Throughout the Book of Ezekiel, the theme often changes dramatically from chapter to chapter, returning in a later chapter to a previous theme, with some of the symbolism being obscure and some of it extremely offensive to modern readers. However, the earlier chapters are essentially a condemnation of Israel and Judah for worshipping other gods. Then, Ezekiel gradually changes to themes of hope and comfort. The Book of Ezekiel is notable for the careful way in which the author regularly tells us the exact date on which he receives his visions. Thus we know that Ezekiel is prophesying after the destruction of Jerusalem and the first temple.

Chapter 37 is notable for the promise that Israel (Ephraim) and Judah will soon be reunited as one nation upon the land, and never again divided into two kingdoms. David (his descendants) shall be their king (37:24-25). The Jews could hold onto these prophecies in their long period of exile, even if they never came true after the Return from the Exile.

Chapter 38 tells of an apocalyptic invasion of the now united and prosperous land of Israel by the legendary Gog of Magog. When Gog invades Israel, the fury of God shall be aroused against him (38:18). Yet this invasion from the north will be instigated by God himself, so that all the nations will know him (38:14-16). Having led the armies of Gog against Israel, God will then ensure their total defeat, such that it will take all the people of the land seven months to bury their carcasses (39:11-12). This is another prophecy that never came true, but it was probably the kind of heroic epic the Jewish exiles wanted to hear.

The book ends, in chapters 40-48 with the promise of a new Israel, a new Jerusalem and a new temple.  Measurements are carefully taken so that the new temple will be on the same grand scale as the old one. Chapter 43:7:

  "The voice said to me: Son of man, this is where my throne shall be,
  this is where I will set the soles of my feet; here I will dwell among
  the Israelites forever. Never again shall they and their kings profane
  my holy name with their harlotries and with their high places."

Ezekiel's temple was built, just as he prophesied, although perhaps not to his exact plan.


Christianity defines right and wrong through God. It's not whether God does right or wrong, but rather that something is right because God does it, or is in his nature to do.


Did Jesus or any of the New Testament authors ever quote a textual variant?

First, I’d like to give a bit of background on the different OT manuscripts. The OT in English Bibles is almost always based off the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but some use the Septuagint. The KJV uses the Masoretic. There are some discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Masoretic; nineteen times out of twenty, the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Masoretic, so for the purposes of this answer I’ll consider them one and the same. The NT, written in Koine Greek, quotes the Septuagint, which is the same language. The Masoretic text is in Hebrew. Some claim that the Masoretic has been doctored, such as Orthodox churches. Others say that because the Septuagint is a translation itself, it is less reliable.

From your question and comment, I would assume you’re looking for discrepancies between the NT quotations and the Masoretic. Most English Bibles use the Masoretic, with the Septuagint being the textual variant you refer to.

This website provides an exhaustive list of instances where the NT quotes the OT. It gives the passages side-by-side from the NT, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic. Some are virtually identical between the texts; others vary rather significantly. The matter of which differences are significant enough to be considered “textual variants” is a matter of opinion, and as such is not a topic for this site. That’s for you to decide.

Note: “AV” stands for “Authorized Version,” which is the British name for the King James Version. That’s the translation used for the NT and Masoretic texts in the table linked to above.


Ghosts Appearing as Children [Latter-day Saint perspective]

I don't know if there is a definitive answer out there. In the gospel fundamentals manual it says:

We are the spirit children of our Father in Heaven. While we lived with Him in heaven as
spirits, we did not have physical bodies. It was part of His plan for us to be born on this
earth and for our spirits to receive bodies of flesh and bones. Our spirits are what gives
life to our physical bodies while we live on the earth.

Just as to be born was a part of our Father in Heaven’s plan for us, another part of His
plan is for us to die. When we die, our spirits leave our bodies. Without the spirit, the
body has no life and is placed in a grave.

But our spirits lived before our birth, and they will continue to live after death. When we
die, our spirits will go to the spirit world to wait for the resurrection, while the body
remains in the grave.

In the spirit world our spirits will have the same form as when we lived on the earth with
bodies of flesh and bones. We will look as we do here. We will think the same way and
believe the same things as we did here. Those who are righteous in this life will still be
righteous. Those who were unrighteous will still be unrighteous. We will have the same
desires after we die as we had while on this earth.

From the last two paragraphs, we learn that our spirits lived before our birth, and they will continue to live after death. If our spirits grow at the same rate our bodies do or normally would (or vice versa) then a ghost/spirit could appear as a child if a person died as a child (see also Gospel Doctrines pg 453-454 starting about 3/4 down). Normally just spirits do not appear to man, but it does happen (see Doctrines of Salvation Vol 1 'The True Guardian Angel' or DC 129 or Gospel Doctrines pg 436 about 2/3 down)

Evil spirits, those who followed Satan, are here on the earth to deceive man (DC 50:2,31-32). They can appear in many forms. They appeared as an angel to Korihor (Alma 30:53) and it's probably safe to assume they can take other forms.

Side Note

To determine if a spirit is of God or the devil see DC 129


What is the basis for Christian disapproval of creation of artificial life?

There are a couple of issues here to consider; one is the concept of creating a life form artificially, and the other is how it's being done.

Regarding the concept, there may be a wide variety of viewpoints and several arguments that both support and oppose the concept. These include (not an exhaustive list):

Arguments against:

When God created the world, and all living things in it, what he created was perfect. Therefore to add to that perfect creation would be a move away from perfection, and thus wrong.
Creating life is God's job. By taking on this role we are setting ourselves up as gods, which is a direct violation of some of the key directions that God has given us - most famously, "No other gods, only me" from the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3)

Arguments for:

When God created mankind, he gave us all the knowledge and intellect that we have. (The one piece of knowledge he didn't give us, but we took for ourselves, is the knowledge of good and evil). Thus our ability to artificially create simple "life forms" is not inherently a bad thing. You could liken it to developing breeds of cattle or dogs, or cross-fertilizing plants to create new varieties, and argue it's just an extension of that kind of activity.
God gave mankind dominion over all other life on the Earth, and told us to take charge of and be responsible for all living things. Therefore there's nothing immoral about our creating new forms of life from existing forms of life; God has granted us that right (and also told us to use it responsibly).

Speaking personally I know of very few Christians who object to the concept of creating a living thing artificially.

The practice may throw up some other considerations though, especially if the "raw materials" being used come from human embryos. I'm sure you're already aware of most of the arguments about embryo-related research so I won't repeat them here - particularly as the example you cited in the question doesn't go near human embryos, but is inserting a completely synthetic genome into a bacterium. It's worth noting that the critics in that article were "including some religious groups" - there's nothing to suggest that the views those critics expressed represented all, or even a majority, of Christians.

Some further reading that may be of interest:

Christian Apologist Dissects Ethics Behind 'Artificial Life,' Cloning (Christian Post, 2007)
Creating Life in the Lab - a book that specifically addresses the work of Craig Venter. (This link is to a review of that book).
Artificial life: Ready or not, here it comes - a brief article by the author of the above book
Creating artificial life from a Biblical perspective


What would be the consequences for refusing confirmation in the Anglican Church?

Most(?) Anglican churches probably run confirmation classes. If anyone had solid reasons to not want to be confirmed those reasons would arise during the classes, so if they changed their mind right before the confirmation itself then that would be an impulsive decision, so I don't think there's much point looking for any regularities about that.

What about if you express your desire to not be confirmed earlier? Well Anglicanism is very diverse. Some churches will make a big deal out of confirmation, others less of one. Some churches will think of it as a rite that everyone goes through, others will not. Some will pressure the youth into doing it, others will wait for their youth to ask to be confirmed.

As someone who attends an evangelical Anglican church, I think it would actually be a good sign that someone did not want to be confirmed: it is very unhealthy for churches to confirm people who really have no true faith and confidence in God. To say "I shouldn't do this" is a good thing to say. Whether they are having doubts or are a firm atheist, it is much better to not be confirmed than to confirm people who aren't true Christians.

If someone is willing to talk through these issues with the leaders of their church there is unlikely to be any long term consequences. Many dioceses however will not let you do certain things in church services without being confirmed, but if you don't want to be confirmed it's unlikely your church leaders will want you to service lead etc anyway.


If we consider Genesis 5, we'll see the omission of Cain and Abel. It's at 130 years that Adam has a son named Seth. (v. 3) Either information about other offspring has been omitted, or prior to the birth of Seth, there were only Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. Omission of other offspring is possible as this does occur in the Bible. If this is the case, then there were probably other offspring from Adam and Eve, whom Cain would have feared for his life.

In Genesis 4:16, it says Cain settled in the land of Nod. This is wordplay, since "Nod" means "wandering" (נוֹד), which Cain was punished to be a wanderer (נוּד). Whether or not the land of Nod was already a settlement, I don't know. Yet, in v. 17, Cain sleeps with an unnamed woman. The pseudepigrapha, the Book of Jubilees (or Lesser Genesis, an ironic name), Adam and Eve also have a daughter named 'Âwân (אָוֶן; "iniquity"), who ends up being Cain's wife.

  And Cain took 'Âwân his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch
  at the close of the fourth jubilee. (Jubilees 4:10)


Why aren't some words like "Maranatha" or "Talitha Cumi" translated in English Bibles?

There are specific reasons that can be identified in each instance, but the three you mention share one important feature: they are Semitic (i.e. Aramaic or Hebrew) words amid the (otherwise) Greek New Testament. The most basic reason for an English translation to transliterate1  rather than translate these terms, then, is to reproduce what a Greek reader would have seen: a text in a familiar language with a foreign word transliterated into the alphabet of the surrounding text.

To address each of the OP's examples and their particularities:

Maranatha is from 1 Cor 16:22. While there is uncertainty about the precise meaning2, it is clearly an Aramaic phrase pertaining to the return of Christ.

  If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. (KJV)

The disadvantage of such a translation is that it requires a footnote for most English readers to follow. Many modern versions accordingly translate, as the ESV:

  If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!

This loses the "preservation of foreignness feel" mentioned above, but the translators have prioritized clarity of meaning in this case.

In both of OP's other examples, modern translations generally do transliterate, for overlapping reasons:
Mark 5:41

  Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise." (ESV)

Talitha cumi (again an Aramaic phrase transliterated in the Greek text) is the only real option if one wants to preserve a formal translation of the verse, since the author already provides a translation. If it were instead translated, we would have the rather silly rendering:

  Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Little girl, I say to you, arise," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise."

Your final example is the most complicated.3  You have quoted from Matthew 27:46:

  And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (ESV)

As in the prior example, the author provides a Greek translation, so it would be redundant if the transliteration were not preserved. In this case we can additionally identify the author's likely motivation for doing so: in the following verse the bystanders conclude

  'This man is calling Elijah.'

Here the Hebrew "Eli" ("my God", phonetically similar to a diminutive form of the name Elijah) was needed in order for the Greek reader to follow the bystanders' confusion. This applies equally to a reader of an English translation.

Notes:

Transliteration is the process of representing the sounds of one language in the alphabet of another. Since Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek, and Latin/English have three different alphabets, transliteration occurs at every stage in these cases.
The question is around how to divide the Aramaic words, which may either be construed as indicative ("Our Lord has come") or imperative ("Our Lord, come!").
I have outlined some of the difficulties with this cross-linguistic puzzle in a question on Hermeneutics.SE.


As far as we can tell, the old prophet wanted some company for a meal. When he hears the man of God reply that the Lord had told him not to have such a meal, he does not believe and is dismissive, as if saying "sure, sure, I'm a prophet too, and I was told to ask you just now". This was a lie: God did not cause the old prophet to choose to lie in this way, God did not tell him to test the man of God by lying, but surely God knew that this old prophet would lie.

The man of God agrees to go with the old prophet, in direct disobedience to what God had told him. He is then killed by a danger that God had warned him against. He chose to disobey God, which is the very definition of sin. We should mourn him, but remember that he is the one most responsible for his own death.

As for the old prophet, he seems to avoid taking responsibility for the grave scandal he caused (scandal being the bringing of another person into sin). When he hears that the man of God was mauled and killed by the lion, he says:

  “It is the man of God who rebelled against the charge of the LORD. The LORD has delivered him to a lion, which mangled and killed him, according to the word which the LORD had spoken to him.”
  (1 Kings 13:26)

Clearly, being a prophet does not mean that one is without sin. Still, while the old prophet seems to publicly declare his own non-involvement, his actions suggest that he feels very serious remorse over what has happened, for he goes to get and then bury the body, and mourns saying "Alas, my brother!", and then instructs his sons that his own body should be placed in the very same grave as the man of God, who he recognizes as a prophet.


Can a prospective Catholic convert skip the RCIA by self-teaching?

From Code of Canon Law Can.  865 §1., for one to be baptized, one must have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of faith.

  Can.  865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have
  manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed
  sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian
  obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the
  catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for
  personal sins.

This has a basis in Church Tradition and history.

In the early Church those who desired to be baptized and become followers of Jesus engaged in a lengthy period of preparation and instruction.

  In the early Church those who desired to be baptized and become
  followers of Jesus engaged in a lengthy period of preparation and
  instruction. They were called “catechumens” and their process of
  initiation formed them in the ways of discipleship, incorporated them
  into the Christian community and culminated in the sacraments of
  initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist (Holy Communion). In
  recent years the Catholic Church has reclaimed this process now called
  the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, often referred to as the
  RCIA process. Initiation is a journey of conversion that is gradual
  and suited to individual needs. It is a process rather than an
  educational program and this process takes place within the community
  of the faithful, the local Church. - Source: A Look at the Christian Initiation Process | Diocese of Manchester.

The Church through her dioceses establishes a norm called RCIA to achieve this.

A good program in fidelity to the Church and her teaching will by must include the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I am not aware of a program within the Church where a prospective Catholic convert can skip the RCIA by self-teaching the entire corpus of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Since skipping RCIA is not an option, the Sub-questions have not been answered.


Does the Bible ever mention atheism and where?

There is a lot of talk about Godless men, which would be someone that likely doesn't believe in God or fear God (or any gods) -- usually one or the other.

Psalms 14:1 - The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
Psalms 10:4 - The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, "There is no God."
Psalm 36:1 - Transgression speaks to the ungodly within his heart; There is no fear of God before his eyes.

More from this link I found.
Also check this answer.


How is rosary different from chanting Mantra?

According to Merriam-Webster, a mantra is

  a sound, word, or phrase that is repeated by someone who is praying or meditating

So I suppose that one might consider a Hail Mary or the other prayers used in the Rosary as a sort of mantra. Whether one would really want to depends on your view of meditation and meditative prayer.

Merriam-Webster's Concise Encyclopedia entry for mantra states:

  Repetition of a mantra can induce a trancelike state and can lead the participant to a higher level of spiritual awareness.

That's not the Catholic intention when engaged in meditative prayer. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops' document on How to Pray the Rosary states:

  The repetition in the Rosary is meant to lead one into restful and contemplative prayer related to each Mystery. The gentle repetition of the words helps us to enter into the silence of our hearts, where Christ's spirit dwells.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church further adds in paragraph 2723:

  Meditation is a prayerful quest engaging thought, imagination, emotion, and desire. Its goal is to make our own in faith the subject considered, by confronting it with the reality of our own life.

And in paragraph 2705:

  The mind seeks to understand the why and how of the Christian life, in order to adhere and respond to what the Lord is asking.

In other words, this meditative prayer is not intended to lead one into a trance or semi-hypnotic state, though I suppose one could argue that it's intended to produce a "higher level of spiritual awareness". Instead, it's intended to help one focus on a spiritual saying, event, or person, and allow God to show us how we can apply the spiritual meaning contained therein to our own lives.

In a loose sense, then, one could say that the Hail Mary as used in the Rosary is a sort of mantra, but it's not intended to be used for the same purpose that a mantra such as om mani padme om is. There are similarities, and again differences.


Is there a scriptural basis for treating the non-Gospel books of the New Testament as scripture?

Short answer: yes.
Jesus commissioned 12 of his disciples as 'apostles' and gave them authority to teach. If you accept Jesus' words as scripture (as recorded in the gospels), you should accept the words of his apostles as scripture as well, as He said to them:

18 ...“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” - Matthew 28:18-20 NIV (emphasis added)
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” - John 20:21 NIV

Jesus specifically authorized His apostles to teach, and to do that in the authority that He Himself had received from His Heavenly Father. For this reason, the early church placed particular importance on what were judged to be authentic writings of the apostles (as well as their companions who were believed to have acted as scribes for them - e.g. Mark and Luke). The gospels themselves actually fit in this category - the early church trusted that the (canonical) gospels were accurate because of their author's apostolic credentials. For this reason, there is no legitimate basis for separating the gospels into a different category of 'scripture' that does not equally apply to the rest of the New Testament1.

1. In broad terms at least. There were some arguments about the authenticity of individual books that later came to be accepted (or excluded) from the New Testament canon. However these arguments centred around whether they were authentic in regards to their apostolic credentials. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena for further information on these disputes.


Is the song Baba Yetu actually used by African churches?

Maybe, a little bit, apparently(?)...

Based on the only clear evidence I could find, i.e. a couple of online video clips, there are, perhaps, at least two instances of such use of the song in question, one in Kenya and the other in Tanzania, which happen to be the two countries in which Kiswahili (the Swahili language) is most widely spoken.

On YouTube, the video from Kenya comes from the Kahawa Sukari Baptist Church's channel, where it is entitled "Baba Yetu by Peter Hollens" and its description reads, simply: "Kahawa Sukari Baptist Kids singing along to Baba Yetu".

Peter Hollens, an American, is one of the "various YouTube artists" listed as having performed the song according to the Wikipedia article to which your Question is linked. It's unclear what relationship he might have to the church. He has been to Kenya at least once some years before Kahawa Sukari Baptist published their video (Oct 19, 2016) which credits him (presumably because they're singing along to his 2014 track). He offers them a counter-acknowledgement in the Comments section of their video.

It's difficult to tell whether the video represents a regular occurrence at the church or rather is a special performance specifically for the video. The children's dance routine accompanying the music incidentally matches the one in the video from Tanzania, entitled "Baba Yetu - Gospel Choir in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania". The only additional information thereon is that the video is published (Feb 17, 2011) by African Solar Rise, which "is a German-based non-profit organization" connected with the generation of solar energy.

Beyond this it is quite difficult (viz. impossible?) to prove the negative that the song is in fact not used by African churches (an extremely vast scope, even if we narrow it down to only "the Swahili-speaking African church," since that covers no less than six countries, and even up to nine if we include the fringes of Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia to which the spread of the language extends), at least not without some kind of in-depth survey on this particular song in that region's churches.

For whatever it's worth, I lived in the region for some years after the song's release, and interacted with various church circles, but I had never heard of the song before reading this Question. This is probably not saying much, however, since I'm just one person, and the area in question is huge. In one neighbourhood I lived in there were no less than five little churches in a 1-Km radius. For all I know, at least one of them did use this song.


How do Biblical Unitarians understand verses that appear to identify God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit as different beings/entities?

The issue of the Holy Spirit with Biblical Unitarianism is a bit different from Jesus.

"Every use of “the Holy Spirit” and “holy spirit” can either be
explained as being a name for God or the name of the gift of God."
Appendix 6: Usages of "Spirit"

In some cases, then, for Biblical Unitarians, references to the 'holy spirit' are synonyms for 'God'. If it's the latter, though (the 'gift of God'), it is in some sense a different 'entity'.
For a more detailed discussion of this, see "2) The “holy spirit” (lower case “h” and “s”) is the gift of God’s nature" in Appendix 11: What is the Holy Spirit?.
I believe all the verses you reference are dealt with as this second sense - the gift of God's nature which transforms the recipient. For example, as pertains to Luke 3:22,

"Jesus himself needed God’s gift of holy spirit to have supernatural
power, just as the leaders and prophets of the Old Testament did;
which is why God put holy spirit upon Jesus. God put holy spirit upon
Jesus immediately after he was baptized by John the Baptist (Matt.
3:16; Mark 1:9-10; Luke 3:21-22). This fulfilled the Old Testament
prophecies that God would put holy spirit upon the Messiah, enabling
him in his ministry (Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1)." (ibid.)

So the answer is yes, Biblical Unitarians would view the holy spirit as in some cases conceptually distinct from God ('the Father'), but in this sense the holy spirit isn't technically speaking God himself.


What is the significance of Luke 22:44 where Christ's sweat was as great drops of blood in the garden of Gethsemane while he prayed?

Did he literally bleed through his pores as could be interpreted from this verse?

Yes. This condition is called Hematidrosis.

What would cause him to sweat blood during a prayer to his Father?

Hematidrosis may occur when a person is suffering extreme levels of stress; for example, facing his or her own death.

What is the spiritual meaning behind this sweat of blood that came from his body in the Garden of Gethsemane?

The drops of blood that Jesus sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane surely fulfilled "the anguish of His soul" that Isaiah spoke of; that is, Jesus's passion was not merely  physical but also spiritual.
His anguish clearly demonstrated he was human and that his sufferings were real. Two early heresies, Docetism and Sabellianism, denied both.

Was he feeling pain that required an angel to strengthen him in order to bear what he was feeling?

I would not call it pain, I would say intense spiritual agony. Being the Son of God, he knew in detail everything that was about to happen to him. He knew that he was facing physically one of the most horrible forms of capital punishment in history. Since his body was human, he would feel everything at least as intensely as we would.


Is Luther really the originator of "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone"?

Calvin

The first extant writing to contain the phrase is John Calvin's Antidote to the Council of Trent (1547).

First, for context, Calvin was responding to Canon 11 of the sixth session of the Council of Trent (which you can read at the above link):

  Whosoever shall say that men are justified by the mere imputation of Christ's righteousness, or by the mere remission of sins, exclusive of grace and charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and is inherent in them, or also, that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God, let him be anathema.

Calvin replied:

  I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. (Galatians 5:6; Romans 3:22.) It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light.

Lutheran confessions

A similar phrase is found in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord (1577), 3.11, one of the confessional documents of Lutheranism, written by a group of early Lutheran theologians including Martin Chemnitz:

  But after man has been justified by faith, then a true living faith worketh by love, Gal. 5:6, so that thus good works always follow justifying faith, and are surely found with it, if it be true and living; for it never is alone, but always has with it love and hope.

Luther himself

Fred Lybrand, who disagrees with the quote, wrote in his 2009 book Back to Faith (pp. 4-5) that he has been unable to find it in Martin Luther's writings, but he believes that Luther likely said it.

Luther's 1535 commentary on Galatians 5:6 may be of help here, since that's the verse referred to in the above statements by Calvin and the Book of Concord:

  Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, "In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing," i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, "If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing," is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Luther also speaks on this concept in his Third Disputation Concerning Justification, written in 1536, which can be found in volume 34 of Luther's Works. I found the quote in Six Points on Luther's "Epistle of Straw" by James Swan. Catholics said that if sola fide is true, then you could say, "Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17]. Therefore, dead faith justifies." Luther answered:

  The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, "faith" ought to be placed with the word "justifies" and the portion of the sentence "without works justifies" is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word "justifies," not to "faith." In the minor premise, "without works" is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. "Without works" is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.

According to Roland Bainton's biography of Luther, Here I Stand, Luther wrote at one time:

  Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.

Bainton's citation for this purported Luther quote is simply VIII, 361. I do not know what this refers to, so if anyone could comment below and let me know where it comes from, it would be much appreciated.

Regardless of the source of that last quote, there's a wealth of other similar Luther quotes. See footnotes 101 and 103 on page 246 of The Theology of Martin Luther by Paul Althaus for a few more examples.

Conclusion

So in summary, we have no record of Luther saying it, but the idea is present in his writings, and his followers used a variation of the phrase. The earliest recorded use of the phrase itself is by Calvin.


Overview of countries using the Gregorian calendar vs the Julian calendar for calculating Easter?

Do any countries officially use the Julian Calendar for fixing the date of Easter?

The Ukraine (at the moment of answering this question) uses the Gregorian Calendar for its' international affairs. However, it officially celebrates Easter according to the Julian Calendar. How long this will last is anyones guess. The same is true for its' celebration of Christmas.

  Ukrainian MPs drafted a law that proposes to celebrate Christmas in Ukraine as a national holiday both 25 December (Gregorian calendar) and 7 January (Julian calendar). They believe that their initiative will not only take into account the religious need of many Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians, but also will unite the Ukrainian society.

  The draft proposes to amend Article 73 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, adding 25 December (Christmas) to the list of holidays. Seventh of January is already in the list. This means that Ukrainian will celebrate Christmas and 25 December and 7 January.

  MPs argue that according to statistics from the Ministry of Culture, in addition to about 23,172 Orthodox, Greek Catholic and some other Christian communities that celebrate Christmas on January 7 (according to the Julian calendar), today in Ukraine there are about 11,000 Catholic and Protestant communities (about 30 % of all religious organizations in Ukraine) that celebrate Christmas on December 25 (according to the Gregorian calendar). - Christmas According to Gregorian Calendar may become a national Feast in Ukraine

Traditionally, the Byzantine Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches use the Julian Calendar to calculate their feast days, including Easter. The Orthodox Easter is a legal holiday in the Ukraine.

Counties that that celebrate the Orthodox Easter as a holiday are as follows:

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Georgia
Greece
Macedonia
Moldova
Montenegro
Romania
Serbia
Ukraine

The Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrea Orthodox Churches use the Alexandrian Calendar for their liturgy.

  The Coptic calendar, also called the Alexandrian calendar, is a liturgical calendar used by the Coptic Orthodox Church and still used in Egypt. This calendar is based on the ancient Egyptian calendar. To avoid the calendar creep of the latter, a reform of the ancient Egyptian calendar was introduced at the time of Ptolemy III (Decree of Canopus, in 238 BC) which consisted of the intercalation of a sixth epagomenal day every fourth year. However, this reform was opposed by the Egyptian priests, and the idea was not adopted until 25 BC, when the Roman Emperor Augustus formally reformed the calendar of Egypt, keeping it forever synchronized with the newly introduced Julian calendar. To distinguish it from the Ancient Egyptian calendar, which remained in use by some astronomers until medieval times, this reformed calendar is known as the Coptic calendar. Its years and months coincide with those of the Ethiopian calendar but have different numbers and names. - Coptic calendar (Wikipedia)

The Coptic Liturgical Calendar celebrates Christmas and Easter on the same dates as the rest of the Orthodox Churches and countries using the Julian Calendar for religious reasons.


Why pray to Jesus and not to the Father? (Catholic perspective)

Why pray to Jesus and not to the Father?

According to the Catholic Church there is nothing stopping the faithful from having a devotion to God the Father or simply to the Father. After all the Our Father also known as the Lord's Prayer is prayed at every Catholic Mass and is recited in our rosaries. How many of our prayers within the sacred liturgy are addressed to the Father?

Is it possible that the Church will institute a Feast in honor of the Father some day? Anything is possible.

The Church has many devotions and feasts in honor of different aspects of Christ's sacred humanity and the Holy Trinity.

  Devotions to the Holy Trinity

  Feast of the Holy Trinity is a devotional day celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost and honors the three Persons of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[16] The Novena to the Holy Trinity may include the Glory Be prayer, as well as other prayers, although the other prayers may vary.

  Devotions to Jesus

  Several widespread devotions in the Catholic tradition relate directly to Jesus Christ. Official Catholic teachings consider Eucharistic adoration an important practice which "stimulates the faithful to an awareness of the marvelous presence of Christ and is an invitation to spiritual communion with Him." In many cases Eucharistic adoration is performed by each person for an uninterrupted hour known as the Holy Hour.The inspiration for the Holy Hour is Matthew 26:40 when in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before his crucifixion, Jesus asks Peter: "So, could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?".

  Some devotions have the form of Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ for the sufferings and insults that Jesus endured during His Passion or for the sin of blasphemy, e.g. the Golden Arrow Prayer. Devotions involving the Sacred Heart of Jesus first appeared in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but most current devotions are attributed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647–1690).

  In the Roman Catholic tradition, the Sacred Heart has been closely associated with Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ.

  The devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus dates back to Sister Marie of St. Peter in 1843 who reported visions of Jesus and Mary in which she was urged to spread the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, in reparation for the many insults Jesus suffered in His Passion. This resulted in The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion (Prayer). The Devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus was first approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885.Sister Maria Pierina de Micheli further promoted the devotion based on the image from Secondo Pia's photograph of the Shroud of Turin.In 1958, Pope Pius XII approved of the devotion and the Holy Face medal and confirmed the Feast of the Holy Face of Jesus as Shrove Tuesday (the Tuesday before Ash Wednesday) for all Roman Catholics.

  Other devotions include the Divine Mercy based on the visions of Saint Faustina Kowalska, known as the "Apostle of Mercy", and First Friday devotions which are related to devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Chaplet of the Five Wounds. - Catholic devotions

One of the main reasons why the Church does not have a stronger devotion and prayer to the Father is that a Feast has not yet been instituted in honor of the Father for one reason or another.

  The absence of a feast dedicated to the Father in the liturgical calendar bears witness to the fact that the worship of the Father still hasn’t reached its full development. During the year there are feasts dedicated to Christ in memory of numerous events of the work of salvation, the feast of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the feast of the Holy Trinity, the feasts dedicated to Our Lady and those dedicated to numerous saints. However, there is no particular feast dedicated to the Father.

  In the past there were attempts to introduce a feast of the Father. In the XVII century, for example, in 1684 the king of Spain Charles II started a petition in Rome in order to obtain, at least for Spain or for the whole Church, the institution of a special feast dedicated to the Father. - The new worship of the Father by by P. Jean Galot SJ

It is interesting to note what Fr. Raniero CANTALAMESSA OFM,Cap has to say about the possibility of this devotion considering is the Papal Preacher for the Apostolic Household at the Vatican.

  It’s sad that in the whole liturgical year there isn’t a feast dedicated to the Father, that in the whole Missal there isn’t even a votive Mass in His honour. Come to think of it, it’s very strange; there are many feasts dedicated to Jesus the Son; there is a feast of the Holy Spirit; there are many feasts dedicated to Mary… There isn’t a single feast dedicated to the Father, “source and origin of all divinity”. We could almost say that the Father, and no longer the Holy Spirit, is “the unknown divinity”.

  It’s true, there is the feast of the Holy Trinity, which, however, is the feast of a mystery, or a dogma and not of a person and, nevertheless, not of a single divine person. Besides, the fact that there is a feast of the Holy Family doesn’t mean the Church may not feel the need to celebrate,
  even individually, the three persons of the Holy Family. There are even two feasts dedicated to Jesus’ putative father, but there isn’t a single feast dedicated to His real Father. Couldn’t this be the moment to fill this gap?

  Many feasts originated in order to answer the particular needs of an era: the feast of Corpus Domini, for example, was born as a response of faith to the denial of the real presence, made by Berengario of Tours; to the threat of Jansenism, the Church responded with the feast and devotion to the Sacred Heart and no one will ever know how many spiritual graces this devotion produced. Today, the threat strikes the very heart of the Christian faith which is the revelation of God as Father – the “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, as St. Paul calls Him – and, therefore, the Trinity itself. It’s not a coincidence that Providence is bringing back to mind, in our days, the mystery of God’s suffering, but because the Holy Spirit knows that this is the remedy needed to
  heal the contaminated mind of modern man, who has found, in suffering, the stumbling stone which leads him far away from God.

  While we look forward to this day, we can already celebrate the feast of the Father “in spirit and in truth”, in the intimacy of our hearts, by perhaps promoting little spiritual initiatives whose purpose is to make the Father known more, to honour Him and express all our filial love for
  Him, in union with Jesus, who always celebrates His Father… In fact, this is already taking place and many people are experiencing the new and extraordinary fervour it gives to faith and to our whole spiritual life. - A Feast for the Father

Praying to the Father has always been permitted within the Catholic Church, although the devotion to the Father is not yet at an official liturgical celebration. A Liturgical feast in honor of God the Father is a possibility in the future as is seen here.


What is the Adventist response to Justin Martyr?

While I don't believe that there is a standard response from the Adventist church on this.  One scholar has proposed that the appendix in which this statement was written, was a forgery, and added after the death of Martyr.

You can refer to the article here.

Adventist would argue that regardless of the contradiction that Sabbath is a biblical concept that has no scriptural evidence that it has been changed to Sunday.


What compelled John Wesley to take up the cause of Abolitionism?

You ask what compelled Wesley to take on slavery and become one of the early adopters of abolition.  I found a somewhat lengthy and wordy paper on this subject and have extracted a few paragraphs that may be helpful:  https://brycchancarey.com/Carey_BJRL_2003.pdf

2/16: Wesley's life coincided with the height of the British transatlantic slave trade. Britain had been a minor participant in the trade since the late sixteenth century. In 1660, Charles II had given the trade systematic government support and British involvement grew at a sharp rate over the following years. With the treaty of Utrecht of 1713, the event which concluded the War of the Spanish Succession Britain won the right to supply the lucrative markets of Spanish America with slaves. From that point onwards, Britain was by far the most significant participant in the international slave trade, responsible for transporting thousands of abducted Africans across the Atlantic every year, both to Spanish America and to British colonies in the Caribbean and North America. From the start, there had been those who opposed slavery and the slave trade, but their voices were rarely heard until late in the eighteenth century. In the decade following American independence, a public pressure campaign to outlaw the slave trade to the remaining British colonies attracted widespread support from the British public, who made their views known through local meetings, a mass petitioning campaign and a consumer boycott. Hundreds of publications opposing both slavery and the slave trade were printed and distributed between 1785 and 1795. The campaign was not immediately successful but, following a ten-year lull, the British slave trade was abolished by law in 1807. After another vigorous campaign in the 1820s and 1830s, the abolition of slavery in British colonies followed, with the emancipation of slaves taking place by 1838.

4/16: Wesley and the Abolition Movement: Although Wesley claimed to have been opposed to slavery from the first time he heard of it, we have no way of knowing if this is true. Neither can we know with certainty when he first heard of slavery. He might have come into contact with slaves in England. In the early eighteenth century, it was fashionable for aristocratic women to employ black pageboys, and young liveried slaves were not an uncommon sight. Slaves were also brought to England by visiting colonists and by officers in both the Royal Navy and the merchant marine. However, if Wesley had encountered slaves such as these, he does not mention it in his letters or Journals. Without doubt, he did come into contact with slaves during his period in North America (1736-37).

13/16: Extract from Wesley’s Journal, August 12, 1772: “Wed. 12. - In returning I read a very different book, published by an honest Quaker, on that execrable sum of all villainies, commonly called the Slave-trade. I read of nothing like it in the heathen world, whether ancient or modern; and it infinitely exceeds, in every instance of barbarity, whatever Christian slaves suffer in Mahometan countries.”  William Wilberforce too, an evangelical rather than a Methodist, made it a constant theme in his writings and speeches, and even went as far as to write a book called A practical view of the prevailing religious system of professed Christians in the higher and middle classes of this country contrasted with real Christianity, which appeared in 1797.

16/16: In Thoughts upon slavery: Sharp and Benezet's work was legalistic, rational, primitivist and pious, but it was seldom sentimental... Wesley's arguments against slavery were not often original, but his major innovation was to introduce a sustained and concentrated sentimental rhetoric into the antislavery debate. Most of the many campaigners against slavery in the coming decades would, wittingly or otherwise, follow his example.

You also ask how significant was Wesley’s preaching in the context of the abolitionist movement.  Brothers John and Charles Wesley had a huge impact on Christian revival in Britain, especially in the north of England.  They constantly travelled from the east to the west coast preaching and establishing new churches wherever they went.  Given the vast number of sermons delivered by John Wesley, it would be difficult to pin down the significance and the influence his sermons on slavery had.  Unfortunately, I have to sign off for tonight but I hope to return to this question tomorrow.  I will try to find a suitable link/article about his sermons on slavery. To be continued...
John Wesley was ordained as a deacon in 1725 and as a priest in 1728.  During the early years of his ministry many of his sermons were unpublished.  However, his preaching had a huge impact.  Here are a few extracts from an article about him:

What kind of a preacher was John Wesley? To understand the impact of his preaching we must first appreciate his commitment to the task. He travelled some 225,000 miles throughout Britain and Ireland on horseback. At a conservative estimate he preached more than 4,000 sermons, some to congregations in excess of 20,000. He would regularly preach four or five times a day. His sermon register from January 1747 to December 1761 reveals that during this period he preached 7,000 sermons on 1,354 texts. He would regularly preach at five in the morning. Indeed, he laid great store by it, seeing it as 'the glory of the Methodists'.

John Wesley preached what he knew a particular congregation needed to hear. Thus, whilst some sermons had as their aim the winning of souls for Christ, others were directed at those who were already believers and concentrated on incentives to holy living. His conviction that all life belonged to God meant that no subject was beyond the scope of his preaching; and he was not averse to speaking about the use of money, the use of leisure, national sins and miseries as well as the doctrines at the heart of the Christian faith. But the decision about what subject to preach to which congregation was determined solely by the spiritual condition of his hearers.
https://www.methodistevangelicals.org.uk/Articles/523424/John_Wesley_Preacher.aspx

In 1739 John Wesley took up George Whitfield’s invitation to take over the work he had begun in Bristol and started to preach out in the open air.  It has been calculated that of the 500 sermons delivered between April and December 1739, only eight were in churches.  In this way, Wesley was able to communicate with a much larger audience.  The article in the link above says nothing about sermons on slavery, although he undoubtedly delivered sermons on this topic, especially given his association with George Whitfield and Bristol, a port infamous for its participation in the slave trade.
I regret to say I have been unable to find any of Wesley’s published sermons that deal with slavery and the abolition movement.  I found an article on the 44 sermons contained in ‘Sermons on Several Occasions’ (published in four volumes between 1746 and 1760) but it does not mention slavery: https://www.wesley.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/10-wesley.pdf
Nonetheless, it is clear that John Wesley reached thousands of ordinary people as well as some of the great political “movers and shakers” in his day.  As the above article concludes “The heart of the matter lies not in what Wesley did, but what God did through him.”
With regard to William Wilberforce (1759-1833), who was an English politician and Member of Parliament, he was a key figure in ending the abominable slave trade that flourished at that time. His campaign was eventually successful, and he is lauded today for his courage and commitment to Christian principles.  He became a Christian in 1785 and was himself influenced by other Christians:

In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807...  His campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire. Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

Wilberforce was also influenced by other abolitionists such as John Newton (1725-1807) and George Whitfield (1714-1770):

John Newton (1725—1807) was a Christian, abolitionist, and hymn writer best known for his song “Amazing Grace.” John Newton’s work for the abolition of slavery in England, propelled by his faith, greatly influenced others, including Parliament member William Wilberforce. Wilberforce worked tirelessly to end slavery in the British Empire, and in 1787 Newton wrote Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade to aid Wilberforce’s cause. John Newton lived to see the passing of the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which made slave trading illegal. Slavery was finally abolished in most parts of the empire in 1833. https://www.gotquestions.org/John-Newton.html

George Whitfield (1714–1770) was converted to Christ while a student at Oxford University. There he became friends with John and Charles Wesley.  [Whitfield] made seven trips to the American Colonies and influenced a young William Wilberforce.  https://www.gotquestions.org/George-Whitefield.html


What happens when a Protestant doesn't tithe?

No Protestant churches that I know of ever require members to submit proof that they are tithing (though there certainly may be some).  Tithing is generally considered to be something that the members ought to do, but is between them and God.

This may flow out of the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  Each person is directly accountable to God for his life and actions.

In 2 Corinthians 9:7 (as David Morton mentioned in his answer), the Scriptures teach us how to give:

  Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver  2 Corinthians 9:7

A key part of this is the phrase not reluctantly or under compulsion.  If someone is put under compulsion to give, but his heart is not in it, his giving is not considered to be a righteous act or a good deed in God's eyes.


Why Does Herod Say He Had Beheaded John the Baptist When He Knows He's in Prison? (Mark 6)

Look at the phraseology of Verse 17 :" For Herod had sent and seized John.." . In terms of English grammar, 'had sent' implies Past Perfect Tense which is used to indicate an action that is already complete at the time of the main  action which is spoken of. Here, the main action spoken of is Herod wondering whether John the Baptist had come back to life.  So, there is no duality of expression here.


How long did it take to form the Biblical canon?

Much of when the Old Testament was written is purely conjecture, but many modern scholars believe that it was written some time in the period when the Persians captured Babylon in 538 BC. Others believe Moses authored the Pentateuch, which is Genesis - Deuteronomy, which would mean that these books were authored some time around 1300 - 1500 BC.

There is also some conjecture that Job is the earliest written account in the Bible, and would predate Moses' writings, although those who hold this theory do not believe that the actual writing of the Book of Job predates the writing of the Pentateuch by much, even though they believe that the actual account of Job happened long before, and many believe Job lived before the flood.

The last book of the New Testament is believed to have been Revelations, written in approximately 68 AD, but yet others believe that this book was written around 95 AD.

We don't know exactly when the books of the Bible were written, but we can, through cross-referencing external sources, determine when the historical figures in the Bible lived. Either way, the common consensus is that the writing of the books of the Bible began some time after 1500 BC, and concluded prior to 100 AD. This would be a period of about 1600 years.

The first known "canonization" of the Scripture was proposed by Marcion of Sinope around 140 AD. Since then there have been multiple canons of Scripture proposed, with different ones accepted by various groups, containing anywhere from 66-81 books. Currently, the typical Protestant Bible is a 66 book canon, from the 4th century synod which listed 39 books of the Old Testament. The typical Catholic Bible has 73 or 74 books, from the 4th century synod which listed 46 books of the Old Testament (5 books were merged into other books in this list, making a total of 51 books), and some Catholic Bibles also contain 2 Esdras. Both the Protestant and the Catholic New Testaments are the same 27 books.

This information is compiled from a huge variety of sources, including many different pages from Wikipedia, BibleResources.org, ichthys.com, etc.


What is the Biblical basis for baby dedications?

The most usual passage cited is:

1 Samuel 1:11 (HCSB)
11 Making a vow, she pleaded, “LORD of Hosts, if You will take notice of Your servant’s affliction, remember and not forget me, and give Your servant a son, I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and his hair will never be cut.”
1 Samuel 1:23-28 (HCSB)
23 Her husband Elkanah replied, “Do what you think is best, and stay here until you’ve weaned him. May the LORD confirm your word.” So Hannah stayed there and nursed her son until she weaned him. 24 When she had weaned him, she took him with her to Shiloh, as well as a three-year-old bull, half a bushel of flour, and a jar of wine. Though the boy was still young, she took him to the LORD’s house at Shiloh. 25 Then they slaughtered the bull and brought the boy to Eli.
26 “Please, my lord,” she said, “as sure as you live, my lord, I am the woman who stood here beside you praying to the LORD. 27 I prayed for this boy, and since the LORD gave me what I asked Him for, 28 I now give the boy to the LORD. For as long as he lives, he is given to the LORD.” Then he bowed in worship to the LORD there.

Personally, I don't know of anyone who dedicates their child to the LORD as completely as Hannah did.  Another commonly referenced passage is Luke 2 when Jesus is brought to the temple.  Again, the form of the dedication is not followed since it was following the Jewish circumcision ritual and the command about the firstborn:

Exodus 13:2 (HCSB)
2 “Consecrate every firstborn male to Me, the firstborn from every womb among the Israelites, both man and domestic animal; it is Mine.”

Another example that seems more applicable is:

Mark 10:13-16 (HCSB)
13 Some people were bringing little children to Him so He might touch them, but His disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw it, He was indignant and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me. Don’t stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I assure you: Whoever does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 After taking them in His arms, He laid His hands on them and blessed them.

By implication, even infants are part of the kingdom of God if their parents bring them before Jesus.

Historically, the purpose of the dedication is to replace some of the rituals and ceremonies of baptism when Protestants began to reject the notion of baptizing infants.  In the Evangelical Covenant Church, newborns are either baptized or dedicated depending on the preference and conviction of the parents.  (PDF source) The only substantive difference is that water and the names of the Trinity are required for baptism.  Everything else proceeds on the same lines either way.  (I remember one pastor getting to the bit in the liturgy when the baptism might occur and asking the parent, "So we aren't baptizing [name of child here] today, are we?  Just making sure.  I think we can find some water.")
Dedication turns out to be more about the relationship between the child, the parents, and the church than between the child and God.  The parents dedicate themselves to raising a Godly child and the church congregation dedicates itself to assisting the parents in that endeavor.
Summary
There is no specific command to dedicate children in the Bible.  However, Jesus does say that children are part of His kingdom and so many churches have instituted public ceremonies to introduce newborn into the body of believers.


Did Satan unwittingly create his eternal punishment by instigating the fall of man?

The Bible is only a partial map of God's whole creation (universe) in that The Bible provides us with very little information about other worlds/realms and other creations and occasionally shows us that other creations are able to move into this world but not vice versa. Yet The Bible is sufficient for us and this world. So at best we can only speculate/debate on the other things. In this case The Bible's narrative gives us some hints that Satan already knew about the tree because Satan's first words to Eve reveals that. So more likely Satan and his cronies may have taken the fruits of the Tree in another realm and moreover also from the Tree of Life and thus injected evil into themselves but at the same time negated the side effect of the fruits (death) and achieved immortality. So having lost God's trust in their realm the next thing Satan and his cronies would want to do is to gain allies and numbers. Thus the generous advice to Eve. Here, an important thing is that the sly Satan never told Eve to also take the fruits of the Tree of Life. Once the fruits were taken, the cascading/butterfly effect started including the arrival of sin and death and the domino effect continues to this day till the end days.

God is omniscient in that God can surely preview everything and every possibility to its end, infinitely more than a programmer who created a program and claims to know its every logic, or a chess master who begins a new game and tries to model all possible moves and endings. God already saw the future and gives us a view of it in Revelation. The thing is that because God already knew it, God also gave the warning beforehand in Eden, then gave us the commandments generations later, and finally God gave us Jesus Christ and the Revelation. It was up to Adam and Eve to not take the fruits, and it is up to us to accept Jesus Christ, but then God already knows who will and who won't, but then again we don't know. The decisions/actions we take are ours because we have the freedom, but God already knows our actions/decisions but God didn't/doesn't make them. God already knows the endgame but the moves we make are ours and ours alone, and it's up to us to be held accountable (judgement) for our moves or instead move in sync with Jesus Christ and escape the accountability, but then God already knows who will and who won't. God 'knows' doesn't mean God 'wills' it, 'knowing' and 'willing' are entirely different. So Satan's actions/decisions are Satan's and Satan's alone though God may have already previewed it.

PS: I understand this to be a general category, so please forgive me if my way of answering is wrong.


The degrees of efficacy in the Eucharistic Celebration

The sacrament in itself is sufficient for giving grace, but the dispositions of the recipient can hinder the action of the sacramental grace.
Discussing whether one can receive the Eucharist daily, St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica III q. 80 a. 10 co.):

There are two things to be considered regarding the use of this sacrament.

The first is on the part of the sacrament itself, the virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it is profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits daily. Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is shed, it is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should receive it often: I need a frequent remedy."

The second thing to be considered is on the part of the recipient, who is required to approach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion. Consequently, if anyone finds that he has these dispositions every day, he will do well to receive it daily. Hence, Augustine after saying, "Receive daily, that it may profit thee daily," adds: "So live, as to deserve to receive it daily." But because many persons are lacking in this devotion, on account of the many drawbacks both spiritual and corporal from which they suffer, it is not expedient for all to approach this sacrament every day; but they should do so as often as they find themselves properly disposed. Hence it is said in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I neither praise nor blame daily reception of the Eucharist."

The "woman [who] regards the Eucharist as merely a symbolic act" of your second scenario disbelieves in transubstantiation and is thus a heretic; she thus receives "unworthily, [and] shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).


Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall?

Young Earth Creationism is not often extended to such considerations.

One might assume that since a knowledge of good and evil was obtained after the infraction, the concept of morality was by definition more limited before the more extensive knowledge was acquired.

They did know morality in a more limited sense of knowing that they were not to eat the fruit of the tree.

  Genesis 3:2-3  And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the
  fruit of the trees of the garden:   But of the fruit of the tree which
  is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it,
  neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


What traditions include "dearly departed" Christians as participants in communion?

Catholic's believe that each time Mass is celebrated it is done with the entire Communion of Saints. it would just be ones imagination at work seeing dead relatives at Communion, but in effect I think that is what Catholics believe.

To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.
CCC 1370

and one of the names for the Eucharist (Communion) comes from the "Communion of Saints"

Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body. We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta) - the first meaning of the phrase "communion of saints" in the Apostles' Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality, viaticum.
CCC 1331

So that takes care of the Church Triumphant, but the Church Suffering (the Holy Souls in Purgatory) can also be remembered and had the Sacrifice of Mass offered for their salvation

The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who "have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified," so that they may be able to enter into the light and peace of Christ:
CCC 1371

I believe Orthodox Christians believe the same thing since this is not a point of contention between the churches.


The standard book for catechesis before Vatican II in the United States was the Baltimore Catechism. It existed in several versions, some intended for younger children, some for older ones. The most complete version, intended for the teachers rather than the students, was a good reference for traditional Catholic doctrine in general.  (I'm not sure whether it underwent modifications in the wake of Vatican II.)

I don't know how old your CCD kids are, but if you want to teach them some Latin prayers, I'd suggest starting with the most basic ones.

The sign of the cross: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spriritus Sancti.

The Our Father: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum.  Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra.  Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.  Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.  Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo.

The Hail Mary: Ave Maria, gratia plena.  Dominus tecum.  Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui Jesu.  Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.

The Glory Be: Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto, sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum.


Dispensationalism basically suggests that at different ages (eras or dispensations) in human history, God has interacted with people in different ways, through various covenants:

Edenic (innocence)

Antedeluvian(consciousness - people did what they wanted)

Civil Government(After the flood, the rainbow covenant was for all people)

Patriarchic (Abraham and the particular family He called)

Mosaic Law (God makes a nation and puts his presence there)

The Church Era (The Holy Spirit dwells in His people)

Millenium/eternity. (Rest)

Note that there are seven dispensations. A perfect week, and the last dispensation corresponds with Rest. In each of the dispensation, God institutes different systems of relating to His people. He walks in the garden with Adam, He makes a covenant with all of creation, then one man, then a nation. He then establishes a throne, then a new covenant in Jesus. Today, we interact with the Holy Spirit in a way that other men and women of God did not before Pentacost. Soon we will see Him face to face.

Controversy around dispensationalism usually happens when dispensationalist take the different covenants and institutions of God and say that for each era, the people in that era are saved through the system of that era. For example, a follower of God during the Mosaic covenant is saved through the law. However, Paul reminds us in Galations 3 that even Abraham was saved through faith. All of God's people are saved through faith in Him, always through His Son.


The Jehovah's Witness perspective concerning the Four Horsemen

In the Watchtower Society’s 1988 reference book, “Insight on the Scriptures” Vol. I, it says this on page 1146:

  “In the apostle John’s symbolic vision, the glorified Jesus Christ is
  depicted as riding a white horse and as being accompanied by an army,
  all of whose members are seated on white horses. This vision was
  revealed to John as representing the righteousness and justice of the
  war that Christ will wage against all enemies on behalf of his God and
  Father, Jehovah. (Re 19:11, 14) Earlier, Christ’s taking kingly action
  and the calamities that follow are represented by different horsemen
  and their mounts. – Re 6:2-8.”

To get more details on the Revelation 6:2-8 verses which are specifically asked about in this question, I found this explanation in the Watchtower Society’s  1969 book, “Then is Finished the Mystery of God”, page 40:

  “In this preliminary vision the rider on the white horse differs in
  appearance from the rider of the white horse described in Revelation
  19:11-16, where this same rider is pictured as having ‘many diadems’
  on his head and as having protruding out of his mouth a sharp long
  sword with which to smite the nations of earth, to pronounce the
  execution of divine judgement upon them. However, in this latter
  vision the rider of the white horse is riding to the ‘war of the great
  day of God the Almighty’ at the place that is called in Hebrew
  Har-Magedon… But when the rider on the white horse appears with his
  bow after the opening of the first seal of the scroll it is at the
  beginning of that ‘time of the end.’ That is when the seven Gentile
  Times have ended, and hence it was the early autumn of the year 1914
  C.E…”

This indicates that the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the first rider of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to be Jesus Christ from the year 1914 and onwards, and that they also interpret the rider of the white horse in chapter 19 verses 11 and 14 to be Jesus Christ, but that ride is still future as they say the battle of Armageddon has not yet begun.
On page 44 the author of that 1969 book goes on to confidently state that,

  “Worthy ones of this generation of mankind will see the crowned Rider
  of the white horse complete his conquest with the help of Jehovah God
  the Almighty.”

However, given that a generation is about 36 years or so, that generation has NOT seen the completion of Christ’s ride. He then admitted to previous interpretations not being too precise either:

  “In July [of 1917] the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society published the
  book known as the seventh volume of the ‘Studies in the Scriptures’.
  (See the issue of August 1, 1917, of ‘The Watch Tower and Herald of
  Christ’s Presence’, page 226, column 2.) This book contained a
  commentary on the entire Book of The Revelation, and attempted to
  explain, but too soon, Revelation 6:1, 2. However, thirteen years
  later, or on August 11 of 1930 the Watch Tower Society released at its
  Brooklyn headquarters the two volumes of the book entitled ‘Light.’
  Ah, at last this set forth the explanation of Revelation 6:1, 2 that
  was based on events since the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, which
  events fulfilled the thrilling Bible prophecies.”

After saying the year 1914 was only identified in 1930, with hindsight, as the time Jesus began to ride forth as per Revelation 6:2, the ‘Then is Finished the Mystery of God’ book goes on to give its interpretation of the three other horsemen, from pages 46 to 76. Here are just brief quotes to summarise Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs about them:

  “The horse that John now saw come forth was ‘fiery-colored,’
  flame-colored, red like blood. Its color suggested blood! Very
  appropriately so, because it fitted in with the mission on which the
  horse’s rider rode, namely, ‘so that they should slaughter one
  another.’ Besides this, since it was granted to the rider ‘to take
  peace away from the earth,’ what could this mean but war, bloody war?
  So, then, when the Gentile Times ended in 1914 and the Rider on the
  white horse did ride forth, was this event marked by bloody war? Yes.
  World war, the first world war of human history!” Page 50 “The crowned
  rider of the white horse took no part in World War I, which was
  started by the second horseman armed with the ‘great sword’.” Pages
  51-52

  “The horseman that John now saw was on a black horse... represents
  famine, food shortages… After the outbreak of World War I and the
  ending of the Gentile Times in 1914, this is exactly what happened.”
  Pages 52 & 54

  “A fourth figurative horseman dashes onto the scene of world affairs.
  His horse is yellowish pale, livid, sickly-looking in color. What a
  good match its color was to the name of its rider, whose name is
  Death! …This is premature death… the symbolic rider Death was
  accompanied by Hades… Those brought down to Hades by the fourth
  horseman Death were to be many… something that would be an added proof
  of the fact that the first horseman, Jesus Christ, had been crowned
  and had begun to ride victoriously since the close of the Gentile
  Times in 1914 C.E.”

and then refers to the Spanish influenza of 1918-19 which killed some 20 million victims. Pages 56 to 59.

The key point in the Jehovah’s Witness interpretation of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse is the date October 1914, upon which all of their interpretation depends.  If they are wrong about that, they are wrong about all else. So far, they are sticking to their doctrine about October 1914, but if that is dropped at any time, then they will have to reinterpret their claims about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.


Why aren't the books of the Bible in chronological order?

Chronology is certainly one really good way to organize the books of the Bible, and some people may prefer this.  There certainly are editions of the Bible in chronological order that are available.  It should be noted that the order of the books of the Bible is not inspired, so you are really free to organize them however you want.

One of the problems with chronology, though, is the overlapping of some accounts. The book of Acts covers quite a bit of history, so the epistles occur throughout it.  Furthermore, there are some books that are not historical in nature, like the Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.  Sure, they were written mostly by David and Solomon, but there really isn't a lot of reason to place them in between chapters of 1 and 2 Kings.

That being said, there is a common order that does have a purpose.  This historical narratives in the Old Testament are pretty much in chronological order.  The prophets span several kings and are not written historical narrative but has prophetic utterances in history.

One of my favorite representations is found in the Periodic Table of the Bible

The divisions highlighted here are as follows:

Pentateuch (Moses)
History Narrative (chronological, for the most part, with some overlapping)
Wisdom Literature
Major Prophets
Minor Prophets
Gospels (generally chronological, but each overlaps the others)
History (Acts) - chronological
Letters to Churches, named for cities
Letters to Individuals, named for recipient
Letters by People, named for authors
Prophecy

So, again, order them however you want for your personal reading.  If you don't like the common order, that's totally fine.  I remember an old mentor of mine reading through the Psalms backwards, which was an interesting idea.


Does the Holy Spirit indwell the Christian, and if so, how?

Generally, Christians hold that the Holy Spirit dwells within the heart of man; man being body, soul and spirit.  This indwelling is not physical but spiritual.
The heart consists of soul and spirit.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The sending of the Holy Spirit was foretold within the Old Testament.

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

True circumcision is of the heart.

Romans2:28,29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Our personal economy, our value system is established within the heart and our actions are derived within the heart.

Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things

The “hidden man of the heart” is Jesus Christ born of the Holy Spirit, which resides within the heart of man.

1 Peter 3:4 But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Galatians4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.


How can I understand the rise of the Egyptians as a race in the Old Testament?

From a Biblical perspective, the Egyptians would have descended from Noah, but not from Abraham.  Genesis 10 is considered the "Table of Nations" in the Bible as it details how the sons of Noah began to populate the earth.

The tower of Babel in Genesis 11 is also a very significant event.  God had commanded Noah (like He had Adam) to fill the earth.  The Tower of Babel was a direct act of disobedience by the people to not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.  God confused the language there in order to force mankind to obey Him and spread out across the whole earth.  The Egyptians were some of these people, no doubt.

The spreading out didn't totally resolve the issue, though, since now you had people all over the earth who had already rejected God, at least in part, at Babel.

Clarence Larkin has a very interesting chart detailing how the sons of Noah spread out over the earth.

So, there really isn' a gap at all.  It probably just isn't as explicit enough to make it obvious.


The short answer is “no,” there is no problem if someone takes notes during the homily. (There are no norms regarding this, so there is not much in the way of sources, but anyone who wishes to remember the homily in detail is welcome to take notes.)


The word “Jew” follows etymologically from the name “Judah”, Abraham’s great-great-grandson. Judah is Jacob’s fourth son and the fourth son of Jacob’s fist and less favored wife Leah. The second king of Biblical Israel is his descendent.
The first king was Saul, a descendent of Judah’s youngest brother Benjamin. But Saul sinned against Yahweh and while Saul was still king, he anointed David of Judah to be King of Israel by his prophet Samuel.
After David’s death, the kingdom of Israel split into two Kingdoms upon the succession of his grandson Rehoboam, the son of David’s son Solomon who built Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem, though his Temple really resided in Solomon. The northern Kingdom retained the original name, Israel, and the Southern Kingdom was known as Judah. The Jews are judahites in that sense- cultural and ethnic successors of the southern kingdom. Both kingdoms were eventually lost to conquering empires.
Abraham was among the first people to practice what we would call the Jewish faith in earnest- monotheistic veneration of Yahweh, who he knew as El Shaddai, “Almighty God”, though not all of Abraham’s offspring are counted among his children according to the promise Yahweh made to him. Through much of the Biblical Narrative, Yahweh is called “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” It is not accurate to say he was the first Jew, since the name comes from his own offspring. It would be more appropriate to refer to him as the father of the Jews.


How do Catholics explain Jesus' words to the thief on the cross, in light of the doctrine of Purgatory?

Pope Benedict XVI addressed this in a General Audience on 15 February 2012:

The second word spoken by Jesus on the Cross recorded by St Luke is a word of hope, it is his answer to the prayer of one of the two men crucified with him. The good thief comes to his senses before Jesus and repents, he realizes he is facing the Son of God who makes the very Face of God visible, and begs him; “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingly power” (v. 42). The Lord’s answer to this prayer goes far beyond the request: in fact he says: “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (v. 43). Jesus knows that he is entering into direct communion with the Father and reopening to man the way to God’s paradise. Thus, with this response, he gives the firm hope that God’s goodness can also touch us, even at the very last moment of life, and that sincere prayer, even after a wrong life, encounters the open arms of the good Father who awaits the return of his son.
Dear brothers and sisters, the words of Jesus on the Cross at the last moments of his earthly life offer us demanding instructions for our prayers, but they also open us to serene trust and firm hope. Jesus, who asks the Father to forgive those who are crucifying him, invites us to take the difficult step of also praying for those who wrong us, who have injured us, ever able to forgive, so that God’s light may illuminate their hearts; and he invites us to live in our prayers the same attitude of mercy and love with which God treats us; “forgive us our trespasses and forgive those who trespass against us”, we say every day in the Lord’s prayer.
At the same time, Jesus, who at the supreme moment of death entrusts himself totally to the hands of God the Father, communicates to us the certainty that, however harsh the trial, however difficult the problems, however acute the suffering may be, we shall never fall from God’s hands, those hands that created us, that sustain us and that accompany us on our way through life, because they are guided by an infinite and faithful love.

Note that there is no mention of Today. Eternity is outside time: while the thief was indeed to die "today", he then entered eternity, which cannot be measured in earthly time.
It is entirely possible that the repentant thief went through Purgatory, but any time spent there cannot be measured.
However, the Catechism has more to say:

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.

Given that Christ himself imparted his grace and friendship to the penitent thief, who are we to say that he was not perfectly purified by those words? It is entirely possible that he did not experience Purgatory at all, and that Christ's today did actually mean today.
One difficulty with timings in earthly time is that Christ descended to the dead before his Resurrection, and then spent six weeks on earth before ascending to his Father. This gives weight to his Today pointing to an Eternity outside earthly time: from an earthly point of view, it certainly wasn't today.
The end result? We don't know. We can be certain of Benedict's interpretation that we have "the firm hope that God’s goodness can also touch us, even at the very last moment of life, and that sincere prayer, even after a wrong life, encounters the open arms of the good Father who awaits the return of his son."


What is "intercession" and what kinds of "intercessory prayer" are there?

Excellent question:
From good ol' dictionary.com, intercede means:

to act or interpose in behalf of someone in difficulty or trouble, as by pleading or petition: to intercede with the governor for a condemned man.

Using this general definition, we can come up with one that applies intercessory prayer.  Simply put, it's "someone praying on our behalf when we're in time of need".
Humans as our intercessor
Jesus is said not only to be our intercessor, but also our mediator
1 Tim 2:5 (NIV)

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

Is this to say that others cannot intercede for us?  Certainly not!  However, if they pray to God on our behalf, they're actually using Jesus, our mediator to get to God.
Jesus, per this passage, is the one who talks to God on our behalf.  Because of that, any human prayer will go through Jesus to get to God.
Jesus as our intercessor
Because of this, when Jesus prays on our behalf, it is going directly to God.  When we humans intercede, it goes directly to Jesus and then to God.  Clearly, this is one-step of removal.
But can we say, then, that our prayers sometimes do not reach God, when Jesus prayers do?  I don't think we can go that far.  However, I do believe that Jesus, being the direct contact with God, knows how to intercede far better than we do.  (Granted, that's part of why we've been given the Holy Spirit.)
Holy Spirit as our intercessor
Romans 8:26 (NIV)
states

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

This shows that the Holy Spirit is also interceding on our behalf, giving us the words to speak and praying for us when we don't know what to say.
Catholicism
Up until now, that covers all Christianity.  All Christians believe (or should believe) in the above.  Humans, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit intercede for us--pray on our behalf--to God.
Catholicism has taken this one step further, claiming not only that living humans can pray for us, but also that saints can pray for us.
The idea is exactly like asking for prayers from family members.  You go to your family and say "Please pray for me in this issue" and they will intercede on your behalf, praying to God through Jesus.
Catholics believe (along with many other groups/denominations/sects) that saints in heaven can hear our prayers here on earth.  Therefore, since they can hear our prayers, they can intercede for us in our need.
The argument behind that is an entirely different question.
End Notes
Is there any one type of interceding that is better than another?  Personally, I can't find any source saying anything like this.  I believe that the more people you have interceding for a particular issue, the better.
However, it must be noted that all prayers from humans must go through Jesus, our one and only mediator.  Whether those prayers are from Aunt Claud or Mary, mother of Jesus.  All these prayers from humans go through Jesus or (in our own grumblings when we don't know what to say) through the Holy Spirit.
So, I couldn't make any solid, realistic arguments that one type of intercession is better than another.
Also, those listed above are the only "types" of intercession that I've been able to find.  There might be other "types", but this is all I could find (or all that I know about).


Apparently the passage may be found in three books by Eusebius.  Here is the most common.
The context of mentioning Christ is in relation to his mentioning John the Baptist and elsewhere perhaps James the Just who is brother of Christ.  These things are mentioned as explanations for subsequent calamities.

It was on her account also that he slew John, and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of the latter. Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to battle, Herod’s entire army was destroyed, and that he suffered this calamity on account of his crime against John.

The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of the same Herodias, and that he was driven into banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul
… 7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, …
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201.iii.vi.xi.html

TO ADD/EDIT:  In my opinion, this answers the OP question.  What is the context for Eusebius quoting Josephus?  The answer is to show why the Jews experienced subsequent calamities, including the destruction of their temple and Jerusalem.  Jesus is the Christ.  John the Baptist was a righteous man.  They, along with Pilate and others, put them to death.  It was wrong, and God poured out His wrath.  That's the point for Eusebius.

Since an historian [Josephus], who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.
-ibid-

As to what seems to be another question/answer, is Eusebius verifying that Jesus is the Christ, the answer is not really.  It is a fact, but not the point.  Again the context for Eusebius is to explain why it (destruction of temple and Jerusalem) happened.
To be sure, subsequent Christians have used Josephus' comments as "outside" proof that Jesus is the Christ, and use Eusebius in support of that assertion, but again, that was not Eusebius' primary point.
With this in mind, I'd further argue that the quote from Josephus is in fact true with no, or very minor, subsequent interpolations.  If it wasn't true as one explanation for 70ad, why else would Eusebius mention it within context of trying to explain 70ad?


Is there consensus on the age of human civilization?

It'd depend on how you go about defining civilization.  The Lascaux cave paintings are dated by archeologists to 17000 years ago.  Farming communities, along with animal domestication and pottery started roughly 10000-12000 years ago at the beginning of the paleolithic.  Actual written language started possibly as early as 5000 years ago.

Edit: So to clarify... the definition of civilization is ambiguous.  A Biblicist creationary view and a secular archeologist could probably agree on the date of written language.  They would very likely disagree on the date range of the first farming communities, they most certainly would disagree on the date range of the cave paintings.

The "age of human being" taken to be the accepted date of the first homo sapiens sapiens would be well beyond any kind of reconciliation between the two viewpoints (on the order of a couple hundred thousand years).


What does Tertullian mean by the Son being a "portion of the Father's substance"?

This phrase is commonly seen to indicate Tertullian's belief in ontological subordinationism, that is, that God the Son is subordinate to God the Father in both his nature and role.  Views like this were later declared heretical at the Council of Nicaea; now, only a relational or functional subordinationism, in which Jesus is subordinate in role only, is normally considered orthodox.

Tertullian's concept of Jesus being a "portion" of God is perhaps best seen in the analogies he used to argue that God and Jesus had a common substance:

  For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are προβολαί, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring. (Against Praxeas, 8)

From an orthodox trinitarian perspective, however, this is problematic, because it only affirms that Jesus and God have a common nature, like a human son has the same "nature" as his father.  This is likely the sense in which he would understand Colossians 2:9, but it's very different from the "numerical unity of essence" understanding of trinitarianism.   Alvan Lamson extensively quotes from Tertullian's writings to show that "he regarded the Son as inferior," and concludes:

  We might multiply our quotations without number, but it is unnecessary.  Judged according to any received explanation of the Trinity at the present day, the attempt to save Tertullian from condemnation would be hopeless. (The Church of the First Three Centuries, 106–9)

Ontological subordinationism is also associated with Origen, but the challenge of Arianism led the church to look at these views more critically.  Placher and Nelson explain:

  The difficulties of [Tertullian's subordinationism] became clear only in the theories of Arius, a priest living in Alexandria around 300, whom tradition has cast as the villain of this story.  Arius wanted to make it absolutely clear that the Son is not identical with the Father. (A History of Christian Theology, 60)

Ultimately Arianism, and, by extension, ontological subordinationism, was rejected as heresy in the Council of Nicaea.  The fact that Tertullian died before that Council is usually considered a point in his favor, since he never had the opportunity to submit himself to the Church on this point.  But these views, along with his association with another heretical movement, Montanism, have diminished his status as an orthodox theologian in Nicene Christianity.