actions are wrong.
We might rightly say that the command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the first law given to man by God.

Genesis 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This command also includes the punishment for disobedience.
You may say that the Serpent beguiled Eve and that should somehow mitigate the severity of he disobedience, but we need also remember that Adam was not, and willfully disobeyed God.
That fact is also our downfall in that we willfully choose evil whether it be embracing the wiles of the world, or rejection of salvation. We each have the ability to either choose an eternity with God, or an eternity in the lake of fire.


What is the meaning and origin of bridal veils in Christian weddings? Does the practice of brides wearing veils have its origin in either the Bible or Christian tradition? If so, where exactly did it originate and what is it supposed to symbolize?

Tertullian.sayeth

Let virgins alone be veiled, and this when they are coming to be married, and not till they have recognised their destined husband
De Corona

Owing to a  lack of exact biblical instructions for the performing of rite of matrimony found on the Bible. One of the instructions clearly found in the Bible is that after a marriage is settled, it is good that a woman should cease to be a virgin. So she can take off her veil.
Mr. Tertullian goes on to explain how reason can and should play a role in keeping traditions not found in the law.

tradition has given the fashion in question to custom, to find subsequently (its authorization in) the apostle's sanction, from the true interpretation of reason. This instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when demonstrated by long-continued observance
ibid

so, this answer is probably lacking in the pre-Christian historicity, (although he makes mention of Rebecca and Susannah) but it is probably foundational for most of Christendom, and the logic applies to much more than just wearing bridal veils.


How did the Council of Nicea get such a bad rap? I’ve heard countless arguments from Atheists and Muslims that the 1st Council of Nicea banned books from the Bible, hid inconvenient truths, expunged Mohammed from the Bible and so on, we know that the council was dealing with the Arian heresy, so how did the Council get such a bad rap?

The council has a bad rap because a lot of people think the Bishops bowed to the secular power of Constantine whose judgement and wisdom is always likened to the secular authority of the day.  So when Trump was president, it seems like Constantine is just making baseless decisions on no facts, now that Biden is president people will view Constantine as evolving Catholic doctrine.
However, this is what happened:

The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established. He had opened the session as honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope's legates, Victor and Vincentius.

St. Athanasius assures us that the activities of the Council were nowise hampered by Constantine's presence.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

The purpose of the Council of Nicea was to ensure that the Two Natures of Christ, fully God and fully man would be enshrined in Catholic doctrine and Arius would be anathematized.  It's no surprise then that groups who think that this is not correct doctrine (Jehovah's Witness and Islamic doctrine is closely linked to Arianism) would be more than willing to criticize the council and a favorite whipping boy of those who criticize the council is Constantine.  It's hard to criticize Athanasius, except for being a little blunt, but his writings are so like Luther's that I don't think Protestants bother to come down too hard on him.
But the council didn't ban any books, except the musings of Arius, I believe that was the Council of Rome in 382, and banning the parts of the Gospel talking about Mohammed would need more details to understand, I'm guessing someone says there is some sort of prophecy that Jesus laid out that there would be yet another prophet?   I'd never heard of that before and it certainly has nothing to do with the Council of Nicea.


Why did the Apostles not go with the rest of the believers outside of Jerusalem? I noticed that the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem for a long time while others sort of acted like missionaries as a result of being scattered... except the Apostles.

  And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. (ESV Acts 8:1)

This seems extra strange being that Jesus said:

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (ESV Matthew 28:19-20)

I am not so much interested in traditions that give reason for their staying in Jerusalem. Rather, are there any scriptures that would explain this unexpected behavior?

John Calvin starts by reminding us that Jesus commanded them to begin at Jerusalem (Acts 1:4,8), and says that it makes sense that they would stay there until "being brought into some other place by his hand":

  But here may a question be asked, forasmuch as they were commanded to preach the gospel throughout the whole world, (Mark 16:16) why they stayed at Jerusalem, even when they were expelled thence with force and hand? I answer, that seeing Christ had commanded them to begin at Jerusalem, they employed themselves there until such time as being brought into some other place by his hand, they might know, for a surety, that he was their guide.

Calvin goes on to argue that it was utterly an act of faith to remain there steadfastly in the midst of danger, and that it would be an act of unbelief to flee just because of tribulation:

  Therefore, seeing they see the gospel so mightily resisted at Jerusalem, they dare go to no other place until such time as they have broken that first huge heap of straits. Assuredly, they provide neither for their ease, nor yet for their own commodities either for being void of care by staying at Jerusalem; for they have a painful charge, they are continually amidst divers dangers they encounter with great troubles. Wherefore, undoubtedly, they are purposed to do their duty; and especially, whereas they stand to it when all the rest fly, that is an evident testimony of valiant constancy. If any man object that they might have divided the provinces amongst them, that they might not all have been occupied in one place, I answer, that Jerusalem alone had business enough for them all.

Note that last sentence, "Jerusalem alone had business enough for them all." It's not as though they built summer homes in Jerusalem -- they were ministering to the lost there, just as they would if they were based in Rome or Ephesus. In particular, they were ministering to the poor, and Paul was "eager" to help them do so (Galatians 2:10; Romans 15:25-26).

G. W. H. Lampe argues that in Luke's theology, as ministers of the new covenant the apostles ought to remain in the capital of Israel:

  Luke simply believes that the apostles must stay in Jerusalem, for now that the Jewish
  hierarchy has remained impenitent, they are the true leaders of Israel. Just as the high priest sent out Saul with an anti-missionary commission to Damascus, so the apostles now direct and control the Christian enterprise from their own capital, Jerusalem, either personally or by sending envoys.

Like Calvin, he also argues that the apostles should remain there "until" Jesus led them out, namely by toppling Jerusalem:

  Luke may have shared the idea of Eusebius (historia ecclesiastica, 3.7.8) that the apostles remained in Jerusalem until the impenitence of the Jews was finally punished by the war with Rome.

Earlier in the same work, Lampe notes that the churches throughout the world were subject to "supervision" by the church of Jerusalem:

  In the beginning the Christian Church is the church of Jerusalem. Later the Church spreads through the world outside Jerusalem, but always, because of its nature as the authentic and renewed Israel, this expansion takes the form of an extension of the Jerusalem church. This does not mean that Luke believes that the mission was everywhere directly organized and pioneered by Jerusalem. On the contrary, Luke makes it perfectly clear that he realizes that he has omitted to tell us about the foundation and early history of churches in many parts of the world, including Rome itself; and there is no reason to think that he believed them all to owe their origin to the direct initiative of Jerusalem. He does, however, hold that these churches all came in due course under the supervision and guidance of the church of Jerusalem.

We see this "supervision" at work when the Jerusalem church sends Peter(!) and John(!) to Samaria (Acts 8:14) and Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:22), and when the apostles tell Paul that he should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews (Galatians 2:9). It's also striking that, though it was Antioch where the controversy originally took place, the actual ruling on the Gentile controversy comes from Jerusalem (Acts 15).


According to Jehovah's Witnesses, when/how do the 144,000 ascend to Heaven? Following an invitation, I attended a "Memorial of Jesus' Death" service at a Kingdom Hall recently.  While there, I heard about the 144,000 who will go to heaven to "be kings and priests and rule over" those who remain in earthly paradise.  How/when does this happen?

This is from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The how and when of the 144,000 being gathered is answered by Jesus' illustration of the Wheat and the Weeds described at Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43:

  24 He presented another illustration to them, saying: “The Kingdom of
  the heavens may be likened to a man who sowed fine seed in his field.
  25 While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in
  among the wheat and left. 26 When the stalk sprouted and produced
  fruit, then the weeds also appeared. 27 So the slaves of the master of
  the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in
  your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An
  enemy, a man, did this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us,
  then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No, for fear that
  while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let
  both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I
  will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in
  bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’”

  ...

  36 Then after dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His
  disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the
  weeds in the field.” 37 In response he said: “The sower of the fine
  seed is the Son of man; 38 the field is the world. As for the fine
  seed, these are the sons of the Kingdom, but the weeds are the sons of
  the wicked one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The
  harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are
  angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with
  fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The
  Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his
  Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice
  lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There
  is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At
  that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the
  Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen.

Here's an info-graphic from a 2013 Watchtower article - “Look! I Am With You All the Days”

How

Angels will harvest (or "reap") the wheat class of anointed Christians, bringing them into Jesus' storehouses. These storehouses represent the restored Christian congregation. They are then brought to heaven in these ways:

Anointed Christians who were already asleep in death at that time are resurrected and begin ruling with Jesus in heaven.
Upon the death of an anointed Christian after the harvest has begun, they will immediately be resurrected to their position in heaven, “in the twinkling of an eye.” (1 Cor. 15:52)
Anointed ones which live all the way up until the great tribulation will receive their final sealing shortly before Armageddon and be brought to heaven invisibly (note that Jehovah's Witnesses don't use the term “rapture,” because it has a connotation of happening visibly).

When

The harvest season “is a conclusion of a system of things,” which began in 1914. Anointed Christians have been gathered into the storehouses of the congregation since 1919, and the exact times of the Great Tribulation and Armageddon are at some unknown time in the future.


Isaiah 14:6: ESV vs NKJV The two different interpretations seem to be completely opposite each other. In NKJV the verse is as follows:

  He who struck the people in wrath with a continual stroke, He who
  ruled the nations in anger, Is persecuted and no one hinders.

While the ESV bible is as follows:

  ... that struck the peoples in wrath with unceasing blows, That ruled
  the nations in anger with unrelenting persecution.

I don’t think these verses are saying the same thing. Am I reading it wrong?

The translation asserting that Deity 'is persecuted' appears to come from the KJV of 1611.

Neither the Coverdale 1535, The Matthew's 1537, The Great Bible 1539, The Geneva Bible 1560 or The Bishop's Bible 1568 have that rendering.

The Webster of 1833 follows the KJV in that place.

Neither Young's Literal Translation nor Green's Literal Translation follow the KJV :

  He who is smiting peoples in wrath, A smiting without intermission, He who is ruling in anger nations, Pursuing without restraint! Young's Literal 1862.

All references are from Textus Receptus Bibles

Nor does that translation come from the Vulgate because neither the Wycliffe of 1388 nor the Douay Rheims (OT 1609) render the text in that way.


Is there a need for Christians to believe in Christianity at all, if they don't believe in Resurrection and Salvation through Christ alone? My question is directed to professing Christians who don't believe in any of the key doctrines held by evangelical churches, such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and Jesus Christ as the only path to salvation. If you believe in the evangelical doctrine of salvation, this question isn't for you.

I come from an evangelical background, which taught me to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and that Jesus is the only path to salvation. I understand that there are some Christians who don't believe in these things, which I think are the pillars and the cornerstone of Christianity, without which Christianity has no reason to exist. These Christians are commonly identified as "liberal Christians." You can read more about the view of this group of Christians here, and read a conservative theologian's response to their views here.

Back to my main question:

If one doesn't believe that Jesus is the only path to salvation, what is the "selling point" of Christianity? Why should people bother to become Christians at all? It would be equally okay to be an atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist who believes in Jesus as a great teacher and religion leader, but nothing more.

By the same token, as I see it, if liberal Christians think that Bible is just another book, written and compiled by mere humans with human errors in it, then it is no longer infallible, and there is no reason to pay attention to Biblical teachings on any subject. So what is the difference between liberal Christians and non-Christians? Non-Christians can draw inspiration from the Bible in the same way as these Christians do. They believe in exactly the same thing!

I am curious: On what basis do liberal Christians identify themselves as Christians?

This is going to be a rather vague answer, mainly because even within the 'extreme liberal Christians' that you describe there is a huge range of belief. This answer is going to do no more than skim the surface of them.

In the UK, one of the best-known 'liberal Christians' is David Jenkins, former Bishop of Durham. Jenkins famously gave an interview, just before his consecration, in which he said that God would not have arranged a virgin birth, and that the resurrection was not a literal, physical event. This got him a lot of flak from traditional Christians, who believed he had abandoned the Christian faith. However in subsequent interviews it became clear that Jenkins was much closer to orthodoxy than first appeared. He did not deny the resurrection - he simply believed it was a spiritual event, rather than physical, and not any less real for that. He did not deny the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son, or even the possibility of miracles. Jenkins has always described himself as Christian, and while his theology may be different from many, he certainly follows what he believes to be Christian truth. He is far from alone in these views.

At another point on the spectrum is Don Cupitt, who famously held the post of Dean of Emmanuel College Cambridge while denying the existence of God. ('Dean' is a religious post at Cambridge collleges, requiring one to be a priest of the Church of England). Cupitt's position is that modern knowledge has disproved the objective existence of God, and that Christian teaching is simply a recipe for a better way of living. He has stated that belief in God is good (even though God does not exist) because it leads to Christian practices. As Wikipedia puts it:

  Cupitt sometimes describes himself as Christian non-realist, by which he means that he follows certain spiritual practices and attempts to live by ethical standards traditionally associated with Christianity but without believing in the actual existence of the underlying metaphysical entities (such as "Christ" and "God")

In the US the best-known of the liberal wing is John Shelby Spong. Spong appears to fall into a similar camp as David Jenkins. While appearing to deny the literal physicality of the resurrection, he nonetheless affirms - extremely vehemently - the reality of it. He would deny the Bible's infallibility, but would affirm that through it you can discover the truth of a God of Love and a resurrected Jesus.

If there is a common thread here, it is that the people described here hold to what they believes is the underlying truth about God, Jesus and Christianity and for the most part are following the Jesus they believe in.


What is the biblical basis for Jesus' eternal pre-existence (as opposed to having been created a long time ago)? I know that many verses can be cited to argue for Jesus' pre-mortal existence (e.g. here). I'm also perfectly aware that a question asking for the biblical basis for Jesus being God incarnate has already been asked. However, I want to defend the validity of this question on the grounds of the following reasons:

Pre-mortal existence does not logically entail eternal pre-existence. In principle, if the only thing we know about a being is that it had a pre-mortal existence, then we cannot rule out a priori the possibility that that being could still have had a beginning in the past, either recently or a long time ago (e.g. see the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses on the nature of Jesus).
Eternal pre-existence does not logically entail being God (or does it?). In addition to being eternal, a being needs to be omniscient, omnipotent, and many other things to be regarded as God. So I don't see the two as equivalent statements, although I acknowledge that there is a clear overlap.

Having presented my reasons for asking the question, I ask: What is the biblical basis for Jesus having eternal pre-existence? Are there passages in Scripture that strongly suggest that Jesus never had a beginning in time?

John clearly and logically makes four statements :

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. [John 1:1,2 KJV]

'In the beginning' states the moment of 'beginning'. If one existed at that moment, then that one has an existence that is independent of time. If independent of time, then eternal. This one, the Logos, is quite evidently, from context, the one born in Bethlehem of the virgin Mary.
This one is God and was with 'the' God in the beginning. Evidently, from this statement alone, Deity is not alone. And Deity is not alone eternally.
John also makes a further statement :

την ζωην την αιωνιον ητις ην προς τον πατερα  [1 John 1:2 TR Undisputed]

... the life the eternal which was with the Father  [Literal]

Again, in context, John refers to 'manifestation' and it is clear that this is Jesus.
Prior to 'manifestation' the life, the eternal ... was with the Father.
If 'with the Father' then with the Father, eternally, as 'Son'. Evidently. If entitled 'Father' in eternity, the name must mean what it says, in eternity. And if 'life' is with that Father (and that eternally) then that life must be 'Son'.
John's statement is simple, brief and utterly profound.

In these two places, John sets forth logical and indisputable statements that clearly demonstrate the eternal existence of the one who came into the world by woman.
This is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Where did the idea that Catholics can have a break from their Lenten discipline on Sunday originate? Maybe this is just a Wisconsin thing, if so, I'll delete this question as too localized, but is there a tradition in the universal Church that whatever you give up during Lent, you can do on Sundays?

If so, what is the rationale and has it ever been sanctioned by the Magisterium?

In the previous century Laws concerning Fasting and Abstinence have changed considerably and at different intervals.

Pope St John XXIII altered the rules for fasting and abstinence in 1966 with his Apostolic Constitution PAENITEMINI.

  II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

  Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast is to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to the various practices of the rites, on the first day of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent) and on Good Friday.

More Closer to home for you in Wisconsin can be seen here:

  In the USA:

  In Paenitemini, Pope Paul VI gave authority to the episcopal conferences on how the universal rules would be applied in their region. On November 18, 1966, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops legislated the following to be observed in the United States:

  •Abstinence is obligatory on all Fridays of Lent, except Solemnities (i.e., I Class Feasts).

  •Fasting and abstinence are obligatory on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

  •Abstinence on all Fridays, though not obligatory under pain of sin, is “especially recommended.”

  •Fasting on all weekdays of Lent, though not obligatory under pain of sin, is “strongly recommended.”

  The local ordinaries also have authority to grant dispensations from these rules within their dioceses.

All this being seen and more through the Church's legislation on fasting and abstinence, there is nothing stated officially as to what the faithful must or must not give up during Lent as a form of penance. As I mentioned in my comment I know many Catholics in various countries that practice giving something up for the entire Lenten season, while some follow the Sunday exception rule, seeing that Sundays have never been a day of fasting in the Church.

Where the idea that Catholics can have a break from their personal Lenten disciplines on Sunday originate, I fear can not be traced to a specific place or time since it was most subtle in coming about.


What does the Bible say about people who see dead people? I have a friend who sees people who have passed away. She can see, hear, and talk to them. This isn't fake, she really can. She recently told me that she sees my deceased grandfather at our ball games. She cannot see her mother who died a few years ago, which frustrates her. She isn't religious. Does the Bible say anything about this? Is this absolutely impossible? What does this mean about the people she sees, like my grandfather? Some would say that he hasn't crossed over into the after world. I'm almost positive he was saved though. Thanks.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the bible calls this necromancy and describes it as an "abominable practice":

  Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (ESV): 9 “When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. [emphasis mine]

To inquire of the dead is to intentionally initiate this activity, and a medium is someone who engages in necromancy professionally.

Unfortunately, your friend's experiences are most likely due to the influence of a demonic spirit as per the slave girl in Phillipi. Her visions and conversations may seem very real to her and she may even receive special knowledge that she would not have access to through natural means. This doesn't mean that she is really seeing dead people however - demons can and do deceive people about such matters.  I suggest you seek pastoral counsel for the best way to help her.


Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws? I've read a ton about obedience in the bible and I realize that we have a responsibility to obey Jesus Christ. As it says in 2 Timothy 2:19 "God's foundation stands firm, sealed with his inscription. Anybody that professes the name of Christ must repent of their wickedness"

There's really no way around this. However, when I begin to speak about our responsibility to obey Jesus people begin to tell me that I am trying to follow the law or work for my salvation.

I know that neither of these will earn my way into God's grace, however, I still understand that I have a responsibility.

Where do you draw the line? What do we have to obey and what do we not have to obey?

Yes - but which of them is a matter of debate

Since I already did a lot of work to answer To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply? I'm going to adapt that answer here, too. Similarly, I'll list and briefly describe some of the more common views along with sources.

Catholic

The Catholic Church teaches that the Law of Moses (the Old Law) is a preparation for the Gospel, and as such no longer binding. The New Law (the Law of Gospel) is a perfection of it, given through faith in Christ.

The Law of the Gospel, which applies to Christians, is presented in the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5-7), but also in the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc.

God's Law has always remained the same, and has always been available as the natural moral law (e.g. through conscience), but only Jesus could express it perfectly.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second edition. Paragraphs 577-582 and 1950-1986. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Reformed

The reformed teaching is that the law was given in three parts:

The moral law, which God gave first to Adam, and later to Moses on Sinai (the Ten Commandments).
Ceremonial laws, given to the people of Israel, prefiguring Christ.
Judicial laws, given to the State of Israel.

The moral law is eternal, binding Adam, the first man, as well as any Christian today.  Ceremonial laws were abolished in the New Testament. Judicial laws only concerned the State of Israel.

As noted, the moral law was delivered to Moses as the Ten Commandments. Thus the Ten Commandments apply to Christians today as such. Of other laws in the OT, the moral component applies. Moral laws given in the New Testament are also part of the eternal moral law, and meant for Christians of today.

Source: Westminster Confession, chapter XIX. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html

Theonomy

Theonomy literally means "God's law". It is the notion that God's law is eternal and universally binding. That is, the entire Bible applies to Christians today. Every law God has given us is meant to be obeyed.

This doesn't mean that salvation comes by keeping the law, as theonomy is often misrepresented. Salvation is granted "solely by grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ".

Psalm 119:97-98 (KJV) is a good verse to show what theonomy is about:

  O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
  Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.

Source: Duncan, T.M. Theonomy: What it is; what it is not. http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm

Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism makes a distinction between Israel and the Christian church in God's plan. Its major objective is to be able to interpret the Bible consistently literally.

Dispensationalists recognize seven dispensations in the Bible:

Innocence (Genesis 1:1–3:7)
Conscience (Genesis 3:8–8:22)
Human government (Genesis 9:1–11:32)
Promise (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25)
Law (Exodus 20:1–Acts 2:4)
Grace (Acts 2:4–Revelation 20:3)
The millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6)

The different dispensations are different ways that God has related to people. Salvation has always been through faith.

As today's Christians are living during the dispensation of grace, or during the New Covenant, the old laws or the Old Covenant do not bind them. Because God and His will do not change, the moral law of the New Covenant hasn't notably changed from the Old Covenant.

The Old Testament thus is not for Christians. Laws expressed in the epistles are part of the dispensation of grace, and thus apply to Christians. Laws stated by Jesus are not, and thus are not really meant for Christians but for Jews. (Though I expect there to be a small minority of dispensationalists saying otherwise.)

Source: What is dispensationalism and is it biblical? http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html (I'd like to find a better/more original source)