Where did the concept of separate races originate?

Historically, the answer to the race issue has been the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.
From Nigel Tomes:

The tradition that Ham was a black man developed much later. It is a Rabbinical elaboration,7 not explicitly formulated until the Babylonian Talmud of 500 AD. Hence this concept belongs in the category of Jewish “myths and unending genealogies” (1 Tim.1:4). In the Middle Ages, European scholars of the Bible picked up on the Jewish Talmud idea that the “sons of Ham” were “blackened” by their sins.8 These arguments became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries. A historian, Edith Sanders, concludes that the identification of Ham’s descendents as Black Africans,9 “gained currency in the sixteenth century.” Thereafter, it “persisted throughout the eighteenth century, [and] served as a rationale for slavery, using Biblical interpretations in support of its tenets. The image of the Negro deteriorated in direct proportion to the growth of the importance of slavery.” Benjamin Braude, Professor of history at Boston College, writes10 “in 18th and 19th century Euro-America, Genesis 9:18-27 became the curse of Ham, a foundation myth for collective degradation, conventionally trotted out as God’s reason for condemning generations of dark-skinned peoples from Africa to slavery.” Sadly this notion has been perpetuated through its uncritical repetition by Bible teachers and writers. However, today evangelical scholars reject this view as an out-dated remnant of folklore, masquerading as Scriptural truth. - Nigel Tomes

The text itself, as you point out only says:

Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. ... By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Of Noah's descendents:

Japheth moved east and became the father of the Asian peoples

The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. ...

Shem moved west and became the father of the White European peoples

Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. ...

Ham moved South and became the father of the African peoples.

And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. ... And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.

Whether or not this theory has any merit, it was historically understood to be the case.
The curses in Genesis 9 were thus seen to have been fulfilled:

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.


What is the biblical basis for the claim that Jesus took on the sins of mankind?

I believe that this Bible verse confirms that Jesus took on the sins of mankind.

John 1:29 ESV

  The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the
  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!


How do I know when to cross myself during Mass (Novus Ordo)?

How do I know when to cross myself during the Mass of Pope Paul VI (Novus Ordo)?

To start with, prior to Mass, we bless ourselves with Holy Water at the entrance of the church by dipping our fingers in into the Holy Water and making the sign of the cross on ourselves.

The same is done when exiting the church after Mass.

  Dipping Your Hand in Holy Water

  When you come into the church building, what is the first thing you do? Don't, you dip your hand into the holy water and make the sign of the cross? Why do you do that? Well, for three reasons:
        a. in repentance for your sins;
        b. for protection against the Evil One;
        c. to remind you of your baptism.

  a. Holy water reminds us to be sorry for our sins. When there is the rite of sprinkling in the liturgy, we always sing the Asperges, which means "you will sprinkle or wash". Asperges me hysoppo et mundabor, lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor. These are words from the great penitential psalm, Ps 50: You will sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be cleansed: you will wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.

  b. Holy water is a sacramental which is a protection against the snares of the devil. The old prayer for the blessing of holy water said: "0 God, creator of unconquered power, King of invincible empire and victor ever-great: who put down the powers of hostile dominion and conquer the fury of the roaring enemy, who fight powerfully against our wicked foes: trembling we beseech you, 0 Lord, we implore you and beg you: that you might graciously look upon this creature of water and salt, kindly illumine it, sanctify it with the dew of your loving kindness, so that wherever it is sprinkled, through the invocation of your holy Name, every infestation of the unclean spirit be cast out, and the terror of the poisonous serpent be driven far away. And may the presence of the Holy Spirit deign to be with us always, we who implore your mercy."

  c. Holy water reminds us of our baptism: of that great day when we ourselves or our parents or sponsors - renounced Satan, professed faith in Christ, and were baptized into the mystery of the Holy Trinity. At that moment all our sins were forgiven: original and actual, and we became children of God, filii in Filio, heirs of the promise, daring now to call God our Father.

  When, you dip your hand into the holy water font, remember these things, and like Our Lady, treasure them in your heart. - Sacred Signs and Active Participation at Mass

During the actual Mass itself we make the sign of the cross at thee different times. All other times the faithful make the sign of the cross are not listed in the norms or guidelines of the Mass and are to be considered optional or due to personal piety either from a personal or regional custom.

When we make the sign of the cross during the actual Mass it is determined by both the rubrics of the Mass and personal tradition.

  How many times are Catholics meant to do the sign of the cross during Mass?

  1.The celebrating Priest opens the Mass with a sign of the cross, which the congregation joins in.

  2.Just prior to the the Gospel reading there is an older version of the sign of the cross preformed by drawing out a small cross over the forehead, the lips, and the chest.

  3.The celebrating Priest concludes the Mass with a sign of the cross, which the congregation joins in.

  Optional times:

  1.Each time you genuflect you can simultaneously make a sign of the cross (which should be done when you enter Mass, exit Mass, and cross in front of the Altar)

  2.When the celebrating Priest passes by during the entering and exiting processions.

  3.When a Priest gives a blessing at Mass.

  4.After receiving the body and blood of Christ each participant preforms a personal sign on the cross.

  5.When you feel moved to “put on the armor of God”

To this list of options, I would like to add that some priests start their homilies with the sign of the cross which the faithful are encouraged to do also.

In short there are several other times the faithful may make the sign of the cross out of personal piety.

For those who wish to peruse more information on the subject here is the GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL from the Vatican.


Slavery in the classical ancient Christianity

From various passages in Isaiah, you can assemble a list of signs that Messiah would perform.

61 The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, 3     and provide for those who grieve in Zion (Isaiah 61, NIV)

In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll,
and out of gloom and darkness
the eyes of the blind will see. (Isaiah 29:18)

John the Baptist knew this, and so he asked Jesus if he was the messiah, because the list of things Jesus had performed  was not the complete list he expected.

18 John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of
them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to
come, or should we expect someone else?”
20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to
you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect
someone else?’”
21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and
evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied
to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and
heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy
are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is
proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on
account of me.” (Luke 7, NIV)

If you compare the lists, one very important sign was missing, important to John because it concerned him:
The freeing of the captives. This includes all who are unjustly imprisoned and all slaves, like John himself.
The freeing of the captives was a sign that Jesus left for the church to fulfill. Healings were a personal blessing to individuals. Setting prisoners free requires a change to government. What did Jesus say about that?

6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this
time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the
Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when
the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the
earth.” (Acts 1)

Fundamental, night-and-day change to government by Messiah will occur at the second coming. Slow improvements in government and the accumulation of civil rights and justice has been the work of the church, slowly learning this by the Holy Spirit and making many mistakes along the way.


Does anyone remember prophecy of beast with thousand names or possible Mandela effect?

I've heard the phrase before.  There is no reference in the Bible that states it or that can even construe it.  However, the idea is popular in some end-times circles.  It almost always refers to Nimrod of the Old testament.  For example:

The book, The Beast Who Once Was: New Insight into End Times Prophecy
by Chris Relitz refers to Revelation 17:8 to identify the beast that "once was, now is not, and yet will come," identifying the "beast that once was" as Nimrod from the Old Testament and describing him as "the god with a thousand names."

This association is made because many associate Nimrod with various nationa/ethnic/religious gods of ancient times, inevitably ending with the Egyptian Osiris/Isis story.

Whether this is considered prophecy or not depends on which Christian denomination or tradition you adhere to.


According to Catholicism, does God create new angels?

The short answer is that the Church does not have a definitive teaching on the O.P.’s question: whether God can create “new” angels. However, the perennial philosophy that is the basis for the Church’s theological reflections suggests that, although God has the power to create as many angels as He wishes, from our point of view, the creation of the angels is already “done.” See the fuller answer below.

Man certainly does not have the power to create angels. Angels are, by nature, far superior to man. No creature can create another creature, much less a creature superior to itself.

The Church’s teaching on the angels and their creation

According to the Catholic Church, God is certainly the creator of the angels. However, there are some things to keep in mind.

First of all, the angels are pure spirits; that is, they do no have bodies, as we do, and are free from limitations that a body entails. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 328-330.)

Angels and their relationship to earthly time

On the level of official teaching, the Church does not address the O.P.’s question directly. However, using good theology, based on sound philosophy, one can draw some conclusions.

Time is relative to the one who experiences it

Since angels do not have bodies, as we do, their experience of time is entirely different from us.

Moreover, God is the creator of time; hence He is entirely outside of time. (See CCC 205.) He is also utterly one and simple (see CCC 202). Consequently, on God’s part there is only one act of creation, which identical with His very Essence. (See, for example, Summa theologiae [S.Th] Ia, q. 13, a. 7, 1um and ad 1um [the first objection and the answer to that objection].) That single act produces many effects—namely, us creatures—but the act as such is only one.

Therefore, it is an anthropomorphism to think of God’s creative action as occurring in time. The effects of that action take place in time, but the act as such is eternal: it is, ontologically speaking, God’s very Essence and Being.

What exactly is time?

It is useful, then, to take a moment to consider what time actually is. Aristotle defined time as “the measure of change according to before and after” (Physics IV, 11, 219b1-2) a notion fundamentally taken up by both St. Augustine (see Confessions, XI, cc. 1-28, especially chapters 24-26) and Aquinas (see In IV Phys., lc. 15-23). In other words, creatures experience time to the degree that they experience various types of changes (“movement,” in the classical terminology).

(It is interesting to note that all of our differing ways to measure time all consist in taking a particular kind of change or movement as the basis for measuring other movements. For example, we use the motion of the moon and the Sun as the basis for the length of our days and months; and other regular changes found in nature—such as the oscillations of cesium atoms—to make more precise measurements.)

How different kinds of creatures experience time

As a consequence, different kinds of creatures experience time in different ways, depending on the kinds of changes that they are capable of experiencing. Human beings, like all material creatures, undergo constant interactions with their environment. Hence, they experience time as a continuous movement.

On the other hand, angels, being pure spirits, do not experience a “continuous” time, but, if you will, “discrete” time. It depends on the changes that can take place in them: the decisions of their will, the knowledge infused into them, and so on. Since they are not material creatures, they do not have an “environment” to interact with; and indeed, their entire existence is characterized by a discrete and finite number of actions. (These actions, however, are far more perfect than our own actions, and hence although the number is finite, what they accomplish through those actions is far greater than we ever could in our lifetime. Aquinas makes an extensive treatise on the angels in qq. 50-64 of the Prima Pars of the Summa theologiae. The most relevant questions are 54 and 59, on the angelic intellect and will.)

Angelic time is simply not in the same “continuum” as our own time—it is entirely extrinsic to ours.

That does not prevent angels from interacting with us: but they are looking at our continuous time, as outsiders looking in, so to speak.

From our perspective, God has already “finished” creating the angels

What that means, from our perspective, therefore, is that God already “finished” creating the angels, even “before” He created the material universe. (In reality, “before” and “after” are very misleading here; were are talking about kinds of time that are simply incommensurable.)

Even if God wanted to create more angels—and God is quite capable of creating as many as He wants, even an infinitude, if He wishes—it would seem to us (who exist in our continuous, material time) that He has “already” created them.

That is not a defect on God’s part, as if He were “incapable” of creating angels in earthly time, but simply reflects the difference in nature between angels and men: angels, being pure spirit, are simply not bound by earthly time.

Conclusion

God has the power to create as many angels as He would like: even an infinitude. However, angelic nature is so different from ours (since angels are pure spirits unbound to bodies) that their experience of time is simply incommensurable with ours. Hence, it would be anthropomorphic to say that God creates new angels in our own, earthly time. From our perspective, the creation of the angels is already “done”—but this is not because God cannot create “more” of them, but because our time and their time do not overlap and is of a different nature.

As far as man creating angels, that is impossible, as only God has the power to create anything (in the strict sense—all that we humans can do is rearrange things that have already been created). See CCC 295-301 for an overview of the Church’s teaching on creation.


Why did Pope Francis raise the minimum age for being granted 'Monsignor' from 35 to 65 years?

To avoid carreerism. Young priests turning into monsignors can get really proud of their nobiliarchic title.
No. Current monsignors keep being monsignors.


For what did the quakers win the Nobel Prize?

The Friends Service Council (The Quakers) and the American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers) were actually nominated several times for the peace prize prior to winning it in 1947.

  on each occasion the nominations had been influenced by Quaker relief
  work with the victims of war and famine.

In the aftermath of World War II, the Quakers continued their work.

  providing assistance for the needy without discrimination in Germany,
  elsewhere in Europe and in Asia, just as they had in the aftermath of
  World War 1

Source: quaker.org


Was David mainly upset about Uzzah's death?

Lets take a look at the Passage of Scripture and see if we might determine just what happened.

  1st Chronicles 13:5 through 12 KJV So David gathered all Israel together, from Shihor of Egypt even unto the entering of Hemath, to bring the ark of God from Kirjathjearim. And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kirjathjearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the LORD, that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it. And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart. And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets. And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled.
  And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God. And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzza: wherefore that place is called Perezuzza to this day. And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?

If I am reading this correctly David was not upset as much as he was afraid of God.

So the central question appears to be why was God so angry, and why was David afraid of God. So lets see if we can determine both of these reasons.

  1st Chronicles 13:3  And let us bring again the ark of our God to us: for we enquired not at it in the days of Saul.

According to this they had not even been trying to find the Ark of the covenant since the death of Saul which was some years after it was taken by the Philistines.

  1st Samuel 4:6 and 11 KJV And when the Philistines heard the noise of the shout, they said, What meaneth the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews? And they understood that the ark of the LORD was come into the camp.

  11 And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain.

Although it is not readily apparent from Scriptures it was quite a few years since it had been taken. The Ark of the Covenant was taken several years before Saul's death and it had been several years since Saul's death, as David was king of Judah for 7 years and 6 months before becoming King of all of Israel.

  2nd Samuel 2:11 KJV And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.

We are not told how many years David reigned over Israel until the Ark was sent back by the Philistines, but it was most probably several years.

Apparently over the years they had forgotten that God had given very strict instructions about how the Ark was to be transported and by whom. A situation which David later rectified.

  1st Chronicles 15:1 and 2  And David made him houses in the city of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched for it a tent. Then David said, None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the LORD chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him for ever.

And he also charged the Levites and Priests with properly transporting the Ark.

  1st Chronicles 15:12 and 13 And said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it. For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.

And when this was done properly the Ark was then transported to Jerusalem and placed in the tent David had built for it.

Hope this answers your question, but if you still have questions I will be glad to give you any other Scriptures which may clear it up for you.


How do Premillennialists explain Matthew 25:31-46?

At first blush it looks like it's saying the final judgment happens right at the Lord's return -- for both the righteous and the wicked.

  Matthew 25:32  And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he
  shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep
  from the goats:

This division is done between those who followed Jesus under great persecution during the tribulation and those who persecuted them.

  Matthew 25:40  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I
  say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of
  these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Jesus declares that the contempt, hatred, and murderous rage people had against his followers (brethren) during the tribulation is justification for the death penalty and also indicates that at the second resurrection they will face their final judgment.

  Matthew 25:46  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:
  but the righteous into life eternal.

The tribulation period starts with the death of 25% of the people on earth.

  Revelation 6:8  And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name
  that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was
  given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword,
  and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

A further third of those remaining are killed during the tribulation.

  Revelation 9:18  By these three was the third part of men killed, by
  the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of
  their mouths.

The picture painted in Revelation is not one of confusion or mystery. One gets the idea that most people know who God is and why things are happening and instead of sorrow and shame, they shake their fist in the face of God and come together to try to fight him.

  Revelation 16:14  For they are the spirits of devils, working
  miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole
  world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

  Revelation 16:21  And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven,
  every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God
  because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was
  exceeding great.

The judgment is similar to that which will take place at the second resurrection. Those who are judged to have tortured and killed the followers of Jesus (his brethren) will eventually end up in hell. This particular judgment is for death in that they have no role to fulfill in the 1,000 year kingdom.

  Matthew 25:34  Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand,
  Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you
  from the foundation of the world:


According to the Catholic Church, if God is just and loving why is Nature so needlessly brutal and cruel sometimes?

The best possible answer to this, in my opinion, is none but the one given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, under the heading "Providence and the scandal of Evil". I quote in extenso:

  309 If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.

  310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

  311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

  For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

  312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: "It was not you", said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive." From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God's only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that "abounded all the more", brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good.

  313 "We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him." The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth:

  St. Catherine of Siena said to "those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them": "Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."

  St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: "Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best."
  Dame Julian of Norwich: "Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith. . . and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that 'all manner [of] thing shall be well.'"

  314 We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of its history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God "face to face", will we fully know the ways by which - even through the dramas of evil and sin - God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest for which he created heaven and earth.

(References eliminated. See original text to recover them.)

Thus, focusing particularly on natural disasters, we read that creation has not reached perfection. Naturally, we are part of the creation, and evidently we have not reached perfection yet (hence, as part of our freedom of will, evil exists). Notice that natural disasters could well be due to evil too (e.g. greed leading to global warming). What is important however is that, creation being God's plan, God would not allow evil (or natural disasters, in this case) to exist if good could not come out of it. This is patent in so many dimensions, like solidarity examples arising after a natural disaster. In a sense, like with every other thing which is beyond our control, natural disasters remind us that (i) we are temporarily on Earth, and (ii) we must trust God only. The latter is certainly consistent with the end of the quote above, that ultimately "the ways of his providence are often unknown to us.", and so we must trust in Him.


Any instructions given by contemporary prominent preachers on how to receive the gift of tongues?

You are overlooking the most important word in your question, and that is 'gift'. A gift is something that is freely given - the giver chooses whether or not to give, and the receiver can only choose whether or not to accept it - if it is given. If the receiver can compel the giver in any way, or tries to earn it, then it isn't a gift. It's long been part of Christian theology that Tongues and rather supernatural abilities are 'gifts' in that sense. Check out 1 Corinthians 12, where this is made explicit. Also check out 1 Corinthians 13, which is an explanation of something better and more important than spiritual gifts - Love. It's not accidental that those chapters are next to each other.

General advice as far as I know is that if you earnestly desire a specific gift, keep praying for it. But be aware, as with all other prayers, God may not grant you what you are asking. He may have a better, alternative plan for you.

The exceptions to this are the Pentecostal traditions where speaking in tongues is a sure and necessary sign of being a true believer. In that case if you don't have that gift, consult with a Pastor.


Besides works versus grace and indulgences, what were the external practices of the Catholics that offended so many reformers?

Book IV of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion deals with many objections to the practices of the Catholic Chruch, frequently with rather harsh language.

The claim that the Roman church is the only church (Chap II.2)
The communion as practiced by Catholics is idolatry: "The foulest sacrilege has been introduced in the place of the Lord's Supper."
Reliance on Church teaching instead of the Bible (Chap II.4): "Paul reminds us that the church was founded not upon men's judgements, not upon priesthoods, but upon the teaching of apostles and prophets [Eph 2:20]."
Elders should be elected (Chap II.15). Reference is made to Acts 14:23, which seems to have a disputed translation, but also to the practices of the early churches.
Bishops should not have ostentation or pomp (Chap IV.7)
Examinations  of church leaders  was not done, or if done was not based on ability to preach. (Chap V.1)
The Church did not reject interference by princes (Chap V.3)
Church titles are conferred without regard to need (Chap V.7)

It goes on like that for hundreds of more pages.


Is there a term for a theological principle that if a New Testament text is unclear about something, that point is not important for salvation?

It's a corollary of the Protestant doctrine of the clarity or perspicuity of scripture, that the essentials of faith are explained in the scriptures so clearly that anyone can understand them. As the Westminster Confession says

WCF 1.7: All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in someplace of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Now something in the scriptures may not be necessary for salvation, but that's not the same as saying that it's unimportant. The previous paragraph of the WCF helps us honour the whole of the Bible through its phrase "the whole counsel of God":

WCF 1.6: The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. ...

So many things which are important for God's glory and for mankind's faith and life are taught in the scriptures but not necessarily with the same clarity as the core principles of salvation.


When a person is described as a Davidide, what is being said about that person?

Isaiah chapter 11 is about the heir to David’s throne.  It is a Messianic prophecy.  Psalm 72 reflects on the prospects of David’s royal line and on Zion.  The surpassing righteousness and domination sought in this prayer foreshadow the coming of Jesus, the Son of David.  Source: New Living Translation Study Bible notes.

Isaiah 11:1-10 describes the paradise of the Messiah’s triumph.  The reference to Jesse, the father of David indicates that this continues the theme about the coming heir of David (the Messiah).  Psalm 72 is a royal psalm, praying that the heirs of David’s line (beginning with Solomon) might have success...  Source: English Standard Version Study Bible notes.

Although the word ‘Davidide’ is not found in any of my Bibles, it apparently refers to a descendant of David:

  Ezra 8: “family accompanying Ezra, Hattush, is a descendant of David (so called "Davidide"), and he would be the fourth generation after Zerubbabel (cf. 1 Chronicles)...

  But this united monarchy—a real united monarchy—was ruled by the Omrides, not the Davidides, and its capital was Samaria, not Jerusalem.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

As best I can establish, the word ‘Davidide’ means “son of David”:

  Not all Davids look alike: Dave, Davey, and Davi; even Dudel, Daw, Taavi and Taffy are etymologically Davidide (Yes, this actually is a word. It means “son of David”). Not to be gender exclusive, David comes in feminine forms like Davida and Davena.[1]  http://www.behindthename.com/name/david


Is this age the only opportunity for salvation?

What is the Biblical basis for the Baptist belief in a singular day of salvation

Here is a description of one Baptist view.

Those who were saved before the cross are saved by faith, but receive their eternal life at the first resurrection.

  Hebrews 11:39-40  And these all, having obtained a good report through
  faith, received not the promise:  God having provided some better
  thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

  Revelation 20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
  resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall
  be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand
  years.

Those who trust in Jesus since the cross have immediate eternal life.

  John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
  and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
  not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Those who died in faith before the cross will have a single day of salvation (when they receive eternal life). Those who die after the cross each have a particular day when they are saved.

The second death is reserved for those of the second resurrection. This is a resurrection for the judgment of works.


For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
  yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should
  boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
  works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
  (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Good works do not earn us a ticket into heaven, the merits of the sacrifice of Christ alone earn us a ticket into heaven.  But it is also written

  Those who regard worthless idols Forsake their own Mercy. (Jonah 2:8)

Although good works do not earn us a ticket to heaven, evil works if not confessed and overcome can disqualify us from heaven.  Therefore we can say "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and faith if it has not works is dead" (Ephesians 2:8, James 2:17) You are absolutely on the right track when you say we must be doers of the word, and overcomers of sin, yet we are saved by grace.

  We have no hesitancy in telling you that in order to obtain the
  immortal inheritance and the eternal substance, you must be overcomers
  in this probationary life. Everything that blots and stains the soul
  must be removed, must be cleansed from the heart. We must know what it
  means to be a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the
  corruptions that are in the world through lust. Are you willing to
  wage war against the lusts of the flesh? Are you ready to battle
  against the enemy of God and man? Satan is determined to enslave every
  soul if he can; for he is playing a desperate game to win the souls of
  men from Christ and eternal life. Will you permit him to steal from
  you the graces of the Spirit of God, and plant in you his own corrupt
  nature? or will you accept the great provision of salvation, and
  through the merits of the Infinite Sacrifice made in your behalf,
  become a partaker of the divine nature? God has given His
  only-begotten Son, that through His shame, suffering, and death, you
  might have glory, honor, and immortality. The Signs of the Times, June
  15, 1891


What is the biblical evidence for God's omnipotence and omniscience?

A simple Bible search for 'almighty' would have given you more than enough passages about omnipotence. The first mention, for example, is:

  Genesis 17:1-2 (ESV)
   1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly."

For omniscience, similarly many, many passages exist -- the combination of them shows quite strongly that God is omniscient. For example:

  1 Samuel 2:3 (ESV)
   3 Talk no more so very proudly,
     let not arrogance come from your mouth;
  for the LORD is a God of knowledge,
     and by him actions are weighed.

  1 Samuel 16:7 (ESV)
   7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."

  Matthew 6:4 (ESV)
   4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

  Acts 2:23 (ESV)
   23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.


How did Christians cultivate their knowledge of the Bible before mass-printing of the Bible?

There are several ways the poor and illiterate were able to cultivate a basic knowledge of the Bible prior to the advent of the printing press.

Some of the most obvious tools used by the faithful were stained glass windows, paintings, statues, story telling, missions, medieval mystery plays and the use of song.

We all know that the Poor Man's Bible is stained glass windows that could be found in many different churches and cathedrals.

  The term Poor Man's Bible has come into use in modern times to describe works of art within churches and cathedrals which either individually or collectively have been created to illustrate the teachings of the Bible for a largely illiterate population. These artworks may take the form of carvings, paintings, mosaics or stained glass windows. In some churches a single artwork, such as a stained glass window has the role of Poor Man's Bible while in others, the entire church is decorated with a complex biblical narrative that unites in a single scheme. - Poor Man's Bible (Wikipedia)

Images above are of Noah, Lamech, and Thara, from the Ancestors of Christ Windows, Canterbury Cathedral, England.

Singing was one of the greatest ways to enhance one's knowledge of the Bible and it is explicitly mentioned in Scriptures.

  1  Sing to the LORD a new song, for he has done marvelous things; his right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him.   2  The LORD has made his salvation known and revealed his righteousness to the nations.   3  He has remembered his love and his faithfulness to Israel; all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.   4  Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth, burst into jubilant song with music;   5  make music to the LORD with the harp, with the harp and the sound of singing,   6  with trumpets and the blast of the ram’s horn— shout for joy before the LORD, the King.   7  Let the sea resound, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it. - Psalm 98:1-7

Story telling has a huge place in all this. It is recognized by historians and theologians that Israel's history was preserved by word of mouth.

  By the middle of the 5th century BC religion and history were taught simultaneously through storytelling. These topics were made fascinating by way of the storyteller. Their lessons were taught through exciting recounts of miracles, by games of question and answer, and by visible reminders (Nelson 2002, 332). They explained the meaning of the great feasts to them and showed them how each of the customs that they observed had holy significance (Daniel-Rops 1962, 128). Even a simple pile of rocks became an object lesson for the retelling of the crossing of the Jordan River. Fathers told their children of all the wonders that God had done for his people. The Scripture was the foundation of all morality. Therefore, to study and learn it was to grow spiritually (Ward 1987, 150). - STORYTELLING: A SOURCE FOR REDUCING BIBLICAL ILLITERACY

Another way to enhance the knowledge of the Bible was through  Medieval Mystery Plays or as some call them Miracle Plays.

  Mystery plays and miracle plays (they are distinguished as two different forms although the terms are often used interchangeably1) are among the earliest formally developed plays in medieval Europe. Medieval mystery plays focused on the representation of Bible stories in churches as tableaux with accompanying antiphonal song. They told of subjects such as the Creation, Adam and Eve, the murder of Abel, and the Last Judgement.2 Often they were performed together in cycles which could last for days.3 The name derives from mystery used in its sense of miracle,4 but an occasionally quoted derivation is from ministerium, meaning craft, and so the 'mysteries' or plays performed by the craft guilds.

  Spanish mystery plays

  The Misteri d'Elx (in English, the Elx Mystery Play or Mystery Play of Elx) is a liturgical drama dating from the Middle Ages which has been enacted and celebrated every year without any known interruptions. Commemorating the Assumption of Mary, it is played on every 14 and 15 August in the Basilica de Santa María in the city of Elx (also known as Elche). The prohibition of theatrical plays in churches by the Council of Trent eventually threatened to interrupt the yearly performance of the Misteri, but in 1632 Pope Urban VIII issued a special permit for its continuation. In 2001, UNESCO declared it one of the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity. - Mystery play (Wikipedia)

In the Middle Ages many story and legends abound about how plants and to a lesser degree animals got their names associated with various biblical events, saints or religious truths of one sort or another:

Blessing Basil Leaf in Honour of the Holy Cross

St. George's mushroom


Christians go to missions inspired and commanded by the book of Matthew. Precisely:

  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me
  in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
  baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
  Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
  commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
  world. Amen.

  (Matthew 28:18-20, KJV)

A true missionary is formed by 3 components: Himself, the one who is sent to missions. A prayer team that prays for him and a supporter team, that supports the missionary financially.

Real missionaries go to other countries to preach and share the gospel with people that never had the chance to hear about it or where the gospel is something forbidden. They aren't influenced by large western corporations or rich people in order to cause damage in the countries they go to.

I can't really tell you whether there are like fake missionaries with these intentions, but for sure those aren't the plans neither the objective of the christian world. Jesus commanded christians to go to other countries to share what he taught in earth and that is what true christians do.


A Catechetical Formula is reliable or time-tested or traditional way of explaining some aspect of faith. For example, when you see someone quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this site, they are reciting what amounts to a catechetical formula.
Doing this is called Catechesis:

Catechesis is the act of handing on the Word of God intended to inform the faith community and candidates for initiation into the Church about the teachings of Christ, transmitted by the Apostles to the Church.
Catechesis also involves the lifelong effort of forming people into witnesses to Christ and opening their hearts to the spiritual transformation given by the Holy Spirit.
A catechism is the name given to a written work that contains a summary of all the beliefs of the faith that is used as a teaching tool.

Some catechesis is aimed at younger children, some is aimed at adults in RCIA. The entire Baltimore Catechism is a comprehensive listing of such formulas. It keeps the questions and answers simple, so that even young children can understand. Here is what one such "formula" looks like:

Q. 340. Was Jesus Christ always man?
A. Jesus Christ was not always man, but became man at the time of His Incarnation.

Many of the people visiting this site are looking for catechetical formulas: ways of explaining an aspect of their faith to someone else. For example, when Peter asked Why is Good Friday called Good? ("Is there a very obvious way to explain to someone..."), he was looking for a catechetical formula. In my answer, I recited one formula, and then tried to develop two more - the first was adjustable and aimed at a co-worker, the second one was simple, something a child might readily remember to say to a classmate.


What is the origin of the Catholic apocrypha?

The books known as "apocryphal" to Protestants are defined by Catholics as "Deuterocanonical" (a second canon). They come from the Septuagint, a Greek translation (with these additional books) of the Hebrew Tanakh. Later, around the 4th century, the Old Testament was translated by St. Jerome into Latin as part of the Vulgate. Besides the Catholic Church, the Constantinople-based Eastern Orthodox Church also received Deuterocanonical books as canonical.
Catholic Church considers the Deuterocanonicals on the same level as other books in the OT and NT canon. It is not a separate list, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) article 120. The Deuterocanonicals are also "infallible", as expressed in CCC article 107; they are without error.
This topic has been debated from the beginning, even by St. Jerome himself as he made the Vulgate. He considered some of the books and texts not found in Hebrew to be apocryphal, as expressed in his prologue to the book of Kings, Esdras, Solomon, Jeremias and Judith. But later, throughout the Middle Ages, the Vulgate was accepted as the official translation by the Church (Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox). After Luther's Germanic Bible in 1534, this issue became one of the points of difference between the "Old Churches" (Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) and "Protestant and Reformed Churches" (Luther and Calvin).


Were the Gospels considered Scripture when the rest of the New Testament was written?

Given the clarification of the question, an entirely new answer is in order.

The quick answer is that most of the rest of the NT

was written before the Gospels, and
was sourced by eyewitnesses in any event.  Every writer was in some way written by somebody who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus.  As such, there would have been no need to go back and read somebody else's book.

The dates of the New Testament books can be found in this question.

The entire Pauline corpus (Romans - Philemon), if authored by Paul, predates the Gospels.

Paul was executed in either 62, 65, or 68 AD, and all of this excludes John (95), Matthew (post-70), and Luke.

Mark may have been been written prior to Paul's execution, but even given the earliest date for Mark and the latest for Paul's execution would have given only 10 years.  In any event, many eyewitnesses to the Resurrection were still alive at this point, and so Mark would have just been one more eyewitness.

The closest one could come to making a case for Scriptural recognition of Mark would be Paul's use of the Eucharistic formula, "Take, eat, this is my body," but again there, the question remains whether this was simply eyewitness account or drawing from the book.  Most scholars believe it to be background knowledge of the account, rather than Paul having read Mark's account.  (For that matter, Paul probably learned about it directly from Peter (Galatians 1:18), who is often seen as Mark's source!)
Additionally, James and Hebrews pretty clearly pre-date the Gospels, so again, no.
Acts, which chronicles the life of Paul, was written by Luke, and is clearly the second half of Luke-Acts.

When Luke begins Acts, he speaks of his own Gospel as "my former book". As such, Luke, when writing Acts, probably was unaware of his own inspired status, but he surely believed what he wrote to be an accurate account of the life of Jesus.
The only candidates for NT books after the "Synoptic Gospels" (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are the Johannine (1, 2, 3d John) books and the Petrine Books (1 & 2 Peter, and Jude which clearly borrows heavily from 2 Peter)

Of these,

John, if it is the same same, did author his own Gospel, and so again, we have the "are you aware of your own Scriptural status" problem.  If it is a different John, the author is still closely indebted to John the Apostle, and so would have considered the John the source, not the Gospel.
Peter, if written by the Apostle Peter (and yes, some doubt whether or not both books were written by Peter), would have had the same status of John.  John was an eyewitness, Peter was an eyewitness.  Peter would have been more influenced by what he saw than what he wrote.  Furthermore, Peter is most commonly ascribed the source of Mark's Gospel, so again, his own self-awareness in regards to inspiration is doubtful.

What may be most useful in answering your question is what Polycarp - a Christian matryr who died in 150AD, thought.  He considered Matthew, Mark, and Luke to be Scripture, along with Acts, the Pauline, and Johnanine corpuses.  Polycarp was a contemporary of John the Apostle, the last of the Apostoles to die.  He's about as early a figure as you are going to get, and he's already really close to the actual writing.  My guess is that he didn't include John in his recommendation list, either because he was so closely associated or it was really too recent.

Finally,
Remember that one of the classic marks of NT canonicity was apostolic claim to authorship.  In other words, every one of the books was, at one time or another, considered to have been written by an apostolic eyewitness of Christ.  This means all the works of the NT would have been written

at the same time (more or less)
by people who had some knowledge of each other
first-hand knowledge of the Christ whose life inspired the books in the first place.

tl;dr>
No, the authors of the epistles didn't see the Gospel books as Scripture - they considered the eyewitness accounts as Scripture. Most of the books you are talking about were authored before the Gospels, but while many of the eyewitnesses were still alive.


I often turn to Biblical commentators when I have questions like this.  In my studies, I have found a few that, in my opinion, are consistently reliable; that is, their thoughts are founded on and derived from their knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages; as well as their understanding of scriptural and secular history.

Albert Barnes https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/matthew-24.html

"The words in this verse are proverbial.  Vultures and eagles easily ascertain where dead bodies are, and hasten to devour them.  So with the Roman army. Jerusalem is like a dead and putrid corpse. Its life is gone, and it is ready to be devoured. The Roman armies will find it out, as the vultures do a dead carcass, and will come around it to devour it. This proverb also teaches a universal truth. Wherever wicked people are, there will be assembled the instruments of their chastisement. The providence of God will direct them there, as the vultures are directed to a dead carcass."

Adam Clarke  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/matthew-24.html

"For wheresoever the carcass is - ...the dead carcass. The Jewish nation, which was morally and judicially dead."
"There will the eagles - The Roman armies, called so partly from their strength and fierceness, and partly from the figure of these animals which was always wrought on their ensigns, or even in brass, placed on the tops of their ensign-staves. It is remarkable that the Roman fury pursued these wretched men wheresoever they were found. They were a dead carcass doomed to be devoured; and the Roman eagles were the commissioned devourers. See the pitiful account in Josephus, War, b. vii. c. 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 11."

Thomas Coke  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tcc/matthew-24.html

"By the word carcase is meant the Jewish nation, which was morally and judicially dead, and whose destruction was pronounced in the decrees of heaven. Our Saviour, after his usual manner, applies a proverbial expression with a particular meaning: for as, according to the old proverb, wheresoever, &c. so wheresoever the Jews are, there will Christ be taking vengeance upon them by the Romans, who are properly compared to eagles, as the fiercest beasts of prey, and whose ensign was an eagle, to which also probably our Saviour in this passage alluded. And as it was said, so it was done; for the victories of the Romans were not confined to this or that place, but, like a flood, over-ran the whole land. There was no part of Judea that did not partake of the calamities of the captivity. At Antioch many were burnt in the theatre, and others were slain; the Romans slew them every where; at Jardes not fewer than three thousand were put to death. Being on the point of being taken at Masade, they first murdered their wives and children, and then themselves, to the number of nine hundred and sixty, to avoid falling into the enemies' hands. In Cyrene, the followers of Jonathan the weaver were most of them slain; he himself was taken prisoner, and, by his accusation, three thousand of the richest Jews were put to death."

John Gill  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/matthew-24.html

"For wheresoever the carcass is,.... Not Christ, as he is held forth in the Gospel, crucified and slain, through whose death is the savour of life, and by whom salvation is, and to whom sensible sinners flock, encouraged by the ministry of the word; and much less Christ considered as risen, exalted, and coming in great glory to judgment, to whom the word 'carcass' will by no means agree, and but very poorly under the former consideration: but the people of the Jews are designed by it, in their fallen, deplorable, miserable, and lifeless state, who were like to the body of a man, or any other creature, struck dead with lightning from heaven; being destroyed by the breath of the mouth, and brightness of the coming of the son of man, like lightning, just as antichrist will be at the last day:
"there will the eagles be gathered together: not particular believers here, or all the saints at the day of judgment; though these may be, as they are, compared to eagles for many things; as their swiftness in flying to Christ, their sagacity and the sharpness of their spiritual sight, soaring on high, and renewing their spiritual strength and youth: but here the Roman armies are intended, whose ensigns were eagles; and the eagle still is, to this day, the ensign of the Roman empire: formerly other creatures, with the eagle, were used for ensigns; but C. Marius, in his second consulship, banished them, and appropriated the eagle only to the legions: nor was it a single eagle that was carried before the army, but every legion had an eagle went before it, made of gold or silver, and carried upon the top of a spear...: and the sense of this passage is this, that wherever the Jews were, whether at Jerusalem, where the body and carcass of them was, in a most forlorn and desperate condition; or in any other parts of the country, the Roman eagles, or legions, would find them out, and make an utter destruction of them."

There are others I often turn to:  James Burton Coffman, Dr. Thomas Constable, Charles John Ellicott, and Matthew Henry.

You will note that the four commentators quoted all conclude that Jesus' words were not in regard to our day; but were a description of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

I encourage you to maintain your interest in these matters!


God is the creator, and He creates with purpose.  Curiosity is a feature of eternal design that God uses to compel mankind.

  John 4:23,24 (NIV)
  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

  Luke 6:45 (NIV)
  A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Curiosity, wonderment is contemplation or a consideration born from the heart of man.

  Luke 12:34 (NIV)
  for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The human heart holds our personal economy (the things that matter most).  When young lovers first encounter one another, curiosity naturally encourages discovery, discovery of a deeper love.

This is especially true in regard to God.  God designed the human heart to esteem Him and naturally we should be curious about God and His will for our life.


What is the Biblical basis for death being the last point for repentance?

Before death is the time when we do that which can be judged. Judgment of works for punishment is what comes to those who have rejected Jesus.

  Hebrews 9:27  And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after
  this the judgment:

The time to "know" Jesus is while we are alive.

  Matthew 7:22-23  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we
  not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and
  in thy name done many wonderful works?   And then will I profess unto
  them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Judgment of works for reward is what comes to Christians.

  1 Corinthians 3:13-15  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for
  the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and
  the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.   If any man's
  work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he
  himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The "repentance" associated with salvation may be more of an effect rather than a cause. The word in Greek means a change of mind. Those who have been saved reflect a mind that has been changed as a result of being born again and having a new nature.

God can offer anyone this salvation at any time even right before death. Salvation requires the action of God.

  John 6:44  No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me
  draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation does not seem to rest solely upon our decision to change our mind (repentance).


What is the Catholic Church's explanation of its listing of the Ten Commandments?

There is no official Catholic division of Ten commandments. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by St. Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confessions. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities. (CCC 2066)

The Catechism states that it uses the Augustinian grouping because it is traditional and it rhymes easily which makes it easy to memorize. (CCC 2065) Catholics thus have liberty of conscience in determining which division of the Decalogue they believe best. That is there is no correct way to group the ten commandments.

Catechism also argues that The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) forms a coherent whole. Each "commandments" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others. (CCC 2069) So, grouping of the commandments does not matter as long as all 10 are held together.

The main two differences in the division of the Ten commandments are:

Grouping of commandment against other gods and idols:

Idols are only of interest to God insofar as they are false gods. God has no problem with statues in general, or even religious statues. It is only because they are considered to be gods that the Lord is interested in them as this violates his territory. God himself has commanded Israelite to build statues (Exo 25:18). If God had problem with Idols Per se, then how can God ask them to violate his own commandment?

By dividing the no false gods and no idols as two commandments like:

Commandment 1: You shall have no other gods before me.

Commandment 2: You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. [emphasis added]

The latter would be almost eight times as long as the former; Commandment 1 is 5 words long in Hebrew, while the next is 39 words long. Please note that the italicized part of Commandment 2 makes no sense if it is for making idols alone. As God has no reason to be jealous of an idol if it is NOT worshiped as a god equal to Him (which is the Commandment 1).
Coveting a neighbor's wife and desiring his property be grouped together or not?

The Deuteronomy 5 version of the  Ten commandments uses different verbs for these commandments. It says one must not "covet" your neighbor's spouse, but that one must not "desire" a neighbor's property. Two separate verbs, thus reasonably considered as two separate commandments.

See: The Division of the Ten Commandments by James Akin


Why don't Mormons sing the second verse of, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing"?

The complete text of the carol can be found here. It seems that of the five verses, only verse one and three are included in the (english) Hymnbook (linked by OP).

This specific verse seems of rather trinitarian thought, that may be a reason. Seeing that two other verses have also been omitted:

  Come, Desire of nations, come,
  Fix in us Thy humble home;
  Rise, the woman’s conqu’ring Seed,
  Bruise in us the serpent’s head.
  Now display Thy saving pow’r,
  Ruined nature now restore;
  Now in mystic union join
  Thine to ours, and ours to Thine.

  Adam’s likeness, Lord, efface,
  Stamp Thine image in its place:
  Second Adam from above,
  Reinstate us in Thy love.
  Let us Thee, though lost, regain,
  Thee, the Life, the inner man:
  Oh, to all Thyself impart,
  Formed in each believing heart.

I don't know where to look for an authoritative answer, but the people responsible for Hymn books probably just didn't feel comfortable with the omitted verses. "Mystic union" is not in the vocabulary of mormons, and "Veil'd in flesh, the Godhead see" sounds too trinitarian, although it could be reinterpreted with a little effort. It's not so much that we couldn't sing these verses and reinterpret them with our doctrine, but it would not very comfortably.


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on why God sanctioned eating meat after the fall if veganism was already the pre-fall standard?

Background information regarding the state of humanity prior to the flood: The depravity and ungodly lifestyles of the entire world at that time were enough to cause the Lord to “regret that He had made man” (Genesis 6:1-6).

Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth (Genesis 6:11-12).

Noah, on the other hand, is described as a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5), suggesting he had spent years warning his friends and neighbours what the Holy God was about to do.  No one listened.  After the flood waters had receded God told Noah that it was permissible to eat animal flesh (but not to consume the blood).
You ask: Why did God eventually sanction animal-based diets after the fall? Was it for nutritional reasons or something else?
The Bible does not say.  A Christian scholar (of the Reformed Protestant persuasion) by the name of Matthew Henry presents “the Magna Charta—the great charter of this new kingdom of nature which was now to be erected, and incorporated, the former charter having been forfeited and seized.”  Here is a relevant paragraph from his commentary:

A grant of maintenance and subsistence: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, v. 3. Hitherto, most think, man had been confined to feed only upon the products of the earth, fruits, herbs, and roots, and all sorts of corn and milk; so was the first grant, ch. 1:29. But the flood having perhaps washed away much of the virtue of the earth, and so rendered its fruits less pleasing and less nourishing, God now enlarged the grant, and allowed man to eat flesh, which perhaps man himself never thought of, till now that God directed him to it, nor had any more desire to than a sheep has to suck blood like a wolf. But now man is allowed to feed upon flesh, as freely and safely as upon the green herb. Now here see, (1.) That God is a good master, and provides, not only that we may live, but that we may live comfortably, in his service; not for necessity only, but for delight. (2.) That every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, 1 Tim. 4:4. Afterwards some meats that were proper enough for food were prohibited by the ceremonial law; but from the beginning, it seems, it was not so, and therefore is not so under the gospel.  Source: https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=mh&b=1&c=9

I have no idea what other Christian denominations think about this, and time does not permit me to investigate further.  Suffice to say that sometimes, when the Bible is silent on a matter, we simply do not need to know.  Curiosity and speculation are normal, but ultimately unsatisfying.
Further on in the commentary, Henry notes that although God had granted man dominion over animals, yet they were subjects to the Creator, and under the restraints of his law.  Henry’s commentary goes on to discuss the Noahic covenant in Genesis chapter 6.  He concludes:

Noah lived to see two worlds, but, being an heir of the righteousness which is by faith, when he died he went to see a better than either.

Additional information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Henry
https://www.gotquestions.org/eating-meat-with-blood.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/dominion-over-animals.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/Noahic-covenant.html


What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches?

The most notable position of the Adventist is the degree of Biblical Literalism. Generally, if the verses can have a literal meaning then that is the belief that they take.

The outsider will notice some or all of these if they spend a short time with an Adventist:

Worship on Saturday (after all, it is in their name. I will expand on this later).
Not eating unclean animals, per the OT Law distinction. That means no pork, like many Jews. The animal must have a cloven hoof and chew the cud, or be a fish with scales, or a non-predatory bird of the air.
No Alcohol or any other recreational drugs including caffeine. Medication is fine when necessary. I suspect they are hesitant of consuming opiates and other pain medications.
General emphasis on health and what you eat, although not doctrine, many are vegetarians.
No jewelry, save a simple wedding band, or excessively fancy clothes.

All of the above have Biblical justification, although those same verses are either ignored or interpreted differently in other denominations.

The outsider will likely not notice these unless they sit in on Adventist worship services and sermons or read Adventist literature.

Intense disdain for Sunday Worship. According to theology it is the mark of the beast (I will explain this later).
Intense disdain for the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). That is the Harlot Church of Revelation.
Intense disdain for the Papacy, not the Pope specifically. The office of the Papacy is the Antichrist.
High focus on eschatology and the second coming of Christ. "Keeping the eye on the prize" or "Finishing the race strong."
Intense guarding of the Young Earth Creationist view (YEC). They will argue this until they are blue in the face.
No special interest in a person Ellen G. White, but rather in her many writings and visions, most of which are regarded as prophetic or otherwise inspired.
There is no eternal quality of any kind to humanity. There is no such thing as the eternal soul. They are Annihilationists.
The archangel called Michael is another name for Jesus.

I will address each one of these, now, referring to their number when necessary.

The first four are all highly related. That theology is also not new with the Adventists. The idea that the RCC is the harlot church (2) and its leader, the Pope, is the Antichrist  has its roots all the way back to the Reformation. The primary distinction concerning the Pope and the RCC between Reformation theology and Adventists is that Adventists call the Papacy, not the Pope (3), the AntiChrist (apparently, calling the Pope the Antichrist was a bit of a name calling thing half the time during the Reformation). What I believe is unique to them is that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast (the Antichrist). I first heard of it when studying Adventistism and have never heard it anywhere else. There is much theology around this, and really could be no fewer than three questions to cover it fully but here is the basics:

The Pope is called the "vicar of Christ, His voice on Earth." Antichrist is actually better translated as Psuedochrist. The Papacy is a fake Christ; he is not Christ's voice on Earth.
Naming the RCC as the Harlot Church is the same as naming it as the terrible beast from Daniel 7. To them, the RCC is the only "nation" that fits the description. The little horn that supplants three bigger horns is the Papacy. They match all this up very well with history and make a very sound argument.
The RCC changed Sabbath to Sunday. There is a lot of History to support that the RCC throughout history encouraged and even forced Sunday rest, instead of Sabbath rest. There is Catholic documents verifying this. With all of this in mind, plus a revelation by E. G. White which I will discuss later, leads them to conclude that calling and observing Sunday as the Sabbath is the mark of the beast, the RCC.

Now to YEC proponents and E. G. White (5 and 6). Ellen White is considered a prophet by Adventists. She wrote thousands of pages and is purported to have had many visions. Wikipedia article on her is extensive. One particular vision she had took her through the entire Creation. She witnessed it happen in 6 literal days and the climax was the Sabbath. Because God created everything in 6 literal days and rested on the seventh He sanctified the seventh day. Therefore, Adventists take the Sabbath very literally. After all, it is one of the commandments.

For point 7, the lack of an eternal soul, there is much to say and this could also be a separate question. They are not the only group to say this nor are they the only group to profess it today. The primary points that they use to support this are that in Genesis the word translated soul can also be translated as living creature or just plainly creature. It is the same word used for the animals that were created earlier. Also, no where in the Bible do the words "immortal soul" appear together. If that weren't enough the Bible says in more than one place that only God is immortal.

New section: I am always learning, it seems and I only recently learned that a large chunk of Adventists believe that the Archangel called Michael is Jesus (Point 8). Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the Adventist's mind this does not reduce the character of Jesus to a mere angel. It increases the character of Michael to the divine and holy Christ (Source). So when reading passages that mention Michael, Adventist's read Jesus, the begotten Son of God. To them, it is a lesser issue not worth "dwell[ing] upon at length." This is mostly because they way they interpret the scriptures redefines Michael, not Jesus; Jesus is still God.

For other Christian beliefs, they generally agree with the mainstream. The Trinity, Christ's divinity, holiness and infallibility of Scripture, etc.

The only group that is similar to Adventists is Jehovah's Witnesses, but only on the smaller issues like jewelry, save Annihilationism, which both groups hold. The Witnesses do also believe that Michael is Jesus, but in the opposite direction of Adventists; they believe that Jesus is lesser than God and they use the Michael is Jesus arguments to support that. Both Charles Taz Russell and E. G. White were influenced by Millerite Christians. After that, I would call them, and their theology quite unique.

There might be the inclination for outsiders to call them cultic or just plainly a cult, however, having studies with them (though I am not one), that is far from the truth. They are kind and understanding people, never resorting to trickery typical of a cult, very willing to help fellow Christians, whether Adventists or not, and even non-Christians, have a heart for mission work and to bring the gospel to all who will hear it, and are passionate about God, the Bible, Christ, and finally meeting Him at the end. They are a great bunch of people (the ones I have met anyway) and are worth knowing even if you do not buy the theology.


God and Satan in the book of Job: how did they know about this conversation?

Great Question, I was actually wondering the same thing for a while until I did some reading.
The entire bible was written with the Inspiration of God, as found in

  2 Timothy 3:16 NKJV
  16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

So basically God told the author what happened and what to write.For instance no one was there for the creation, God had to tell the author.


What is the means of forgiveness in Purgatory?

The means of any forgiveness is penance. The following is taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

ARTICLE 4: THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION

  1422 Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion.

Aquinas notes the following:

  Punishment is proportionate to sin. Now sin comprises two things. First, there is the turning away from the immutable good, which is infinite, wherefore, in this respect, sin is infinite. Secondly, there is the inordinate turning to mutable good. In this respect sin is finite, both because the mutable good itself is finite, and because the movement of turning towards it is finite, since the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly, in so far as sin consists in turning away from something, its corresponding punishment is the "pain of loss," which also is infinite, because it is the loss of the infinite good, i.e. God. But in so far as sin turns inordinately to something, its corresponding punishment is the "pain of sense," which is also finite.

When man sins mortally, they enact a debt both infinite and finite (if they commit venial sins, they enact only the latter). The infinite debt for our sins has the opportunity to be overlooked in the penance Christ offers for original sin. But the finite punishment is still existent, and even necessary in the process of attaining salvation. The finite punishment is still relevant to the human condition, and through Christ's penance, it is made to be satisfactory in nature (meaning the finite punishment can achieve merits as founded in the perfect and primary merits Christ achieved through His own penance on the cross). The finite punishment, as far as it is satisfactory, and thus voluntary, is a specific type of penance, the other being confession.

So believing in Christ, which includes confession, is certainly the primary means of penance, but the other half consists of a different kind of penance, namely the willingness to go through finite punishment in order to discipline and reshape the fallen finite aspect of our will. The fullness of our will, in other words, even after asking for forgiveness, is still subject to sin and its tendencies. Though we ask for forgiveness, we are still imperfect creatures, not in a judicial sense, but in a practical sense. Thus is it that although we can be justified solely in perfect contrition or more commonly in the forgiveness achieved through the priesthood from God, further penance is required for our will to be fully aligned to God, which is itself salvation. And thus is it that Catholics firmly assert purgatory is not a place/process of opportunity for any souls to gain the 'judicial ticket' of entering heaven which can only be gained by believing in Christ on earth, but rather is a process in which the aspects of the imperfect soul becomes cleansed 'as through fire' before entering heaven (1 Corinthians 3:15). Purgatory is a process for the already elected Church; it is not a process for those who are not of the elect at the moment of death. It is a process for the elected Church (those with no unforgiven mortal sins) to have purged their unforgiven venial sins through finite punishment. So the Catechism states:

ARTICLE 12: "I BELIEVE IN LIFE EVERLASTING"

  1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately,-- or immediate and everlasting damnation

...and...

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

...and finally...

  1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire.

AN ANALOGY

The idea that it is necessary for souls to go through finite punishment consists in an understanding of the nature of sin and what is truly meant by 'punishment'. In sinning, man offends God by not offering all of the obedience that is rightly due to God. So, while infinite punishment has no opportunity of being satisfactory because it is involuntarily gone through, finite punishment does have the opportunity of being satisfactory, both because of the penance of Christ and because souls can willingly choose to enter it. This still doesn't address why the punishment itself gains merits. And the point here is to realize that 'punishment' in its most basic sense is actually the satisfaction made for a debt of sin, which robs God of the obedience He is owed. In short, 'punishment' is simply a thing that engenders greater obedience. Think about a court case. Let's say a man has committed a crime that at least deserves a minimal retribution, but which also deserves prison in life. If the man deemed guilty of this crime enters his punishment willingly, he is thus complying to the will of the judge himself, and to some degree making his own satisfaction. Of course, the ultimate end of being locked in the jailhouse forever can only be justly prevented if there is one who makes full satisfaction for the man's debts, which the guilty himself cannot do. For in entering the punishment of imprisonment for life, the man can gain nothing of it for himself, since he shall in no case be freed. Thus satosfaction cannot be made for his own life through himself, where satosfaction could be made for his own life if he were free. So one who is perfect and greater than the law itself must make satisfaction for the guilty. So a benefactor who decides to take mercy on the guilty man pays for his release at the cost of his own luxury. But the man guilty of breaking the law can still offer something, and indeed must offer something, if he is to share in the satisfaction made for him through his benefactor. If he doesn't, than he refuses to partake in the same spirit that is of the satisfaction made for him, and so he is still condemned by his own doing. The guilty man must go through rehabilitation and actually allow this sacrifice to change his own behavior and tendencies. He must go through the minimal punishment that he is actually able to go through to make satisfaction as a productive and free man. If not, than he is not offering the full obedience thay is owed to God, and so defeating the very purpose for which he was freed from the fate of prison. This analogy is meant to display the nature of Christ and the nature of the penance we must offer in light of Christ's sacrifice. Just like the guilty lawbreaker, if we do not offer whatever we can in our own way and turn away from our sins, than we are not fully in union with God. This entire process is what is going on in penance, both in confession and in finite punishment. Confession is the admitting of our faults and recognizing the sacrifice made for us, while finite punishment is the going through rehabilitation and adjusting our behavior in order that the entirety of our will is made righteous, which is what is owed to our benefactor.

CONCLUSION

So the answer is both basic and complicated. The souls have been forgiven of mortal sins that are in purgatory (hence their existence in purgatory rather than in hell). They are not going through a means of 'forgiveness', which is only one form of penance (the more primary, albeit), but are going through another form of penance just as necessary for the attainment of salvation; finite punishment. It is this punishment that is necessary for the means of amending the debts of venial and otherwise imperfect tendencies. Christ did not abolish finite punishment for the believer as he did eternal punishment; he allowed it the opportunity of being satisfactory. It is this satisfactory punishment that souls in purgatory go through in order to achieve the merit of perfection, not in judicial terms (which is achieved through Christ), but in active terms (which is existent within the free, independent will of the person).


Which Orthodox Churches Accept the Baptism of Heretics?

I'll answer your two questions simultaneously. Trinitarian baptism is canonically valid, always. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Moscow Patriarchate within Eastern Orthodox communion accepts the validity of baptism under the Trinitarian formalism. Because the validity is rested on the formula not on the professed faith.
St. Athanasius initially accepts Arian baptism, they just need to confess Nicene faith and do penance before received communion and/or restored to their canonical rank. But later as Arians started to develop their heresy further than what Arius started, Athanasius began to reject the validity of their baptism not because Trinitarian formalism is void of efficacy when performed by Arians but because they changed the Apostolic baptismal formalism.

For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator
and creature, and into Maker and work. And as a creature is other than
the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is
other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the
Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who
simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has
also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did
not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus:
'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the
right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might
come the consecration of Baptism.
St. Athanasius, Against the Arians, 2:18:42.

Because of this some fundamentalists erroneously insist that baptismal efficacy rested not on Apostolic baptismal formalism but on the confessed faith. This is why Greek Orthodox Synod of Resistance and Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (not in communion with Moscow Patriarchate) are plain and simple committing the heresy of Donatism.
When Arians began to have baptized in the name of the Creator and creatures, they changed the Apostolic form of sacramental baptism. The Anomaeans, a further development of Arianism, baptized with the new formula:

In the name of the uncreated God and in the name of the created Son,
and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, created by the created Son
St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Heresies, 77.

This is why the efficacy of baptism is not founded on the professed faith but on the Apostolic formalism. When a sect changed this sacramental form their baptism is invalid. Baptism in the name of Christ only is also canonically valid but I will not discuss it here unless asked.

Baptism is the only sacrament which, in the absence of a priest, may be administered by the layman (man or woman) by virtue of the universal Christian priesthood. ... All Christian baptism conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity is valid, not only within Orthodoxy, but outside its limits; the practice of the Church, ancient and modern, is sufficient testimony to this. As a general rule those who have been baptized once are not re-baptized....
Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, 1988, p. 112.

To see whether or not New Calendarist's baptism is valid or not, we can see a simple case from the baptism of Emperor St. Constantine the Great by a semi Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia. During Nicene council out of 320 bishops, two refused to sign Nicene faith: Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. From 318 Nicene Fathers, three who signed the Nicene faith refused to excommunicate Arius: Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Eusebius of Nicomedia. All five were deposed and exiled. But later the Church canonically exonerated all three who signed Nicene faith plus Arius who then accepted Nicene faith but died by poison because of politic before received back his canonical rank. Despite of Nicomedia's past history and his allegiance to Arius before, during, and after Nicaea, the Church unanimously accept his baptism of Constantine to be canonically valid whether or not they're New or Old Calendarists for both venerate him as a great saint of Orthodoxy.

I disagree with the many Orthodox who claim a non-Orthodox Baptism is merely an empty shell which is filled with grace only after being Chrismated into the Orthodox Church. Indeed, Orthodox call Emperor Constantine (d.337) as "Saint and Christian", but he only accepted Baptism near his death, and then it was done by a heretical Arian bishop...leading one to understand that "economia" (a phrase Eastern Christians use which means "through God's grace for the good of the whole Church") gave Constantine's Baptism validity and grace.
Daniel Joseph Barton, My Belief in the Immaculate Conception: Part 1.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses travel in pairs?

Mark 6:7 (NWT)
  Now he summoned the twelve, and he initiated sending them out two by two, and he began to give them authority over the unclean spirits.

  Luke 10:1 (NWT)
  After these things the Lord designated seventy others and sent them forth by twos in advance of him into every city and place to which he himself was going to come.

Jesus did this

so we would have someone to work with, and
for consideration for the householder, so a large group of people don't show up at their door among other reasons.


It is not for the Catholic Church to define reason, but to teach how reason contributes or hinders our understanding of God, who is critical for our salvation:

When a philosophy (or science, which is properly below philosophy) devalues reason too much below what the Scripture or Tradition says, the church will re-establish the existence and competence of human reason.  For example, in light of Neural networks and Artificial Intelligence, some scientism position sees human being as nothing more than an animal with an advanced brain that one day can be completely simulated by a machine.
On the other hand, when Nietzsche dares people to "grow up" and make their own ethics and values, the Church will step in and say that reason has overstepped its authority because reason cannot supplant the natural law implanted in human conscience by God Himself.

Philosophy is free to define what reason and rationality is as long as certain aspects of human nature as taught by the Church stay intact.

Therefore Fides et Ratio's main purpose is to guide Catholics in the 20th century on how to make use or guard against modern philosophies in connection with applying the church doctrines in a believer's faith life:

It is a kind of re-establishing the boundary between the church's domain (charged with guarding the proper use of the revelation from God in Scripture and Tradition) and the philosophy's domain (charged with exploring everything that rationality can discover on its own)
It is a guide to reconcile the findings of both domain, because at the end of the day we cannot have parallel but contradictory truths that destroy each other's credibility.  There is only a single rationality and a single revelation to resolve a single matter.  Faith and Rationality must cooperate harmoniously to determine which sphere has the authority and if there is a conflict, which one takes precedence depending on the matter and the discipline.

Please see an excellent commentary on Fides et Ratio by Prof. Alfred J. Freddoso, a Catholic philosophy professor at Notre Dame who teaches courses on St. Thomas Aquinas as well.


Some questions concerning Aramaic in the Old Testament

Daniel Chapter 2 from the second part of verse 4 through the end of Chapter 7 is in written in the Aramaic language and with same script as the Hebrew scriptures. There are several less substantial occurences of Aramaic in the Hebrew scriptures detailed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic. All of the Hebrew scriptures are written with the same script.


Can Christianity be objectively defined?

As already discussed on meta.C.SE here and here, the short answer is probably "no", except to say that one who identifies himself as a Christian is a Christian.

Of course the long answer depends on the perspective of the person answering the question.  It is for this reason we have essentially decided this question is off-topic on this site.

And as an aside, let me add what might be some consolation for anyone who does not like this answer:

  “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
  Matthew 18:15 NIV

In this context, brother or sister means other Believer. Christians have a responsibility to hold all other Christians accountable for their actions.

  Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.
  2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 NIV

As this "this letter" was written to Christians, we can also draw that the context here is other Christians.

Other verses say similar things, about holding other Christians accountable.

What this means is, we, as Christians, have a responsibility to hold all other professing Christians (whether they pass our litmus test or not) accountable for their actions.

Was David Koresh a Christian? I suspect he would not have passed the litmus test of many people on this site. However, the fact that he considered himself a Christian is enough that, if any of us had conversed with him, we could have done so in the context of two Christians.


Is there modern evidence that the Sun stood still?

I had heard about NASA finding a missing day that proved that the earth stood still, however it does not seem to be true. There does not seem to be any evidence other than the Word of God, and I cannot see how there really would be evidence of this.


According to the Catholic Church, do guardian angels graduate?

I don't think angels can be promoted from one order to another within the 9 orders. Simply because they are in that specific order by their very nature. Just like a dog can't be a cat or a Rose can never be Lilly.

Also note that they are helping us to save our souls because God wanted them to do that, not to get "promotion" in their Job. After the end of their duty, the angelic orders will continue to exist, but their offices will not be altogether the same as they now are, for they will then no longer need to help human beings in the process of saving their souls.

  The distinction of grades among the angels ... will ever remain in the angels; for these differences of natures cannot be taken from them unless they themselves be corrupted. The difference of glory will also ever remain in them according to the difference of preceding merit. As to the execution of the angelic offices ... It will cease accordingly as their offices are directed towards leading others to their end; but it will remain, accordingly as it agrees with the attainment of the end.  Summa Theologica 1:108:7

As said above by St. Thomas Aquinas the only purpose of Guardian angel is to save our souls, their function towards us cease to exist after we enter heaven or hell. (Since we are in the process of being cleansed, our angels do continue to pray for us and urge saints and humans to pray for us when we are in purgatory)

Also remember:

Our Guardian Angels are not our servants but our masters.src
In heaven we will have God and so we will lack nothing. He will be our only need and our provider of our need, we will not need an angel's help anymore.