If your the cathedral parish of your diocese has burned down, is the feast day of the patron saint still a solemnity?

If the local cathedral of your diocese has burned down, is the feast day of the patron saint still a solemnity?
The short answer is yes, since the principle patron saint has not been changed and thus remains intact!
This question deals more with the particular calendar of a diocese than the norms set out by the Universal Calendar of the Catholic Church, although both may be applicable.
The principle patron saint (and not the secondary patron saint(s) if applicable) of the cathedral is also the patron saint of the diocese. The absence or destruction of a cathedral does not change that fact.
The fact that St. Raphael, the Archangel has been established as the principle patron saint of your diocese, He must remain the patron saint of the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin.

A patron [saint] is one who has been assigned by a venerable tradition, or chosen by election, as a special intercessor with God and the proper advocate of a particular locality, and is honoured by clergy and people with a special form of religious observance. The term "patron", being wider in its meaning than that of "titular", may be applied to a church, a district, a country, or a corporation. The word "titular" is applied only to the patron of a church or institution. Both the one and the other, according to the legislation now in force, must have the rank of a canonized saint. - Patron Saint

This answer is not referring to secondary patron saints of a diocese, but uniquely of thee principle patron saint named in the title of the dioceses’ cathedrals.

Cathedral fire
St. Raphael's undergoing de-construction in 2008
On March 14, 2005, a fire caused extensive damage to St. Raphael's Cathedral, affecting not only those who attended the church, but the entire diocesan community.
The fire caused the roof to collapse into the building, although the walls and steeple remained standing. There was further damage from the water and fears that the refurbished steeple would collapse, although the steeple was found to be stable in the days following the fire. The mosaics sustained smoke and water damage, and the stained glass windows were damaged but still in place.
The cause of the fire was determined to be arson. Forty-one-year-old William J. "Billy" Connell was arrested for setting the fire and charged with burglary, arson, and bail jumping. Connell said that he had broken into the Cathedral using a crowbar, stole a bottle of wine, and then "messed around with some stuff". The fire started in an office/storeroom under the spire, and the crowbar was found in that room. Connell had a history of mental problems, and had previously been in trouble with the law. Connell was sentenced to 15 years in prison to be followed by 15 years of close supervision.

Once a principle patron saint has been established as the patron saint of a country, region, diocese or local parish, the patron saint must remain as such. Thus the feast of such a patron saint would remain as a solemnity.
I have never heard of a parish or even a cathedral being dedicated to another patron saint in a case where the particular building structure had to be replaced with another patron saint. Notre Dame Cathedral will always have Our Lady as the Patron Saint of Paris. Your diocese is not unique.
The patron saint is the principle feast of the whole diocese and not simply just for the cathedral. Thus the Feast of St. Raphael is a Solemnity in your diocese.
To change the patron saint of simple parish churches, Rome must give it approval and the local Catholic population must also approve the measure. This actually happened to a neighbouring parish here in the Archdiocese of Vancouver when the old parish church of St. Anne became the Church of Sts. Joachim & Ann. The old parish church was structurally unsound and a new church was erected. St. Joachim was simply added to the already existing patron saint of St. Ann, the Queen Mother.
By the way both parishioners, the archbishop and Rome approved this new title as it did not take away the existing local patron saint.
St. Raphael is still the patron saint of your diocese, even in the absence of a proper ecclesiastical cathedral dedicated to your diocesan patron saint.

St. Raphael: Great patron of the Diocese of Madison
The cathedrals of the Dubuque Archdiocese and Madison Diocese have the rare distinction of being named after St. Raphael, the archangel. Raphael is also the patron saint of the Diocese of Madison. St. Raphael is one of the three archangels mentioned by name in Scripture and one of the seven who stand before God's throne.
Madison's cathedral
In the early 1840s, Irish immigrants settled into what later became Madison. They were soon organized into a parish named after Raphael, the Archangel.
On August 15, 1842, Mass was offered for the first time by Fr. Martin Kundig. The land that the parish buildings and a later parking lot would be built upon was donated by Governor James Duane Doty, who was a close friend of Fr. Samuel Mazzuchelli.
From 1842 until 1853 the parish did not have a church of its own. Mass was often celebrated in homes and in the state Capitol building.
In 1853 Fr. Francis Etchmann led the construction of the current church building that has been damaged by fire. The cornerstone was laid in 1854. Archbishop John Michael Henni of the Milwaukee Archdiocese dedicated the new building. In 1885 the present bells and spire were added.
On January 9, 1946, Pope Pius XII created the Diocese of Madison from an 11 county area in southern and southwestern Wisconsin. Territory was taken from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the Diocese of La Crosse for the new diocese. (I remember when this happened.)
St. Raphael Parish was chosen as the cathedral parish for the new diocese. Msgr. William Mahoney was the proud pastor of St. Raphael.
St. Raphael's patronage
Recently I was delighted to discover that St. Raphael, our patron saint, is also the patron saint of many areas of concern that touch our lives. The archangel is the patron saint of sick persons, travelers, bearers of the good news, happy meetings, the blind, nurses, physicians, and the choice of a good spouse. In addition, St. Raphael is the angel of good health, youth, chaste courtships, and happy marriages.
St. Raphael is also defender of the Church, strong helper in time of need, angel of home life, and guardian of the Christian family. Too, Raphael is the angel of joy, support of the dying, and healer of the sick.
According to the September 6, 2007, issue of the Catholic Herald, the St. Raphael's Pilgrims Marriage Prep Prayer Group has been formed in our diocese. Members of this group commit themselves to some type of daily prayer or sacrifice to support marriage preparation, marriage prep facilitators, and engaged couples in our diocese.
They are also asked to pray a novena to St. Raphael leading up to the weekend. The group has taken St. Raphael as their patron saint not only because he is the patron saint of the Madison Diocese but also because of his role in Sarah and Tobias's marriage in the Book of Tobit.
Providentially, it seems that the Holy Spirit has helped our diocese to wisely choose St. Raphael as its patron saint. As our diocese prepares to rebuild the cathedral and move into the future, let us learn from St. Raphael and ask the archangel's intercession for healing, safe travel, health, support of the ill, dying, family, marriage, and other concerns.

Your patron saint remains a solemnity since a diocese is considered an ecclesiastical territory (place) or area.

Proper solemnities, namely:
a. The solemnity of the principal patron of the place, city or state.
b. The solemnity of the dedication and of the anniversary of the dedication of one’s own church.
c. The solemnity of the title of one’s own church.
d. The solemnity either of the title
or of the founder or of the principal patron of an order or congregation. - Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar

In my archdiocese, it’s cathedral archiepiscopal see is the Holy Rosary Cathedral, dedicated to the principle diocesan patron saint Our Lady of the Rosary, in Vancouver, B.C.
For further information about this subject matter, the following articles may be considered as interested subject matter:

Particular Churches and Patronal Feasts
What are liturgical honours and privileges for the Patrons of categories of people?


Matthew 5:13-16 is for the Israelites ONLY?

You are encountering a theology called Dispensationalism.

Plenty of sites will give you an overview, and many better than Wikipedia, but a key part of their theology is that God dealt with Man in distinct ways in distinct times. Most hold that the change from the 'Old Covenant' to the 'New Covenant' occurred only after the death of Jesus (usually at Acts 2) and that until then all teaching - including the teaching of Jesus - was under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was superceded by the New, and its teaching made irrelevant.This irrelevant teaching includes the teaching of Jesus.

I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs. Dispensationalism is widespread in the United States, and results in significant numbers of people who call themselves Christian yet believe that the teachings of their God in the person of Jesus are irrelevant to them, and indeed were irrelevant only a few years (or even hours) after they were taught. It's easy to work out the implications of that in the current climate.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave finding Biblical arguments against this position for yourself, but you might start asking them for the Biblical support of their claims. If you are part of a church that does not hold dispensationalist beliefs, talk to your church leaders about this theology and the church's attitude to it.


Is there a Biblical basis for not believing that Global Warming is occurring?

No.  The Bible says nothing about global warming either way. Any attempt to twist any scripture to support or deny global warming is pure speculation.

Global warming is something that is squarely within the realm of science to support or disprove. We have facts, evidence, and trustworthy (if contradictory) data.  It's a matter for scientific inquiry not Christianity.

Global warming does not predict the end of the world, a repeat of a global flood that would wipe out all mankind, or anything else that would contradict Scripture. Global warming is irrelevant to Scripture and vice-versa. It does predict flooding, but not at the scale necessary to conflict with God's promise to Noah. In short it predicts hardship, not total destruction.

As for how global warming should affect Christian worldviews (and vice-versa) the two are completely unrelated, and should affect each other no more than Brittney Spears' favorite color should affect what I want to eat for breakfast. (which is bacon and eggs.)

We're already supposed to be good stewards of the world God gave us. The truth or falseness of global warming does not change the fact of our responsibility.


In the Gospels, is there any recorded instance of the Pharisees quoting Scripture?

Sometimes the Scriptures identify Pharisees specifically, but other times they merely reference chief priests, who may have been Pharisees.  There are a few passages of note:
The Chief Priests and Scribes cite Micah 5:2 in reference to the birth of the Messiah

Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
6 ‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah,
Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah;
For out of you shall come forth a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”  Matthew 2:4-6 NASB

The Scribes and Pharisees reference Moses' Teaching on Adultery

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?”  John 8:3-5 NASB


Gates of hell lock forever. What does gates of hell mean?

The original Hebrew is only two words: "מִבֶּטֶן שְׁאֹול", one meaning "out of the belly" and the other "grave".  Some versions translate the latter word as "Hell", but most leave it alone as "Sheol".

Today's English Version isn't really a translation of the Bible though.  It is a paraphrase.  Its original purpose was to provide a Bible that is very easy for everyone to read and understand.

In many cases they had to take liberties in deciding how to express an idea without leaving it ambiguous.  In other cases, such as Jonah 2:2, they simply got carried away by poetically saying "the land whose gates lock forever" rather than "the grave".

Today's English Version (Good News Bible) is a great introduction for someone just beginning to read the Bible.  It might be compared with a grade-school history book.  For serious study, or even for trivial questions, almost any other version provides a more reliable translation.


Is Mary Our Mother? Evangelicals please explain John 19:26–27

Behold thy mother: What Does Jesus Mean By Such Utterance in John
   19:26-27?

The teaching of the Roman Catholic church that Jesus entrusted his physical mother as the spiritual mother of the church is unfounded in these texts. In fact, that sort of interpretation is out of context.

Jesus entrusted his mother to the care of John (John 19:26,27).

Jesus did not entrust his mother to his siblings/ relatives because these were still unbelievers at that moment of Christ’s crucifixion (John 7:1-5).

Christians care for widows ( James 1:27).

Jesus considered not only his mother’s physical needs but also his spiritual needs when he entrusted his mother to the care of John.

Jesus did not give Mary to the church as its mother is evident in the other New Testament Scripture.

For Paul, the church/ Jerusalem is our mother:

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother (Galatians 4:26).
But we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. (1 Thessalonians 2:7).

For Paul, it is not Jesus’ mother who has been a mother to him:

Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too(Romans 16:13).

Jesus himself refers to the church as his mother in the spiritual sense.He is telling us that blood relations are not what is important. It doesn’t matter if you are a relative of Jesus - as if that were something to boast about. . What is important is to hear the Word of God and obey.

"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:33-35)

While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” (Luke 11:27,28)

CONCLUSION

Jesus didn’t give his mom to be the mom of his church in John 19:26,27 for the context does not permit it. In reality, the first-century church does not give any evidence that Mary functioned as a mom to the entire church.


Sin Nature and the Sarx, how can Jesus be sinless if all flesh is evil

It's a problem of translating sarx into English. This article discusses precisely what you are inquiring, arguing why sarx doesn’t ever mean “sinful nature”.
Another excellent resource is this book excerpt on "Sin in the theology of Paul" by Tom Holland, author of Romans: The Divine Marriage.  It contains a wonderful analysis of the meaning of sarx in the OT, Hellenism, the Gospels, and the letters of Paul to signify various concepts depending on context: covenant relationship, human frailty, mankind, physical body, etc.
Some paragraphs from the book excerpt:

...
To summarize the OT's teaching on "flesh", we can note that the term is morally neutral, speaking of man's creaturely existence and frailty. There is no lexicographical evidence to suggest that the term carried any negative moral connotation.
...
The translators of most English versions try to help their readers understand the term "flesh" by rendering it in ways they think appropriate. This seems reasonable, but, unfortunately, the translations often contradict the contexts in which the term is found. To translate flesh as "sinful nature" (as in the Romans passage under consideration) does not normally convey what Paul was writing but, instead, misrepresents him on a vitally important issue.
...

I highly recommend reading the whole 19 pages.


How many Christians have actually read the whole Bible?

Catholics who attend daily Mass for 3 years will have read through the entire Bible, or at least enough to disqualify themselves for St. Jerome to count them among the ignorant of Christ.

  Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ

St. Jerome (famous bible translator)

I won't attempt to extrapolate numbers that don't exist, but you might as well assume the number is non-negligible, but probably no more than 3% in North (of Mexico) America and Europe.

Personally, I don't go to Mass every day any more because of work, commute and family, but I did read the whole Bible when I was a telerelay operator and had the time.


Were any Biblical prophecies understood before they were fulfilled?

Without doing too much digging and research I can think of one example.

In Matthew 2 the priests and teachers of the law knew that the Christ was to be born in Bethelehem as per their interpretation of the prophecy in Micah 5.

  Matthew 2:3-6 (ESV)
  3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem
  with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the
  people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They
  told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

  6  “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler
      who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

Also in the Old Testament, dreams foretelling the future were interpreted prior to the events taking place. (Examples in the stories of Joseph and Daniel) However I'm not sure this falls under the category of official prophecy.


Was Judas a partaker of the feet washing by Jesus?

There is nothing in John 13:5 to exclude Judas from the foot washing.  (This was part-way through the meal, v2.)

Further, it is when the foot washing was complete (v21) that Jesus begins to tell the disciples some final truths, including that one of them was about to betray the Messiah.

Therefore, I see no need to re-arrange the order of the events as portrayed in John 13.  Even if the rite of bread and wine came after Judas left, the fact that someone participates in the communion, or not, does not guarantee their salvation (or otherwise)as Judas clearly rejected Christ's offer.

Thus, John 13 records that Judas had Jesus wash his feet, but Matt 26:25, 26 might imply (without saying) that Judas left before the rite of bread and wine.  However, Luke 22:14-23 might also imply that it was after the rite of bread and wine that Judas left.


War between the ‘inner being’ and the ‘fleshly nature’

Sanctify means to set apart, declare holy, consecrate, purify, and to separate from sin.
1 John 2:15-17,

"15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  (KJV)

God wants us to walk in the Spirit, and not the flesh.
Rom. 8:1-5,

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit."  (KJV)

So, we are called to seek after Christ, and to walk in the Spirit. Our salvation is conditional, in that we must continue to walk with Him, and abide in His ways.  If we turn our back on Him, and go back to a sinful life, then we will lose our promise of inheritance.  Compare it to a father's will which promises a son will inherit all that His father has with certain stipulations.  Salvation is not unconditional (2 Pet. 1:10-11; John 15:6; Rom. 11:21-22).
Therefore, we have to overcome the fleshly desires.  The flesh does not inherit eternal life.  1 Cor. 15:50,

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption."  (NKJV)

Finishing Romans 7:23-25,

" But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!  So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."  (NKJV)

We have a constant battle between our selfish desires which benefit the flesh (e.g., power, money, sex, material goods, etc.) and the spiritual recognition of abiding by the law of Christ.
When we are in Christ, we have the promise of remission of sins as we repent of them (Acts 2:38; 10:43; Heb. 6:6).  This promise keeps washing us throughout our lives, and is purifying us from sins as we repent of them.
Christ said in Matt. 22:36 -40,

"“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[d] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[e] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”"  (NKJV)

Many times our selfish desires do not comport with the needs of others, nor with loving YHWH before ourselves.  It is the growing up process, maturing in the spirit from the stage of children who want whatever they see and the mature adult who recognizes that we sacrifice our desires to give to others.
So our fleshly desires and wants must be under control of our mind and heart that is joined in spirit with Christ.  And, if we are in Christ, then He has set us apart for Him, and we are living sacrifices for Him.  He will purify our souls when we ask for forgiveness, if we have repented. The purification is not of the flesh.
When we fall, then we need to repent from our sins, and ask His forgiveness.  We pick ourselves back up and continue to fight that battle between our fleshly desires and the gospel of Christ.
1 Cor. 9:24-27,

"24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. 26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."  (NKJV)

It is a race against sin, that we live with day in and day out.  If we are able to stay in Christ, to repent and ask for His forgiveness when we fall, to keep running that race, then when we die in the Lord, we will receive the crown.
Our inheritance is in heaven above. So, He does not need to sanctify the flesh as only the spirit inherits eternal life.
1 Cor. 15:53,

" For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. "  (NKJV)


Why were the apostles still going to the temple for prayer and rituals?

There are a few things to consider. First of all, the Jewish Ceremonial and Civil Laws have no bearing on US today. For example, i live in the U.S. and am a gentile christian.

Therefore the laws of Israel, and the regulations of Judaism have no bindings on me.

These people were still living in Israel, and were commanded by Jesus to follow the laws of the land

Matthew 22:20-21

  And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

This is specifically about Taxes, but the Epistles of the new testament expanded on this idea of obeying the law.

1 peter 2:13-14

  Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.

So, they would have been required to follow the Laws of their Jewish state.

Also, in the book of Acts we see the Peter, and also Paul would often go to the Synagogues to Preach, offering the Gospel to the Jews First, and then the Gentiles.

rom 1:16

  16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

In this Evangelistic context, it was important that Paul and his companions would not give the Jews any extra reason to stumble!

1 Corinthians 9:19-21

  19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law

Jesus had to send a special vision to Peter, showing him that no longer the gentiles and their foods were unclean in his sight.
Acts 10:11-16

  11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
  14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
  15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

So the situation was a bit different for Jewish Christians, living in Israel,
Than it was for Gentile Christians, especially outside of the country of Israel.

In your question you say

  How is it that they didn't understand modern day Christianity that the law was abolished and that sacrifices where of no use since Jesus cleared that for them?

I think that saying the law was abolished is taking it to far.

Jesus himself said

  For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

--Addendum to address the comments.

I am in no way trying to promote legalism (attempting to obey the law to gain God'ds favor/Salvation).
I am just saying, that there is nothing wrong with following the law. It is Paul who told us in Romans 7:12

  12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

The unique message that the Apostles taught, was that the Law could in no way Save us. The Law only shows us our sins!
Romans 3:20

  20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

So, the Apostles were not in any way "against" the law. They just realized that Christ could save us, something the law never had the power to do.

Where Paul specifically got very upset, was when Jewish people tried to force obedience to the outward jewish traditions/laws onto believing Gentiles. Or when people tried to teach that following the law was required for salvation.


Question 1: Are humans somehow above Angels?

Psalm 8 is very clear - Man is lower than Angel.

  4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
      human beings that you care for them?
  5 You have made them a little lower than the angels
      and crowned them with glory and honor.

Philippians 2 is clear that this debasement was part of God's plan:

  In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

  6 Who, being in very nature God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
  7 rather, he made himself nothing
      by taking the very nature of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
  8 And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      by becoming obedient to death—
          even death on a cross!
  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
      and gave him the name that is above every name,
  10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
      in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
  11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
      to the glory of God the Father

The thing you are adding - that somehow Jesus' incarnation is applicable to all humanity is the part that makes no sense.  The burden would be on you to prove that.

Finally, Jesus' did not "mix" the natures - Traditionally the hypostatic union says he was fully God and fully man - but there is never a suggestion that the two natures were combined into one essence.

Question 2: Ministering to Fallen Angels

As to Jesus becoming an Angel - he didn't need to.  The closest one could come to understanding this would be in 1 Peter 3:19 20:

  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Some view this as Christ preaching to the Angels - but there is never a suggestion that Angels need atonement. This isn't to say they are perfect, nor that they aren't fallen, but we just have no biblical information about this.


What is replacement theology, and why do I hear it used with a negative connotation?

The term is typically applied by Dispensational Theologians when referencing Covenant Theology.

Dispensationalists believe that God is relating to the church during the church age, which we're in right now, however, he related to the Jews during the Mosaic period, using the Mosaic law.  They don't believe, however, that the church has replaced Israel, but rather that the Church is a separate entity to which God relates.  They view the church age as a "parenthesis" during which time, God brings about the salvation of the Gentiles, however, this is still mainly a story between God and Israel.  This theology was first systematized by John Darby, and popularized by Cyrus Scofield, via the Scofield Reference Bible, which was the first major study Bible published in the U.S., hence the theology's popularity today.  The epicenter of this theology today is likely Dallas Theological Seminary.

Many Covenant theologians believe the Church replaces Israel.  This is the reasoning for some of the differences we see between Covenant theology, and Dispensational theology, such as child baptism, which, in Covenant theology is the analogue to Israel's Circumcision, which is, of course viewed oddly by Dispensationalists who believe Baptism to have an entirely different meaning altogether.  Many people call Covenant theology, typically in a negative light, "Replacement Theology", because they view the theology as excluding and nullifying God's promises to Israel.  In this way, they view that the theology is making God out to be liar.  That being said, there's often some muddiness when it comes to understanding what exactly is replaced: the Old Covenant, or the Jews themselves.  I tend to believe it's the former, and not the latter, though there is seem to be some Biblical evidence to support the idea that the majority of Jews today are temporarily, or at least, partially blinded.  (Romans 9-11).

The danger of "Replacement Theology", like any theology, historically speaking, has been the misinterpretation and misuse of that theology for evil means.  A good example of this is the extermination of the Native Americans in North America.  Many of the rationalizations behind this ethnic cleansing revolved around the misunderstood and twisted idea that, since the Church replaces Israel, and many people coming to America at that time considered themselves Christians, then the Native Americans must be our Caananites who should be completely eliminated.  Obviously, this is a tragedy and a great misinterpretation of Scripture for selfish gain.

Now, Dispensationalism often comes hand-in-hand with pre-millenial eschatology, which believes in a relatively complicated timeline that includes several specific things that have been prophesied regarding end times.  These prophecies often include a physical return of the Jews to the land of Israel.  Many Covenant theologians, are Amillenial.  They tend to take Revelation more simply, viewing Christ's return as the overall gist of the book, and many of the details allegorical.  Because of this, they view the modern state of Israel as a different entity altogether than the Israelites of the Bible.  This effectively removes the eschatological viewpoint from the argument on whether or whether not to support Israel.

Ultimately, whether you hear this term at all, and what light it's put into, largely depends on the theological bent of those around you.  I've typically heard it more around Classical or Progressive Dispensationalists, whereas most of my Covenant Theology friends typically take it as an assumed truth, though many haven't really thought out all the implications or details of it.


Can I say, "Bless You" to our Catholic priest?

"Bless you!" is short for "[May God] bless you!"
So, you are not blessing a priest, but asking God to.


Do Calvinists believe that Heavenly Rewards are predestined?

Calvinists generally believe that our works and resulting rewards are also predetermined from eternity.

  For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (NIV Ephesians 2:10)

However, the absence of our will is never included in the concept, either in receiving Christ or in doing good works; rather we are predestined to will all those things under God's influence.

To what level our will exists and in what sense we have 'a will', is a little more debatable and Calvinists can vary in this to some degree. In any case, it is usually understood that we are 'not robots' without a will, but that both our will and God's are united according to his eternal plan.  In fact when he saves us he frees our will to do his.

  for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (NIV Philippians 2:13)

There are books devoted on the subject, for example Martin Luther's The Bondage of Will.


How to ask a Catholic priest to bless something for someone else?

You can just literally ask the priest to bless that thing you want a blessing on (which will become a sacramental after it's being blessed). You do not have to mention that it'll be for someone else as it won't change anything. As your friend, just tell him that your gift is blessed already and I guess he'll know what to do with it? :-) Cheers and God bless!


What is the Biblical basis for idolatry being "things" we put higher than God?

If we face the question squarely this is a loose 'application' of the command against idolatry applied to countries that have for the most part ceased from idolatry due to the high numbers of Christians even within the Government of those countries.  Biblically idolatry is not greed or lust or pride, there are words already for those other sins. Idolatry must direct ones 'worship' and doctrine of God to a concept lower then the dignity of God.

  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. (NIV, Rom 1:21-24)

As a result of idolatry one may fall into various other shameful sins but putting yourself before God, putting your career, money, leisure, or whatever before God but this is greed, lust, etc. and not idolatry.

If one were to try and apply the command against idolatry more biblically to those who have never practiced any it would be closer to apply it to various cults and groups who substitute false doctrines for the gospel.  However even in this instance although it is very close to the spirit of idolatry they had false teachers back then as well who did not practice idolatry.

I live in Asia and there is a lot of actual idolatry here.  Evangelical circles, which I belong to sometimes pass around cop-out sayings that overly simplify scripture into bit-sized cliches that make it easy for the laziest of preachers to apply everything in the Bible to a middle-class westernized conservative social group, but this is a little silly for a serious person.


Is the type of love shared between all heavenly members an affectionate brotherly love mentioned in the Bible? (Catholic perspective)

In 1 John 4:8, (God is love) the Greek word used for love is agapē. Given that the verse refers to 'God' rather than 'the Father' or 'the Son', one could assume it is referring to God as the Trinity. Thus, the members of the Trinity (God) probably share agapē love.
[agape being the highest and most unconditional form of love]


Did Jonah think that God exists only in Israel?

A large part of the purpose of the Book of Jonah is to describe the universal power and sovereignty of God.

Israel was not always monotheistic in her beliefs. Much of the early history of Israelite religion, as it can be seen in the Hebrew Bible, was actually what is called monolatrist, that is to say, she worshipped only one God but her religion did not deny the existence of other gods. This is a position very widely accepted in modern biblical scholarship. A good summary of the case is in John Day's Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Continuum, 2002).

Israel's religion was very much bound up in the land. There was considered to be a tight link between the God of Israel (YHWH) and the land of Israel. In a sense, YHWH's power was considered to be limited to the land of Israel.

The most significant turning point in this history was the Exile in Babylon. At this point, Israel was uprooted from the land. This appeared to show YHWH's impotence. What it ultimately did, however, was cause Israel to reappraise her theology. Instead of "YHWH is our God, connected to our land", it was now "YHWH is the God, connected to every land". The kings of other nations (most famously Cyrus of Persia in Isaiah 45, but even to some extent Nebuchadnezzar) are portrayed as tools of YHWH. Joseph Blenkinsopp's commentary on Isaiah 40-55 (Yale, 2002) is a good summary here.

The Book of Jonah was probably written in the post-exilic period (see e.g. the USCCB commentary). It reflects some of these ideas. Many interpreters take it as a rebuttal of the conservative Israel-only movement epitomised by Ezra and Nehemiah.

The whole narrative satirises the idea that God is concerned only with Israel. We see this, for instance, in the episode with the bush. Jonah gets angry about the death of the bush, but YHWH points out that he is far more concerned with the great city of Nineveh:

  Then the Lord said, ‘You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labour and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?’ (Jonah 4.10f., NRSV)

Nineveh is, of course, of great symbolic significance, since it is the capital of the Assyrian Empire that destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Israel. In many ways, it is an analogue of Babylon. The fact that YHWH's prophet would be sent there in itself makes a radical theological point.

Jonah's attempt to flee to Tarshish must be understood in this context, reading it as related to the wider theological purpose of the book. It's a joke, really: Jonah says, "No, I'm not going there, I'm running away where you can't get me." YHWH (and the writer of the book) mocks this idea, saying "You think you can get away from me? My power extends even to Tarshish, even to Nineveh."

A similar point is made by YHWH's power over the sea. Typically, in ancient Middle-Eastern religions, the sea is seen as the place of chaos and uncontrollable power, the place where the gods have no power. In asserting YHWH's power over the sea, the author asserts his power over everything. (A similar point is made by the continued references to the sea in Deutero-Isaiah, Isaiah 40-55.)

So this, then, is why the Book of Jonah sees him attempt to flee. It is precisely making the point that, even though he thought he could escape YHWH's power, he could not, because the whole of the earth is under his dominion.


Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the divinity of Jesus?

The following are quotes from Bishops and apologists of the early church and a few were first or second generation disciples of the Apostles themselves.  As such it is very easy to deduce that, not only did they have a large audience and impact, but they represent the teachings of the church at that time and of the Apostles themselves regarding the Deity of the Christ.
Polycarp (AD 69-155)

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.(1)

Ignatius of Antioch (AD 50-117)

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.(2)

Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.(3)

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.(4)

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.(5)

Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.(6)

For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father.(7)

I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.(8)

Wait expectantly for the one who is above time: the Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the Unsuffering, who for our sake suffered, who for our sake endured in every way.(9)

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.(10)

Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.(11)

Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshiped, as God and as Christ.(12)

The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin...(13)

For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.(14)

Melito of Sardis (AD ?-180)

He that hung up the earth in space was Himself hanged up; He that fixed the heavens was fixed with nails; He that bore up the earth was born up on a tree; the Lord of all was subjected to ignominy in a naked body—God put to death!.... [I]n order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened—because they slew God, who hung naked on the tree.... This is He who made the heaven and the earth, and in the beginning, together with the Father, fashioned man; who was announced by means of the law and the prophets; who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the place of the dead, and ascended to the height of heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.(15)

Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202)

For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam
is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But
that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived,
God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed
by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be
seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth.
Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him,
if, like others, He had been a mere man.... He is the holy Lord, the
Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty
God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;—all these things
did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.(16)

He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons.(17)

Christ Jesus [is] our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father.(18)

Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.(19)

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man.... [W]e should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.(20)

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man—the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal.... The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends(21)

For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God...(22)

Tertullian (AD 150-225)

For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.(23)

Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.... That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.(24)

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other , and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that they are distinct from each other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter...even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?(25)

As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.(26)

Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235)

The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.(27)

For, lo, the Only-begotten entered, a soul among souls, God the Word with a (human) soul. For His body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity; but as, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father, so was He also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father; and He comprehends all things in Himself.(28)

For all, the righteous and the unrighteous alike, shall be brought before God the Word.(29)

Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name.... He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man. Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow.(30)

Origen (AD 185-254)

Jesus Christ...in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was.(31)

Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by “prolation,” as some suppose. For if the Son be a “prolation” of the Father (the term “prolation” being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who “prolated” and He who was “prolated” are corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist.... How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence.(32)

For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I.” And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God. But when we regard the Savior as God the Word, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.(33)

Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding.(34)

But it is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son. Because His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun. For it is not by receiving the breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward act, but by His own nature.(35)

And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” For who else was “He which is to come” than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Savior is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent.(36)

The majority of these were taken from Early Christian Writings
1. Polycarp, Philippians, 12:2. ↩
2. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 0.0. (This is the Greeting.) ↩
3. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 1.1. ↩
4. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 7.2. ↩
5. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 18.2. ↩
6. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 19.3. ↩
7. Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 3.3. Holmes, AF, 229. ↩
8. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 1.1. Holmes, AF, 249. ↩
9. Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp, 3.2. Holmes, AF, 265. ↩
10. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 128. Translation from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, I:264. ↩
11. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 36. ANF, I:212. ↩
12. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 63. ANF, I:229. ↩
13. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 63. ANF, I:184. ↩
14. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 126. ANF, I:263. ↩
15. Melito, 5. ↩
16. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.19.2. ↩
17. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7. ↩
18. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1. ↩
19. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.5.2. ↩
20. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.4. ↩
21. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 1. ↩
22. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 10. ↩
23. Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 41. ↩
24. Tertullian, Apology, 21. ↩
25. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 9. ↩
26. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 2. ↩
27. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 10.29. ↩
28. Hippolytus, Exegetical Fragments from Commentaries, On Luke, Chapter 23. ↩
29. Hippolytus, Against Plato, Section 3. ↩
30. Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of one Noetus, Section 17. ↩
31. Origen, De Principiis, Preface, 4.  ↩
32. Origen. Contra Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 11.  ↩
33. Origen, Contra Celsus Book 8, Chapter 15.  ↩
34. Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.  ↩
35. Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 4.  ↩
36. Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 10.  ↩


Was each "Book" of the Old Testament on a separate scroll prior to the second century A.D.?

The answer appears to be «usually» but «with some exceptions», and also «the experts aren't completely sure».

We can divide the sources adduced into indirect evidence (references to scrolls in ancient documents) and direct evidence (scrolls).

Indirect Evidence

Old Testament

The word used in the passage quoted in the question is βιβλίον.1  While it is the most common word to designate a scroll, it is not specific to a scroll; it can label any collection of writing.  In the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), the phrase τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου (the βιβλίον of the law; translating sēper tôrāh) and τὸ βιβλίον τῆς διαθήκης (the βιβλίον of the covenant; sēper bᵉrı̂t) are common, particularly in Deuteronomy and Joshua. Here they generally seem to be abstract references to the collection of Yahweh's revelation to Moses (e.g. Deut 28:61, 29:20).

The other two clusters of usage are more concrete so perhaps more relevant: the parallel accounts of the "book" (sēper > βιβλίον) found in the temple that was the impetus for the reforms of Josiah (2 Chr 34; 2 King 22-23). This is described as a single item that is found, handed back and forth, and finally read (apparently in a single sitting). Although the precise contents of that "book" have been a matter of considerable debate, I think most scholars would identify it with Deuteronomy, or some portion thereof (Dillard), bolstering the identity between scroll and book. If one thinks the "book of the law" as the entire Pentateuch, of course, this would provide evidence for a very early compilation of multiple books on a single scroll.

New Testament

The OP brings an important piece of evidence from the NT. This description of the Isaiah scroll is emphatically concrete ("he unrolled the scroll..."). I agree with the OP's sense that this is probably a relevant reference to a single scroll containing the book of Isaiah. There are several other NT references to be dealt with in this regard:

  For it is written in the βίβλος of the Pslams (Acts 1:20, cf. Luke 20:42)
  ...as it is written in the βίβλος of the prophets (Acts 7:42, citing Amos 5)
  ...have you not read in the βίβλος of Moses in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him...? (Mark 12:26, citing Exodus 3)
  Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all of those things written in the βιβλίον of the law (Gal 3:10, quoting LXX Deut 27:26)

Although these all connect the terminology of βίβλος with a particular book or collection thereof, they are all most likely intended abstractly, similar to those in Deuteronomy and Joshua, without a concrete referent.

Baylonian Talmud

The Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Baba Bathra, Folia 14a) mentions the "Scroll of the Law" and the "Scroll of the Prophets". In both cases, the physical characteristics are described, and it is evident that a single scroll was in view. The existence of such a scroll has been called into question (Tov, 1998), although there is no proof one way or the other.

Direct Evidence

The direct evidence must come from the only ancient scrolls we have of the Hebrew Bible: the (so-called2 ) Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Many of these are fragmentary, but scholars have tediously pieced them together so that in most cases we know which fragments below to a single scroll. Among these estimated 210-212 biblical scrolls, there is evidence of 10 scrolls that contained more than one book of the Torah. The most substantial strictly Biblical texts mostly consist of two consecutive books (Tov, 2012):

4QGen-Exoda
4QpaleoGen-Exod1
4QExod-Levf
4QLev-Numa
4QDeutj (includes Exodus)

There is possible evidence for a complete Torah scroll (Mur 1, from Wadi Murabba'at, including Genesis-Exodus and possibly Numbers), although the extent of this scroll beyond Genesis-Exodus is a matter of debate.

In addition, there are the curious fragments of the so-called "reworked Pentateuch" (see also, Zahn). Although historically (i.e. in early years of DSS research) these were often not counted among the Biblical manuscripts, scholars more recently tend to include them despite considerable deviations from the (now) canonical text. These each contained between 2 and 5 of the Pentateuchal books apparently on a single scroll; 4QRPc is the manuscript that contains clear evidence of all five books. The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls reflects on this:

  It is of interest to note that our evidence indicates that, unlike the other Torah manuscripts from Qumran, in which copies of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are preserved on single scrolls, or, at most, two books to a scroll, the Reworked Pentateuch copied all five books on one scroll, which would have made a complete scroll longer (twenty-two to twenty-seven meters [seventy-two to eighty-nine feet]) than any other found at Qumran. (Crawford)

Why it is that these scrolls were constructed in such large proportions remains a mystery.  It does indicate, at least, that there was no fixed limit to the length of the scroll due to physical constraints at the time the Qumran documents were composed.

Finally, we should remember that the "Book of the Twelve" (minor prophets) has been considered a single "book" in Jewish tradition for as long as we have manuscript evidence. There are (relatively) well-preserved Hebrew and Greek versions of "The Twelve" among the DSS, each a single scroll. Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah are also each a single "book" in the Jewish canon and in the available ancient evidence.

Summary

The Biblical evidence generally points toward one book per scroll.
The Babylonian Talmud refers to a scroll containing the entire Pentateuch, but this remains unconfirmed.
The DSS generally include one book per scroll; there are a few that include two.
Among the "reworked Pentateuch" manuscripts from among the DSS, at least one scroll contained the entire (reworked) Pentateuch. However, these are not strictly canonical by modern Christian standards.

1. Used interchangeably with βίβλος in the NT (Silva) and in this answer.

2. The DSS are not all from the immediate vicinity of the Dead Sea. "Scrolls from the Judean Desert" seems to be the more accurate label, but this hasn't caught on. See the introduction to the discovery sites on the Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library page.

References

Sidnie White Crawford. "Reworked Pentateuch." Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (OUP, 2000).

Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC; Zondervan, 1987), 280.

Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed., Fortress Press, 2012), 96ff.

Emanuel Tov, The Dimensions of the Qumran Scrolls. Dead Sea Discoveries (1998), pp 69-91.

Moises Silva, "βίβλος" in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (Zondervan, 2014).

Molly M. Zahn, The Problem of Characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts: Bible, Rewritten Bible, or None of the Above? Dead Sea Discoveries (2008), pp. 315-339.


Nature of salvation in the Old Testament

From a Reformed perspective, we look at the Old Testament promises, and the respondents' trusting God as what qualifies them as righteous and grants salvation.

God chose Abraham and made a covenant with Him (a series of 3 promises you can read in Genesis 21). Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Isaac was the son of the promise. He was obedient and faithful to his father and God by willingly laying on the altar at Moriah (Abraham was a really old dude at this point, and it's pretty unreasonable to assume that Isaac was powerless to at least escape this sacrifice, if not overpower Abraham).

Jacob was the son of the promise. His act of faith was recorded with his actions on his deathbed, that he blessed Joseph's sons with the promise of God.

Joseph was the son of the promise. His faithful acts delivered Israel in a time of famine, and lead to Moses leading the people out of Egypt so that God would display His power to His people.

This list goes on. It isn't that each of these men was sinless and trusted Christ, it's that each one was sinful and trusted God in His word that He would bless them (and no small part of that blessing is that they have been included in the bloodline of the Messiah).

Over time, we begin to understand more of the promise. The author wrote concerning this in 2 Samuel 7:12-17. This is a continued promise that God will establish David's kingdom forever and will claim father-hood over this line of people. Isaiah later writes concerning that God's people would "know His name" and God would grant salvation to all ends of the Earth through the Messiah.

Today, it has been revealed that Christ was the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and that being a "son of the promise" was not fleshly, but spiritual, trusting God. Because it has been revealed that Christ was the fulfillment of the promise, by placing faith in Christ, you trust that God has taken care of your sins on His own account and you are adopted as a son of God and are covered by the promise that God made to Abraham. You are saved the same way that Abraham was saved: by believing God (and, as James 2 would add, demonstrating that belief in your actions).


Is the nature of God the father like that of Abraham the father of Isaac?

Saint John Chrysostom (349 - 407) confirms your opinion in "Homilies on the Gospel of John", 55, 2:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56)
My day, seems to me to mean the day of the Crucifixion, which Abraham foreshowed typically by the offering of the ram and of Isaac. ...
He saw My day, and was glad. He shows, that not unwillingly He came to His Passion, since He praises him who was gladdened at the Cross. For this was the salvation of the world.


Is 'pure' monotheism of more primitiveness and innateness than the Trinity is?

It must first be stated that Trinitarianism is in fact monotheism. In Trinitarian belief there is only one God. However the nature of that one God is that he exists in three persons. But it is one of the fundamental doctrines of the Trinity that Trinitarianism believes in a single God.

Monotheism is not more primitive than polytheism.

It is a matter of historical record that ancient religions had many gods, and that monotheism exists only among more recent religions.

Is non-Trinitarian monotheism more "common sense" than the Trinity?

It depends what you mean by common-sense, but possibly. The concept of the Trinity is difficult to understand, and it appears to contradict our normal understanding of things.

However being less "common-sense" does not make it untrue. Many things in our world are not very "common-sense". It defies common sense that something can be both a wave and a particle, or that it can have an undefined position. Yet quantum physics tells us unquestionably that both are true. Quantum physics is less "common sense" than classical physics, but it is true.

Likewise it defies common-sense that something may get heavier as it goes faster, or that time moves at different rates for different things. Yet Relativity tells us that both are true. Relativity is less common-sense than Newtonian physics, but it is true.


Is promotion of contraception a reason to excommunicate?

Canon 915 states:

  Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Those who publicly promote contraception are "persevering in manifest grave sin". It's manifest because it's public; it's grave because sexual sins are always grave matter.

  Could public promotion of something that is against the teaching of the Catholic Church be used to excommunicate?

Yes

  If yes, why doesn't the Catholic Church excommunicate her?

Cowardly bishops

  Or who/where can claim the case for excommunication?

Bishops can excommunicate.


Here is a list of all the official Anglican statements of belief that talk about hell:
The 39 Articles of Religion
Contrary to what you say, the 39 Articles do mention hell, in Article 3:

As Christ died for us, and was buried; so also it is to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

The Book of Common Prayer
The word "hell" appears in two contexts in the BCP: the Apostles' Creed (Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and the three baptism services), and the Athanasian Creed:

that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day (Apostles)
Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead (Athanasian)

Summary
And that's it. The Church of England has no other statements of faith that we can use. There are no other authoritative documents that can give an official answer. Beyond the statement that Christ descended into Hell after his death, the Church of England has no official teaching on the subject.
Obviously Anglicans (individually, and often corporately) have more complex and deeper beliefs about Hell, but these are the only official statements.


What prompted the second century writers to adopt the concept of οὐσία to refer to God's nature?

This seems to have been prompted by Greek Philosophy beginning about 600 BC. This is most pronounced in the teachings of Plato, specifically his Theory of Forms in Plato's cave allegory.

Details

In Plato's theory, εἶδος (eidos) represents the "Visible Form" while, μορφή (morphē) represents the "shape". Additionally, within Greco-Roman philosophy, there were also the φαινόμενα (phainomena), "appearances" which underwent significant philosophical discussion.

In Plato's allegory, Plato asks Glaucon to imagine a prisoner in a cell in a dungeon or cave. Out of view of the prisoner is a light source. This light source illuminates an object - again out of view of the prisoner. The prisoner in the cave is only able to see the shadow cast by the object:

In terms of the Allegory, the εἶδος (eidos) is the object or vase while the μορφή (morphē) is the projected image of the object, or the shadow of the vase.

As Wikipedia notes,

  The English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts that concerned Plato—the outward "form" or appearance of something, and "Form" in a new, technical nature, that never

    ...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner....

  The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms.

So in terms of God, the form of God as it appears to us (where we are the prisoner in Plato's cave) is the μορφή (morphē). This term acknowledges that our ability to view God is imperfect, and we are not capable of truly seeing God fully and directly. In trinitarian thought, the incarnation of Jesus might be thought of in some contexts as μορφή (morphē) - as Jesus, that was how God was able to appear to us.

Conversely, God's true form could be thought of as εἶδος (eidos). It holds the concept of God's true and actual form which we lack the ability and perspective to view properly due to our humanly limitations.

John and Philippians appears to reference this as do many other passages, I am sure:

  who, though he was in the form [morphe] of God, did not count
  equality with God a thing to be grasped (Philippians 2:6 ESV).

  And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His
  voice you have never heard, his form [eidos] you have never seen,
  (John 5:37 ESV)

Similarly, the Holy Spirit at Pentecost might be thought to be the φαινόμενα (phainomena) of God.

So, how do we get from form to substance?

The obvious problem for the philosopher here is that if Jesus is merely the form [morphe] of God, then he is not truly God. If Jesus is form [morphe] then he is not εἶδος (eidos). If the holy spirit is a φαινόμενα (phainomena) then she is not εἶδος (eidos).

This presents a problem for the trinitarian scripturally, with Jesus's claims to be God.

This can then easily be corrected by asking "well, what if Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are different forms, but are all of the same substance?" What if Jesus is but is a different form [morphe] of God, but is ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios) as God?

Conclusion

From this context, we can easily see how we arrive at the Arian Controversy. With this background in place, it is clear that when the language of Plato's Theory of Forms is used to describe Jesus as a form of God, it lends itself to the idea that Jesus is not God, but is merely a shadow or projection of God - not God himself. The language and concept of οὐσία therefore became necessary for the Trinitarians to explain both how Jesus could be both a form of God and BE God.


If the dead are already in heaven, how do they rise at the second coming?

Abstract

The idea that the saved go to heaven when they die is somewhat anachronistic.  Equally anachronistic is the idea that people will be "raptured" into heaven when Jesus returns.  Paul had another meaning in mind when he wrote this verse.

N. T. Wright explains in Surprised By Hope:

  The word parousia occurs in two of the key passages [concerning rapture theology] in Paul (I Thessalonians 4:15 and I Corinthians 15:23), and is found frequently elsewhere in Paul and the New Testament.  It seems clear that the early Christians knew the work well, and knew what was meant by it. People often assume that the early chruch used parousia simply to mean "the second coming of Jesus" and that by this event they all envisioned, in a quite literal fashion, the scenario of I Thessalonians 4:16-17 (Jesus coming down on a cloud and people flying upward to meet him). Neither of these assumptions is in fact correct.—p. 128

Wright then explains the two meanings of parousia that were in play:

"The mysterious presence of a god or divinity, particularly when the power of this god was revealed in healing." (p. 129)
"When a person of high rank makes a visit to a subject state, particularly when a king or emperor visits a colony or province." (p. 129)

As Wright explains it, Paul envisioned Jesus returning to earth to establish His everlasting Kingdom here, not in heaven.  Therefore, the spirits of the already dead will return to inhabit their resurrected bodies and the bodies of the living will be transformed so that we can meet our King.


Is it true that John Paul II restored the practice of selling indulgences in 2000?

Answering your question

No.  It is not true.  In any way.

The sale of indulgences is the sin of simony (selling of holy items) and the temporal punishment is the immediate excommunication of the perpetrator by the very nature of the act. Even accepting money for indulgences has been outlawed since the Council of Trent, which codified it with "let all who disagree be anathema".

What you probably really wanted to know

After Vatican II the question of how the Church would handle indulgences was left up in the air. Paul VI, in 1968, realizing that there was still some spiritual benefits in them, produced a new list of things which included
partial or a plenary indulgence (assuming appropriate circumstances). They no longer equate to "years of penance"* but rather, "part of the suffering of a soul in purgatory" (partial) or "all of the suffering of a soul in purgatory." (plenary)

The item you are probably referencing is that John Paul II released a new Enchiridion of Indulgences, which is the official list of all of the indulgenced acts from the Vatican. Individual ordinaries (heads of diocese, which can be any priest if necessary) are free to amend this within their juristiction.

* as an aside: indulgences are more properly understood as having to do with the amount of suffering in purgatory, not the length of time there.


Did Moses leave his wife and kids? If so, why?

It is helpful to read all of Exodus 4 starting at verse 18.

After the burning bush, and God giving Moses signs to do in Egypt, Moses then asked his father in-law if he could return to Egypt. Moses took his wife and two sons, put them on a donkey, and set off for Egypt.

Notice verse 24: ON THE WAY.

Moses' wife was not an Israelite and she was NOT going to allow her son to be circumcised. Moses had yielded to the wishes of his wife, but as he was on the way to represent the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, God shows us that NOBODY was exempt from His covenant:

  9 And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant,
  you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10
  This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your
  descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be
  circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your
  foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.
  12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male
  child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with
  money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born
  in your house and he who is bought with your money must be
  circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting
  covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised
  in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his
  people; he has broken My covenant.” (Genesis 17:9-14)

.........................................................................

When Zipporah saw that God was going to kill Moses, she defiantly complied.

  24 And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the Lord
  met him and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone
  and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’[a] feet, and
  said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!” 26 So He let him go.
  Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”—because of the
  circumcision. (Exodus 4:24-26)

Picturing this scene of marital stife, it's not difficult to see her returning to her father's house at this point, while Moses and Aaron continue on to Egypt.


Can Catholics receive sacraments via Skype?

Yes, you could conceivably be married by proxy, via Skype.

  Can.  1104 §1. To contract a marriage validly the contracting parties must be present together, either in person or by proxy [per procuratorem].

There can be no online confession:

  Can.  964 §1. The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a
  church or oratory.

  §3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a
  just cause.

See the Substantive Norms art. 4, which forbids the recording "by whatever technical means" of what is said in confession:

  § 2. With due regard for § 1, n. 5, also reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the more grave delict which consists in the recording, by whatever technical means, or in the malicious diffusion through communications media, of what is said in sacramental confession, whether true or false, by the confessor or the penitent. Anyone who commits such a delict is to punished according to the gravity of the crime, not excluding, if he be a cleric, dismissal or deposition.

All the other sacraments must be done in person because they require a physical matter:

holy water for Baptism
holy oil for Confirmation, Orders, and Extreme Unction (Last Rites)
wheat bread for the Eucharist
imposition of hands (+ investiture of the new Priests) in Holy Orders


See the bibliography (pp. 222-223) of:

McCloud, Henry J. 1948. Clerical dress and insignia of the Roman Catholic Church. Milwaukee: Bruce Pub. Co.

Most of the references therein are on the liturgy, but there are a few specifically related to vestments, e.g., Nainfa's Costume of Prelates of the Catholic Church (1926) p. 35 says:

Since the seventeenth century, black is the obligatory color for the clothing of the secular clergy of second rank in all the Western church.
[…]
     Prelates, Bishops and the members of the Sacred College also use black for their everyday costume (and their street-dress in Catholic countries); but their black dress is trimmed with red or purple, according to their rank in the hierarchy, and the different seasons of the ecclesiastical year, as will be explained further on.

Searching that book for "trimmed with", you will find several results for the color trimmings used for the vestments of clergy of various ranks or religious orders.


Readable presentations on theodicy (problem of evil) theories?

The Doors of the Sea by David Bentley Hart, from an Orthodox perspective.

The Justification Of God by John Piper, from a Reformed perspective. This book is more focused on the question of how can God be called good if he has sovereignly ordained that some people be damned, but the existence of God is clearly an implication of that question. As it's written by a Reformed theologian you can't be quite sure that the answer isn't "because freedom!"


John's was a baptism of repentance. It was a cleaning of the body, according to the Law that commanded those who were unclean to "wash with water".

This is not the same baptism as that in Christ since the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ those who had already received John's baptism in Acts 19.


Was Elohim the Saviour and Redeemer of his world?

This idea actually dates all the way back to Joseph Smith.  I've been able to find a couple different quotes from him that touch on the subject, from a couple different sermons he gave:

As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again
-- History of the Church 5:426
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.
-- History of the Church 6:373


Are OT verses in Hebrews 1 actually verses about Jesus?

The author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 2:7 along with 2 Samuel 7:14. These two passages have been linked together as a Messianic reference since before the time of the NT. From the ESV Study Bible notes on the text we can see how to view these two references in regards to David and the Messiah:

  In the context of Samuel, the reader might assume this refers to
  David’s son Solomon, but Solomon failed to follow the law and was not
  “established forever” (2 Sam. 7:16); hence, the promise can only be
  fulfilled by the Davidic Messiah. Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 are linked by
  the special designation “Son,” and by their messianic theology (a link
  also assumed in NT-era Judaism, e.g., 4QFlorilegium in the Dead Sea
  Scrolls). 1

Additionally, Christian commentators since then have seen this specific verse a direct pointer to Christ, that David as the Israelites best king was foreshadowing the Messiah and that the full kingdom of God would go beyond what David had done. Calvin states it this way:

  It cannot be denied that this was spoken of David, but in so far as
  Christ was in him; therefore, the things we find in this psalm were
  foreshadowed in David, but manifested in Christ. When David conquered
  the many enemies surrounding his kingdom and enlarged its borders,
  there was a foreshadowing of the fulfillment of the promise, I shall
  give the nations for thine inheritance. But how little this was
  compared with the Kingdom of Christ, which extends from East to West! 2

Given that this was an established interpretation in Judaism (not Christianity, but the Jewish expectation for a Messiah) it is then clear to see why the author of Hebrews used these two passages to reinforce to his audience (1st century Jews) the position of the Messiah.

Lastly, although there are other topics here that address Jesus identity as the Christ, I will cite one way in which there is a direct link to the Jesus of the gospels. There are 4 instances in the gospel in which the audible voice of God uses the same title, “Son” to apply to Jesus.

  "and behold, a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with
  whom I am well pleased.'”  Matthew 3:17

  "and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and
  a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well
  pleased.'”  Luke 3:22

  "He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them,
  and a voice from the cloud said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I
  am well pleased; listen to him.'” Matthew 17:5

  "And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud,
  'This is my beloved Son; listen to him.'” Mark 9:7

1 Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (2362). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

2 Calvin, J., & Anderson, J. (2010). Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Ps 2:7–8). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


I asked the same question to the Priest who lead our (it was my wife and my honeymoon) pilgrimage for the 2005 World Youth Day in Cologne, Germany.

His answer was, It's like a renaissance festival for young(ish) Catholics.

And, since I've never been to a renaissance festival, but I have been to a World Yotuth Day, I think I agree.

Of the few that I've been keen on following up on, in Germany, Australia and Spain, it seems like a major world youth day event takes place every 3rd summer.  It's a two and a half week shindig with parishes from all over the host country taking in pilgrims.

The first half is the Days in the Diocese where pilgrims stay with host families from all over the country and get to know what things are like on a parish level  (this was awesome in Germany, I love you Osnabrück and your life-sized foosball game and endless deserts)

The second half is when everyone moves in closer to the epicenter and the major things start happening.  There is daily Catechesis (with Bishops and Cardinals), Holy Mass, Eucharistic Adoration, Confession as well as rock and folk Concerts, gymnastics and lots of juggling.

Mostly it's about the anticipation of the one big event where everyone comes together for vespers and mass with the Pope and that is awesome.  There's really nothing like camping out with a million other Catholics from all over the world.  Maybe it was just because it was my honeymoon, but it was the best experience of my life!


Was the Trinity still a Trinity when Jesus died?

Jesus Christ, on earth, was the incarnate Word: the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son. His earthly body and the soul which animated it were both at once human and divine.
To say “God died” actually denies the human soul and its continued existence after the death of the body. Even though Jesus’ body died, his soul did not — or what hope is there for the rest of us?
His body died, but his soul — with its divine nature as well as human — continued its existence. The Word did not die. Indeed, not only did the Word not die, but he descended to hell. The gates of hell in Mt 16:18 are important because they could not contain him.
The Catholic Catechism puts meat on the bones of this answer:

625 Christ's stay in the tomb constitutes the real link between his passibleA state before Easter and his glorious and risen state today. The same person of the "Living One" can say, "I died, and behold I am alive for evermore":465

God [the Son] did not impede death from separating his soul from his body according to the necessary order of nature, but has reunited them to one another in the Resurrection, so that he himself might be, in his person, the meeting point for death and life, by arresting in himself the decomposition of nature produced by death and so becoming the source of reunion for the separated parts.466

626 Since the "Author of life" who was killed467 is the same "living one [who has] risen",468 The divine person of the Son of God necessarily continued to possess his human soul and body, separated from each other by death:
By the fact that at Christ's death his soul was separated from his flesh, his one person is not itself divided into two persons; for the human body and soul of Christ have existed in the same way from the beginning of his earthly existence, in the divine person of the Word; and in death, although separated from each other, both remained with one and the same person of the Word.469
627 Christ's death was a real death in that it put an end to his earthly human existence. But because of the union his body retained with the person of the Son, his was not a mortal corpse like others, for "divine power preserved Christ's body from corruption."470 Both of these statements can be said of Christ: "He was cut off out of the land of the living",471 and "My flesh will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let your Holy One see corruption."472 Jesus' Resurrection "on the third day" was the proof of this, for bodily decay was held [by the people of the time] to begin on the fourth day after death.473

A passible: able to suffer [from Latin passio, suffering]
465 Rev 1:18.
466 St. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. catech. 16: PG 45, 52D.
467 Acts 3:15.
468 Lk 24:5-6.
469 St. John Damascene, De fide orth. 3, 27: PG 94, 1097.
470 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol. III, 51, 3.
471 Is 53:8.
472 Acts 2:26-27; cf. Ps 16:9-10.
473 Cf. I Cor 15:4; Lk 24:46; Mt 12:40; Jn 2:1; Hos 6:2; cf. Jn 11:39.