Meaning behind skull at the base of a cross?

There seems to be two interpretations of the meaning of the skull at the base of the cross, the first is more symbolic and the second is more historical:

The skull represents Adam, the first man, along with original sin. Jesus was sent to Earth to absolve us of our sins through His death. Jesus' blood is washing away our sins by flowing across the skull of Adam and that Jesus is above sin. (Source: http://ricklobs.blogspot.com/2009/03/have-you-ever-noticed-skull-at-base-of.html)
The hill that Jesus was crucified on was called Golgotha, or Skull Hill. This is where Adam was reportedly buried and the Lord was crucified where Adam lay. (Source: http://mysite.pratt.edu/~wburg/paint/p3skull.html) (Source 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgota)


How does the Catholic Church reconcile evolution with original sin?

Catholics reconcile the two beliefs by being allowed to believe in evolution, but required to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

For the purposes of this discussion, evolution is the scientific hypothesis that the physical bodies of various living beings have developed from those of other living beings of different species. To believe in evolution is to hold evolution as a scientific hypothesis, subject to falsifiability in the event of countering evidence (that is, evidence that can only be explained if the hypothesis is false).

With these definitions in mind, then, the Catholic Church neither requires nor forbids Catholics to believe in evolution—to the extent (and only to the extent) that such a belief is not found to conflict with Church teaching. However, the Church does require that Catholics assert that there were a single original man and woman, who sinned, and who are the ancestors of all subsequent humans.

The encyclical letter Humani Generis, written by Pope Pius XII in 1950, discusses (among other philosophical stances the Church considers to be errors or heresies) evolution as it has sometimes been used to back an existential, relativist view of the world. Pope Pius writes:

  The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

(paragraph 36)

In other words, the Church has no issue with discussion of evolution as science, and purely as science; it's when the scientific conclusions are used to back philosophical statements at variance with the revealed Truth, or when evolution is held as if it were a matter of Faith, that the Church takes issue.

Pope Pius continues, however:

  The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

(paragraph 37)

In other words, if Adam and Eve were not a single pair of people, who sinned, and who were the ancestors of all subsequent humans, it would be possible to deny that all human beings are subject to original sin. Since this is a matter of Faith—something which cannot be denied without committing heresy—there appears to be no way to hold that Adam and Eve were not literal beings.

The Pope concludes by mandating that teachers of the Catholic faith not present such statements (e.g. that Adam was not a real person, but represents a number of early humans) as fact.

Note: To believe that there were two humans who were the ancestors of all subsequent humans is scientifically reasonable, as I understand things. That is, it appears that the statement found above in this question:

  The theory of evolution ... implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed

may be false without contradicting what is known scientifically about humans; and the Catholic Church, as appears in this document, officially believes that it is false.


According to Catholicism, what Old Testament text is referred to in John 19: 36?
The Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582 (page 227) states very clearly in the margin for reference on the bold text of John 19:36 that it refers to Ex 12:46.

For these things were done that the scripture might be fulfilled, You shall not break a bone of him.

Exodus 12:46 reads as follows:

46 In one house shall it be eaten, neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house, neither shall you break a bone thereof.

Jesus is the true Lamb of God


What were the major disagreements between Erasmus and Luther during the Protestant Reformation?

To understand how Erasmus viewed Luther it is helpful to see on what topic they decidedly became engaged in hot argument against each other. The topic they chose to hurl their missiles at each other what a on their opposite understanding of the role of the 'human will.'

Erasmus was a Catholic who never wanted to separate from the stablished Catholic religion. However he was also a highly regarded academic with a strong humanistic persuasion. He was also much older then Luther, and a although not really providing Luther with any direct inspiration theologically, he did publish a Greek New Testament that Luther was grateful to have and use.

In simple terms to understand Erasmus, the idea of humanism should play central. In other word he sought to use critical thinking and scholarship along with the value of individual humanity to try and obtain a more free and liberal world that would tolerate new ideas and not just forcibly follow the dogmatics of religious powers who were at times corrupt in addition to ignorant. So Erasmus was not a regions reformer per se, but rather a Catholic with a liberal and humanistic view that naturally would like and dislike Luther all at the same time.

Luther on the other had was principally a theological reformer, absolutely focused on opposing works in salvation versus faith alone. Erasmus in some ways did not seem to want to deal directly with doctrines and theology or at least had more general interests in education and scholastic topics that had effects of humanity as a whole.

Now with these very different drivers of course one would expect some initial interest in each other and a final separation as is what history shows.  Basically Erasmus encouraged people to read Luther's writings and wanted people like Luther to express their views as part of a liberalized acceptance of human opinion under a humanistic tolerance.  Luther on the other hand would have loved the support of a respected academic such as Erasmus if he could only make him his disciple.

What history shows is that as Luther caused a violent political uproar over justification by faith alone, Erasmus was pressured to distance himself from Luther and finally  chose the subject of 'free will' to launch an attack, writing a diatribe that implied Luther's predestination based doctrines to limit the free will of men to far and become obnoxious to the spirit of a humanist.

Luther in response wrote a book called the 'Bondage of the will'. In it he argues against Erasmus's view of a free will that is aligned with Catholic doctrine that allows for some role of works in Salvation.  Luther shows that a sinner is without the ability to be real righteous or chose anything towards salvation but only the elect can be delivered from an enslaved will to one under the liberty and control of the Spirit.   We need not go too deep in explaining the theology of either side, only notice that this is what Erasmus chose to take a stance against Luther, while still liking Luther in some ways according to his humanistic tolerance of ideas.

Some quotes from a summary of this dispute from a book called 'MARTIN LUTHER’S THEOLOGY, Its Historical and Systematic Development' by BERNHARD LOHSE, will help underline the points I have mentioned above.

  LUTHER’S DISPUTE WITH ERASMUS
  Erasmus’s Diatribe de libero arbitrio (1524)
  While the debate about reforms was still going on and Luther was developing in greater detail his view of the temporal authority against opponents to “left” and “right,” the next great dispute occurred, this time between Luther and Erasmus. The dispute had to do with the starting point of Reformation theology, with the radical view of sin and bondage of the human will in respect of grace...

  Erasmus advocated a Christianity reinvigorated by the Sermon on the Mount. It was not the abundance of ecclesiastical norms and regulations, and certainly not the subtleties of scholasticism that should determine the church’s teaching and preaching, but rather humility and discipleship. Erasmus held that some questions with which philosophy and theology dealt were too complex for him to want to discuss them in public. Among them was the problem of the freedom of the will.
  When, after intense pressure, Erasmus finally dealt with the freedom of the will in his Diatribe, he singled out that point at which he knew he was in conscious agreement with Luther’s traditionalist opponents, despite all their other differences....

  What is significant is Erasmus’s definition of free choice or freedom of the will: “By free choice in this place we mean a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from them.” Erasmus argued that Scripture as well as ancient and more modern scholars hold various views regarding the freedom of the will. Against Luther he stressed that to contest the freedom of the will easily opens the door to godlessness. Since the New Testament speaks often of reward, there can be no such thing as mere necessity. Erasmus left open the question whether as primary cause of all occurrences God effects some things only through secondary causes, or whether he is omnipotent. For his defense of a limited freedom of the will he also cited the scholastic distinction between necessitas consequentis (unconditioned necessity) and necessitas consequentiae (conditioned necessity). Above all he opposed the idea that God would harden a person’s heart. For the rest, he emphasized that we owe God “all the work without which we can do nothing, and that the contribution of free choice is extremely small, and that this itself is part of the divine gift.” We may summarize his position to read that the grace of God is the principal cause and the human will the secondary cause in obtaining salvation.
  Admittedly, at certain points in his Diatribe, Erasmus laid himself open to attack. His statement on skepticism is highly problematic: “And, in fact, so far am I from delighting in ‘assertions’ that I would readily take refuge in the opinion of the Skeptics, wherever this is allowed by the inviolable authority of the Holy Scriptures and by the decrees of the church, to which I everywhere willingly submit my personal feelings, whether I grasp what it prescribes or not.” Luther responded in all asperity: “Spiritus sanctus non est Scepticus” (the Holy Spirit is no skeptic). Of course in his Hyperaspistes Erasmus made clear what he meant by these unguarded statements: “It is not a matter of indifference but of reserve toward too hasty assertions, just as the ancient church reflected long before it handed down decisions, for example, in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.” This very passage indicates to what great extent Erasmus and Luther misunderstood each other.

  Luther’s Response in The Bondage of the Will (1525)
  In drafting his refutation, Luther took more time than with any other polemical piece against the traditionalists....

  Central Themes in De servo arbitrio
  First, as to its context in the history of theology, Erasmus and Luther were aware that their dispute had to do with a problem that was repeatedly discussed and with varied results in the late Middle Ages. While Erasmus often maintained a certain distance from Laurentius Valla, Luther appealed to this Renaissance philosopher. This fact is worth noting, since Valla did not exclude the freedom of the will outright, though he severely limited it. More appropriately, Luther cited Wyclif in support of his position. In view of his infrequent references to Valla and Wyclif, the appeal to either indicates that he was clearly informed of the late medieval theological-philosophical controversy over the freedom of the will. In any event, he set his own dispute with Erasmus in this context. Finally, we should note first Luther’s choice of title for the treatise, a title that he did not explain but about the background of which scholars at that time were certainly aware. Only once had Augustine spoken of the “servum arbitrium” (bound will). By using this title Luther intended to make clear that he understood himself as defender of the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace against Pelagians old and new. With the quotation from Augustine he was appealing to the tradition of the church fathers. (MARTIN LUTHER’S THEOLOGY, Its Historical and Systematic Development, BERNHARD LOHSE p159-160)

In conclusion: Erasmus was not a theological reformer but an 'emphasis reformer', turning away from a dogmatic religious feeling, to a humanistic one. Luther was a theological reformer that revolted from a theology that included some measure of works to obtain Salvation, to one of faith alone.  This abandonment of humanity to utter filth and enslavement to sin, without any free-will remaining, that is no ability to work your way to salvation in any sense, was offensive both to Catholic dogma and humanistic feeling, therefore Erasmus and Luther parted ways. So of course Erasmus thought Luther went to far, but it was not principally in his opposition to the Pope but in his theologically reformed ideas.


Why not directly confess our sins to God?

Since the question is about confession to a priest, the answer would rely upon the teachings of the Catholic Church. As such the best place to find the answer about why Catholics would confess to a priest are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The particular paragraphs that cover this are under the heading "Ministry of This Sacrament" in regards to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Here it is clarified that, in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church, Christ "entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliations, bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops' collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry." This is why Catholics confess to a priest.

To answer the second part of the question it is important to understand most fully what confession is according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. The purpose of confession is to reconcile one back to God where sin has severed or separated one from God to any degree. A practicing Catholic would not deny the truth that confession could be made directly to God or to Christ but would argue that due to our subjective nature in regards to self, a more perfect confession could be made when an Examination of Conscience is done and confession is made to a priest who, according to the Catechism, "is fulfilling the ministry of the Good Shepherd who seeks the lost sheep, of the Good Samaritan who binds up wounds, of the Father who awaits the prodigal son and welcomes him on his return, and of the just and impartial judge whose judgment is both just and merciful. The priest is the sign and the instrument of God's merciful love for the sinner."

Further, as the Catechism states, once confession to a priest has been accomplished with a "contrite heart and religious disposition, reconciliation is usually followed by peace and serenity of conscience with strong spiritual consolation."

And while this becomes a personal experience and difficult to justify, nonetheless I believe it is worth saying that people who do participate in confession with a contrite heart and belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church will attest to the power of the sacrament.


Pope says Heaven apart from Christian faith?

To address your questions in order.

  Does the Catholic church officially recognize baptizing ones children as a good work that qualifies you for salvation?

Not by itself.  Heck, as a parent, the Church more or less expects if of you.  If you don't have your children baptized, you're doing it wrong.  That's a very terse summary of the Church's position.  (I speak as both a Catholic and a parent).

As for "what qualifies for salvation" that's a huge topic and a slightly loaded question.  The nuts and bolts of it is Baptism into the Church; remaining in communion with Christ/The Church/God; remaining free of the stain of mortal sin (and repenting from such sin and returning via the sacrament of reconciliation when it happens); those three are an incredibly brief summary of what the Church teaches as the path to salvation.  It does not do the topic justice.  And while you are at it, don't forget prayer and selfless service in His name.  (Aside: when Jesus told his disciples to "pick up your cross and follow me" the subtext of that message was not "this is gonna be easy."   There is no Easy Button).

  If the church does not recognize this, is Francis speaking apart from the teachings of the church. Is that allowed?

While The Holy Father is being a little glib (and IMO sloppy) in his public relations appearance there, he is speaking to his audience: children. It is worthwhile to consider the context and setting of his remarks.  That said:

A document issued from Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, presents an offer
of hope (beyond general human understanding) of salvation due to
God's mercy.  It is unknowable when God's mercy enters into such a
path to salvation.  This was controversial when it came out, and
remains a topic of some disagreement.  (It is not dogma, and as our
friend @Geremia here at Christianity.SE might remind us, it makes
statements at odds with the pronouncement at the Council of Trent
that there is no salvation outside of the Church; a pronouncement
that has not been repealed). You can, however, view his recent remark
as being consistent with this article.

  {Extracted from Lumen Gentium article 16}
  Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the
  dictates of conscience.  Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.   Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.  She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair.  Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Is it allowed?  Well, he's the Pope.  What he's supposed to do is lead the church.  He is also human, and can be careless.  Nobody but his own conscience can govern his decisions on what he says.  (As my wife has asked me to stop making comments about this particular Pope, that's as far as I'll go).

  Is it official now just because he has said such?

No.  This is not an ex cathedra pronouncement.  There is a particular form for making such statements in matters of faith and morals.  Such utterances are rare; the last one I recall covered the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.  That was the dogma explicitly conveyed in 1950, written/issued by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 in his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.  This off hand remark was no encyclical, nor any other form of ex cathedra utterance.

  Is Universalism accepted by Catholics

That is a separate question, please ask it separately.


Did the Lord God agree with "an eye for an eye"?

The distinction between the Old Testament and New is that the Old Testament laws were given to the nation of Israel as part of the covenant between God and the people of Israel.  The "eye for an eye" seems harsh to many people, but it was actually a law of restraint.  One eye for one eye--NOT two eyes, one arm and a foot for one eye.  "Burn for burn"--not "whole villages aflame".  The idea was to put the punishment into congruence with the actual offense.  Vengeance would most often greatly exceed this standard.

In the New Testament, Jesus is speaking not to the nation of Israel with regard to the covenant, but to individuals.  He was also speaking while the entire world was on the brink of the inception of the new covenant.

So, Old Testament Covenant applies to the nation of Israel as long as that covenant is in effect.  That means between God and the nation of Israel between the time of Moses and the inception of the new and better covenant--roughly 1600 B.C. to 33 A.D.

Questions like this come up fairly often on this site.  People ask, "Should I sacrifice a lamb or not eat pork or not wear clothing with mixed fabrics?"  The answer is, "Yes, if you are Jewish and are living between 1600 B.C. and 33 A.D."  However, if you are non-Jewish or are alive today, the Old Testament Convent Laws are not binding on you.


Should Christians uphold unjust laws that are not overtly immoral?

The idea that a law can be 'unjust but not immoral' is entirely foreign to Christianity. Anyone who has read significantly in the Old Testament prophets (see here) realizes that injustice is something that God condemns very strongly, and the people of Israel are frequently admonished for failing to deliver justice (Isaiah 10:2, Ezekiel 22:29, Amos 2:7 and literally hundreds more). Jesus picks up on this theme (Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42). Something that God condemns in such strong terms is 'immoral' by definition, and a sin.

The difference between "immoral" and "overtly immoral" doesn't help. One of the things Jesus most strongly condemned was hypocrisy - being "overtly moral" while "covertly immoral". Following Jesus' example, exposing the "covertly immoral" is something his followers should do. Opposing injustice is something any follower of God should have high on their agenda.


Is the feast of 1 Corinthians 5:8 the same feast as 1 Cor 11?

Short answer: no

David's comment is correct, the bread referred to in 1 Corinthians 5 is not the bread of the Lord's supper, but the lives of the believers themselves which should be unleavened by immorality (verses 6-8).  Paul extends the metaphor to a feast by including Christ as our Passover lamb (verse 7)


Who is being referred to in [Numbers 24:9]?

The word "Israel" is not found in Numbers 24:9 in the Masoretic Text (Hebrew), the Septuagint (Greek), or the Vulgate (Latin), which is why most translations do not include it in this verse.  But, as you noted, the beginning of the chapter makes it clear that the prophecy/message is about the people of Israel.  Jacob is another name for Israel, and both names are used in verse 5.

Balaam is delivering this message in the presence of Balak, king of Moab.  If you only look at the second half of verse 9 and you read "May those who bless you be blessed and those who curse you be cursed!", you might think that he is blessing Balak.  However, it is clear from the entire message that "you" refers to the people of Israel, not to Balak.  Balak understood this, because he gets angry with Balaam in verse 10.

Presumably to avoid confusion, the New Living Translation decided to explicitly clarify that "you" in verse 9 still refers to Israel.


Using the Hebrew calendar is there a way to determine when the seventy seven's starts and ends?

Further to your first question, “Is there a way to determine?”  I will now attempt an answer to your second question, “Will it end on a jubilee year, and how will that date translate to our current calendar?”

There are about four Jubilee examples in the Bible and they all link together in a grid of 49’s.  The best known ones include the case where Isaiah told King Hezekiah,

  “This shall be the sign for you: this year eat what grows of itself,
  and in the second year what springs of the same. Then in the third
  year sow and reap and plant vineyards, and eat their fruit.” (2 Kings
  19:29)

His example is significant, because, as a Jubilee Sabbath, it shows how the land lay fallow for two years in a row, and God expected his people to trust him for their sustenance until planting and reaping in the third year.  A ‘seven’ is indicated by the fact that sowing and reaping were not permitted that year. (Leviticus 25:3-7) A ‘forty-nine’ is indicated by the fact that no sowing and reaping was permitted the next year either.  (Leviticus 25:11-12)  God promised the people there would be enough fruit growing wild to feed them for two.  So the sign describes a 49th year Sabbath followed by a Jubilee.

The last identified case described in the Bible, occurred on the switch-point of Daniels 69th and 70th sevens and coincided with the manifestation of Messiah at his first coming.  Daniels ‘weeks’ began on the 1st Nisan 457 BC, when the Persian Emperor, Artaxerxes, issued a decree.  (Dan 9:25, Ezra 7:7-26)

Now, when we count forward 69 sevens (483 years) from 1 Nisan 457 BC, it comes out at 1 Nisan AD AD 27 - the time Jesus began his public ministry.  Here is what he said about that year:

  “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to
  proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim liberty to
  the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty
  those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”
  (Luke 4:16-21)

As we can see, it describes a Jubilee year, and it does in fact fit a series of 49-year spans from the anniversary of the Hebrew calendar on the year of the Exodus.  (Exodus 12:2)

When one considers how Daniel first predicts the decree nearly a century before it happened, then proceeds to telescope another 69 weeks further, we find a supernatural fulfillment of the ‘times’ in Jesus of Nazareth.  Add that to the unlikely chance of a decree occurring on the cusp of a grand Jubilee cycle, and it cannot be brushed aside.  These ‘coincidences’ defy the odds and provide powerful testimony to the identity of the Christ.

So, in answer to your last question, no, the 70 sevens do not end on the Jubilee; it is the 69th seven that reaches the Jubilee.  This raises a much debated theory as to whether the 70th week is disconnected from the others and projected into the future.  I do not believe that it is. Here is a simple diagram of the 70 ‘weeks’, and below are my calendar dates for the key events in Daniel’s prophecy.

1st Nisan (26 March) 457 BC - 70 weeks cycle begin
October-November 26 AD      - Jesus baptised
1st Nisan (27 March) 27 AD  - 70th week begins
15th Nisan (7 April) 30 AD - Sacrifice abolished (Christs atonement)
29th Adar (9 March)  34 AD - 70 weeks cycle end


Is baptism by water necessary for salvation?

No, it is not necessary for salvation. Either Christ's work is complete at the cross or it is not.

Lets go to scripture.

Act 11:16  Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Water Baptism is merely a symbol of the Holy Spirit which baptizes.

No man made tradition provides salvation.

Also , Apostle Paul when he was In prison.
Act 16:30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

He didn't tell him, go get baptised and then you will be saved.


What does the Bible say about birth control?

But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother."
Genesis 38:9 - New International Version (©2011)

This is the scripture I think of when birth control is brought up. Onan's brother had died so his brother's wife came to belong to him (as was the custom then). He wasted his sperm though and God killed him for what he had done.
Children are a gift from God and were particularly seen as such in the Bible times (for instance barren women would be miserable and pray for offspring). Purposefully remaining childless while in a married relationship is something apparently common today, but not exactly natural.

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life
Exodus 21:22,23

The unborn are alive and seen by God as individuals - here causing the death of one carried the death penalty as for murder. They carry the potential to grow, as does every human, and have that potential right from the moment they were conceived (even before, as sperm).
Therefore the only form of "birth control" that I would see as Biblically OK is abstinence. If you really do not want children then it is best to stay single, as Paul advised.


According to the Catholic Church is it sinful to address someone who is transgender by the gender they identify as?

There are a number of points to address in this question.

Transsexualism
Confirming someone in sin
Sins against charity

There are lots of things in this answer which many people will find objectionable or hurtful or blind or disaffirming, but the question asks for the Catholic point of view.

I’m also aware that there are always difficult cases, and this answer may well engender other questions, “But what about...?” Such questions are better asked separately, as the question asked here is succinct in itself.

And, this answer deliberately avoids answering “How can I avoid the occasion of sin?” because that’s pastoral advice.

Transsexualism

The word transsexual doesn’t appear in the Catechism as that’s not recent enough. However, it does appear in two Vatican documents and has been noted as ethically unacceptable to anthropology.

  The Holy Father, in his homily during the Inaugural Mass in St Peter’s Basilica, pointed out, with a very incisive expression, how the First World “is exporting its spiritual toxic waste” to Africa and other developing areas. One of these poisons is the so-called “gender theory”, which, heavily disguised, is starting to infiltrate associations, governments and even some ecclesial environments in the African continent, judging from what the Pontifical Council for the Family tells us.

  The agents of various international institutions and organizations start from real problems, which must be dutifully resolved, such as the injustice and violence suffered by women, infant mortality, malnutrition and famine, problems related to housing and work. They propose solutions based on the values of equality, health and liberty: sacrosanct concepts, but rendered ambiguous by the new anthropological meanings that are given to them. For example, equality of people no longer just means equal dignity and access to fundamental human rights; but also the irrelevance of the natural differences between men and women, the uniformity of all individuals, as though they were sexually undifferentiated, and therefore the equality of all sexual orientations and behavior: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, polymorphous. Each individual has the right to freely practice (and change, should they wish) their choices in line with their drives, desires and preferences.

  This ideology is spread by reproductive health centers, local educational meetings and international TV programs broadcast via satellite. Collaboration of African governments and local groups, including ecclesial groups, is sought, and these groups usually don’t realize the ethically unacceptable anthropological implications of this.

  — Cardinal Antonelli, then President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, 2009

Transsexualism is a choice — even if it’s a choice which one is felt to be forced to make. It is a choice driven by preference, or desire, or a perceived need (“drive”) to reject God’s ordered creation and substitute a man-made one. The substituted creation doesn’t even need to have been surgically created: it is sufficient to say “I am not a man; I am a woman.” Cardinal Antonelli warned ten years ago that society would validate this man-made creation and even mandate its recognition — for example by forcing women to allow transwomen to compete in women’s sport, or compelling speech in the form of pronouns and the like.

As the question here indicates, such a man-made creation is contrary to the natural order as created by God, to Natural Law. The desire for it is called “disordered” for that reason. That’s not a polemical or pejorative word; it’s purely objective, meaning “outside the natural order”.

A disorder is not sinful. Although the Catechism pre-dates gender theory and transsexualism, it talks explicitly of same-sex attraction, and the principles can be applied to all sorts of disorders.

  2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

What is sinful is giving in to the disorder and going against God’s will for his creation. Again, in terms of homosexuality:

  2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴⁰ tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”¹⁴¹ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

  2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Even though those paragraphs can be applied to any disorder, transsexualism applies another layer. By saying “I am not a man; I am a woman,” or even “I am neither male nor female,” the person is saying “God got it wrong, and I’m putting it right.” Not only is that pride, but it is supplanting God.

Thus becoming a transsexual, acting on the desire or drive, is a mortal sin:

  1874 To choose deliberately — that is, both knowing it and willing it — something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

Confirming someone in sin

On this point, the Catechism is clear:

  1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

  by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
  by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
  by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
  by protecting evil-doers.

  By confirming someone in their sin — by using a disordered pronoun in the question’s example — we approve it. That act is sinful in itself, and again may even be a mortal sin because we deliberately choose something which is contrary to divine law.

Sins against charity

Any sin is a sin against God. A sin against charity is a sin against divine charity.

  2093 ...The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him.

  2094 One can sin against God’s love in various ways:

  indifference neglects or refuses to reflect on divine charity; it fails to consider its prevenient goodness and denies its power.
  ingratitude fails or refuses to acknowledge divine charity and to return him love for love.
  lukewarmness is hesitation or negligence in responding to divine love; it can imply refusal to give oneself over to the prompting of charity.
  acedia or spiritual sloth goes so far as to refuse the joy that comes from God and to be repelled by divine goodness.
  hatred of God comes from pride. It is contrary to love of God, whose goodness it denies, and whom it presumes to curse as the one who forbids sins and inflicts punishments.

  The question does not ask “It is uncharitable to confirm a transsexual lifestyle?” but “Is it a sin against charity to confirm it?”

Confirming the sinful lifestyle could certainly be said to confirm the hatred of God, hatred which comes from the pride of the one who has rejected him. God loves everyone just as they are, and to accede in the rejection of that love when someone seeks to “improve” upon creation is to accede in the rejection of God.

In that regard, yes: it is a sin against charity.

It is also uncharitable. The Spiritual Works of Mercy include

counselling the doubtful
instructing the ignorant
admonishing the sinner
comforting the sorrowful

...all of which may be relevant where someone is wrestling with how they deal with being the creation of God that they are.

¹⁴⁰ Cf. Gen 19:1–29; Rom 1:24–27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10
¹⁴¹ CDF, Persona humana 8


Is there any Biblical prophecy about Damascus?

If you partake in in-depth study of the Bible's use of city names, you will realize that each city that comes under judgement symbolically refers to a specific idea or relational context. For example, Damascus, the city you cite, is used in scripture to represent man-made civilization (usually in the context of God judging the errancy of our attempts to define our own sense of civility). Damascus, Syria, is historically the oldest civilization and city on Earth, representing the core of social justice, and how it stems from us making our own rules about how society should operate. God had already set his rules through the 10 commandments, however, man in his sin, has suggested other, more injust means of living.


In 1820 how were the Canons of Durango installed?

I will put out some points and hope that it at least narrows the target sufficiently.
Under the list heading of this document:

Capitulares de la Catedral de Durango mencionados en este volumen. [Google translated meaning:] Capitulars of the Cathedral of Durango
mentioned in this volume.

It seems that Agustín Fernández de San Vicente receives this cryptic entry (p.319):

Fernández de S. Vicente, D.José Agustín. Murió Arcediano el
15 de Mayo de 1855 [Google translated meaning:] Fernández de S. Vicente, D. José Agustín. Archdeacon died on
May 15, 1855

From this it seems clear that (1) he was canonized as the Capitular of the Durango Cathedral. Furthermore, it must have been before his death in 1855.
Under the same heading, a certain: Dr. D. Francisco Fernández Valentín died on October 21st, 1822 (p.320). Here (p.230), it is this same Valentin:

...who was vicar general of the Vacant See of Durango at the time [...1813...]

Since Fernandez de San Vicente was Vicar Capitular:

...the administrator of a vacant diocese, elected by a cathedral chapter...[o]n the death of a bishop...

(2) It seems he would have officially received that canon only after the death of the current Vicar General. Since Vicar Capitular must be appointed within "eighty days" of the death of the Bishop by the canons of the cathedral chapter to avoid that power passing to the metropolitan, and since we know given what you have written above he was appointed by cathedral chapter, we know he must have been canonized some-time before 80 days after the death of the Vicar General on October 21, 1822. This irregular situation which chose him as Vicar Capitular might explain why there was not oral examination etc.
Next we know that he never took up residency due to an appointment to a secular post as a commissioner in California in March, 1822:

The Plan de Iguala and the news of Mexican independence reached
California in March 1822 with a special mail shipment, and the
citizenry learned of the formation of an empire (1822-23) under
Augustin Comse Damian de Iturbide y Arambara. A Mexican commissioner,
Comissioner Augustin Fernandez de San Vicente, arrived later in March
1822…

(3) Since he was sent in 1822 according to this document (p.59), and it makes no sense to have canonized him non-residentially after he had already left on this separate commission, I think he must have been canonized between October 21, 1822 and the end of that year.
This may not give you an exact date, but within this approximately two-month period he must have been canonized as Vicar Capitular of Durango Cathedral. I'm not sure if he was canonized in a previously position which is implied by your claim that he was required to be paid by that chapter in April of 1822.
(4) In response to your question regarding non-residentiary canons, Global Perspectives on Legal History
A Max Planck Institute for European Legal History Vol. 5 seems to suggest that those appointed by the crown were considered canons even when they refused to physical go to their see (100-101). Though officially recognized as such, their actual power seemed ineffective against de facto coups.
Here is the Spanish:

Ortega Montañés y la sustitución de la facción de la sede vacante, 1700–1708
El inicio de la gestión arzobispal de Juan de Ortega Montañés, en 1700, fue una coyuntura favorable para el regreso del grupo clerical que encabezaba la curia con su antecesor, desplazando a los nombrados durante la sede vacante. Con esta acción, el arzobispo le dio continuidad a trayectorias de juristas eclesiásticos que servirían de modelo a futuras generaciones. Una consecuencia de tal sustitución fue la serie de fricciones que tuvieron con el provisor destituido, Escalante Mendoza. En 1700, quizá buscando una solución a tal situación, la corona nombró a Escalante como obispo de Durango, la diócesis más pobre y alejada de la capital novohispana. Sin embargo, el aludido se negó a dejar la capital, porque confiaba en una nueva promoción a un mejor obispado. En tanto, el arzobispo Ortega comenzó a desgastar el poder acumulado por el chantre Escalante: no permitió que la congregación de San Pedro, donde el segundo era abad perpetuo, usara estolas en una procesión; después, nombró administrador de la fábrica de catedral al doctor Miguel González, en lugar de Escalante. Igualmente, el arzobispo le dio al doctor Rodrigo García Flores la capellanía del colegio de las Niñas, que tenía Escalante, a quien ni siquiera se le avisó.31 Poco antes de estos sucesos, el arzobispo en persona asistió a la toma de posesión de Torres Vergara de la cátedra de Prima de Leyes de la universidad, misma que Escalante había conseguido para un protegido en 1698 provocando un pleito en el Consejo de Indias.32 Era claro que el arzobispo Ortega había maniobrado rápidamente para formar un nuevo grupo para su curia, el cual estuvo conformado por su provisor-vicario general, el canónigo Antonio Aunsibay Anaya; su juez de testamentos, el cura de catedral José Torres Vergara; el defensor de este mismo tribunal, José Hurtado de Castilla, catedrático sustituto; el canónigo Miguel González de Valdeosera, administrador de la fábrica de catedral; y el canónigo Rodrigo García Flores, flamante capellán de uno de los conventos más importantes de la capital.

And the Google translate version in English:

Ortega Montañés and the replacement of the faction of the vacant seat, 1700–1708
The beginning of the archbishop's administration of Juan de Ortega Montañés, in 1700, was a favorable juncture for the return of the clerical group that headed the curia with its predecessor, displacing those appointed during the vacant seat. With this action, the archbishop continued the careers of ecclesiastical jurists that would serve as a model for future generations. One consequence of such substitution was the series of frictions they had with the dismissed provisional officer, Escalante Mendoza. In 1700, perhaps looking for a solution to such a situation, the crown named Escalante as Bishop of Durango, the poorest diocese and far from the capital of New Spain. However, the aforementioned refused to leave the capital, because he trusted a new promotion to a better bishopric. Meanwhile, Archbishop Ortega began to wear down the power accumulated by the cantor Escalante: he did not allow the congregation of San Pedro, where the second was perpetual abbot, to wear stoles in a procession; later, he appointed doctor Miguel González as administrator of the cathedral factory, instead of Escalante. Likewise, the archbishop gave Dr. Rodrigo García Flores the chaplaincy of the girls' school, which Escalante had, who was not even notified.31 Shortly before these events, the archbishop in person attended the inauguration of Torres Vergara from the university's chair of law school, which Escalante had obtained for a protégé in 1698 by provoking a lawsuit in the Council of the Indies.32 It was clear that Archbishop Ortega had quickly maneuvered to form a new group for his curia, which was conformed by his Provisor-Vicar General, Canon Antonio Aunsibay Anaya; its testament judge, the cathedral priest José Torres Vergara; the defender of this same court, José Hurtado de Castilla, substitute professor; Canon Miguel González de Valdeosera, administrator of the cathedral factory; and Canon Rodrigo García Flores, brand-new chaplain of one of the most important convents in the capital.

However, this occurred some time before Agustín Fernández, and law may have changed. Early in the period of colonization, the possibility of vacant seats seemed common (suggesting a rationale for allowing non-residentiary canons) due to the need to travel across the ocean. Under their entry for 1558 Global Perspectives:

La finalidad propia y específica del cabildo en el derecho vigente es la de celebrar las funciones litúrgicas más solemnes. Tal función, que, como se ha visto, era una de las obligaciones tradicionales del cabildo, se ha preservado procurando que los cabildos llegaran a ser una institución litúrgica modélica.4 Pero lo que daba un mayor prestigio al cabildo era el hecho de que eran los encargados de gobernar la diócesis durante los períodos de sede vacante, que eran con frecuencia largos en Nueva España.5
The specific and proper purpose of the council in current law is to
celebrate the most solemn liturgical functions. Such a function,
which, as has been seen, was one of the traditional obligations of the
council, has been preserved by ensuring that the councils become a
model liturgical institution.4 But what gave the council greater
prestige was the fact that they were those charged with governing
the diocese during vacant periods, which were often long in New
Spain. 5

I am not an expert in Canon Law so I may have gotten some of the terms confused, but I hope this helps!


Did Judas play an important role for God’s salvation?

In Acts 2 Peter addresses a Jewish crowd and says that the death of Jesus was both the act of humans and the plan of God:

Acts 2:22-23 NIV: Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

This reflects the traditional compatibilist view that two things are simultaneously true: that God's will is completely sovereign, while humans have real wills.
If Judas had not desired to betray Jesus we can conclude that Jesus's death would have gone ahead according to God's plan. Indeed, even within the Gospels it's not really clear that Judas accomplished much; the Jewish leaders knew who Jesus was and he wasn't trying to hide from them. Perhaps all that Judas accomplished was alerting them to where Jesus was at a time when they could arrest him without the whole city observing, so that he could be killed in time for Passover.


What is the Catholic position on Exodus 20:4?

I was just reading this EWTN article on the 10 commandments in connection with another post on this site, but it's appropriate here too.
And I won't attempt to justify my Church beyond what the Catechism says:

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

CCC 2131-2132
Exodus states a few chapters after the Decalogue

Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall be turned toward each other, but with their faces looking toward the propitiatory.

Exodus 26:18-20
I'm not trying to point out inconsistencies.  I assume that the Bible is internally consistent and it's done a good job of ordering society for a long time.  It's pretty apparent that the Jews of the Bible had no problem smashing opposing nation's idols and there's no history of ancient busts of David or Solomon popping up.
So, as I meant to say a bit ago, when I referenced the EWTN article on the 10 commandments, they reflect the Natural Law.  They're not strange and arbitrary commands of God, as they would be if they favored iconography over sculpture.  One could say that you'd be less given to idolatry given an icon over a statue, but that'd be a natural law argument, not a purely theological one.
Finally, if Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, and the Sabbath is made for man and not the other way around, then why is art not made for man?
Sacramentals do assist in prayer, some austere monastic types not like them, but others do.  To be able to talk to Mary, who hears your prayer and intercedes on your behalf, is something that can be helped through art.
A good priest will tell you, if you need something, turn to Mary.  Turning, is a physical act which requires a subject and when you see a statue of Mary in a Church, and to her left is Jesus, Body blood soul and divinity in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.  You've got a good basis for a spiritual platform from which to voice your petition.
The gist of it is, sacred art assists, rather than detracts, in the authentic worship of God.


How do deniers of the personal pre-incarnate existence of the Son of God interpret John 3:31-32?

The argument seems to be based on grammar of the target translation language, not on that of the source text. The original Greek of John 3 does not echo this "two distinct He" mentioned in the question:

In all cases the Greek Ὁ is the same inflection: "he" is not represented by a 3rd person singular pronoun, but by first person singular nominative (translated as "the one").
Nor does John 8:23:

Where ἐγὼ in both cases is also the same inflection.
If this would be referring to two distinctive "me" or "he", one would expect one (the one above) to be in Nominative and the second (the testifier) in either Accusative or Dative case, depending on whether the association is meant to be direct or indirect respectively, if the argument is to be inferred into the original Greek.


What is the Biblical basis for the "penal" in penal substitutionary atonement?

The 'penal' in penal substitution is based on the idea that sin brings about punishment under the curse of the law.  The curse of Adam's sin is death, which is a punishment. Punishment = the curse under the law for sin.

  Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” (NIV Galatians 3:13)

For Christ to become a curse is the same thing as saying he became guilty for our sin, or more emphatically became our actual sin making the Law execute him under its wrath:

  God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (NIV 2 Corinthians 5:21)

To say the holy Son of God is 'sin' and is 'cursed' must presume at the same time that he deserves to be punished for us, otherwise these appellations have no actual meaning and are blasphemy.

What you will find in reviewing different theories of atonement is that there are actually only two. These theories either support what is called a forensic justification by faith, or a denial of such a thing. The penal theory is actually just a natural result of affirming the reformed doctrine of Justification by faith. Anyone else when using the term 'justification' merely mean an initial point of sanctification. They mean some sanctification is necessary involved in producing justification. Justification to them means more of an initial 'full sanctification' making a person personally and inwardly righteous. The reformers just call this justification by works under the gloss of fake grace. Just legal righteous to serve the self righteous desires of those who deny the full curse of original sin.

The reformers denied any kind of inner righteousness having any involvement in justification in any sense.  Therefore while the penal theory supports a means whereby an absolutely evil person can be declared righteous apart from any work whatsoever, non penal theories focus on some infused righteousness as a result of Christ's death and our faith in him. The result is they avoid the penal aspect clearly spelled out by Paul and look for other subjects such as moral improvements, fatherly relationships, mystical unions, spiritual redemption....or any other focus that would allow some righteous ability of a person to cooperate with the Spirit and somehow retain some kind of human goodness. In other words the penal concept come from both the doctrines of original sin and justification apart from works.

Historically the penal idea is simply the acceptance of Pauline legal arguments as a necessary result of abandoning humanity to an absolutely hopeless sate under original sin. When man is absolutely lost and no method to relieve his 'guilt' or deserved 'punishment' under the Law, someone must pay before any sanctification can occur. This order of Justification before any sanctification, is the 'forensic' or 'external legal' doctrine of justification.

What I am trying to say is that although scriptures that I have quoted explain the origin of the penal theory it is actually the entire New Testament doctrine of original sin, the Incarnation, the death of Chris itself and all of the Epistles, especially that of Paul's 'legal arguments' around justification that forced the penal theory out of the reformation.

Basically is is Paul the Apostle who insisted on it at first. By keeping justification 'apart from works', 'justification' must necessarily come before sanctification. Sanctification must be the immediate but separate result of being externally justified apart from previous or combined inner just qualities. Once justification has at least conceptualy been separated from sanctification there can be no moral improvement in the sinner involved in atonement (accept as the resulting reconciliation of the sinner). Therefore, to get rid of sin someone else has to take it as their own along with any curse and punishment sin deserves. So you see it's doctrinal. If justification comes first apart from works (sanctification) then to deny a penal substitution is simply to deny that sin should ever be punished.

In other words:

  For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NIV, Romans 8:3-4)

To a reformer of course God the Father punished / condemned sin in Christ as a sin offering for us. This with us initially and inwardly 'outside of the legal transaction', other than of course our own guilt and sin being legally transferred to Christ, in order to make him guilty for us and punished for us.

So if Christ is to be made sin, made a curse, to be condemned in the flesh for our sin, what idea could ever possibly arise that would make one attempt to avoid the 'penal' implications!?


How many New Testament manuscripts do we really have?

Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls currently housed in the Israeli Dead Sea Scroll museum and available online, is a collection of 972 manuscripts from the period 408 - 308 BC.  Seeing as the Old Testament itself consists of books written between 1000 - 600 BC and the late 450s, this is a pretty good collection. There are others, but this is the most well-known and complete collection.

New Testament

According to the site Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, there are currently 5,686 known fragments of New Testament manuscripts.  That site also shows how much closer to the date of composition these manuscripts are than many other contemporary texts. The earliest of these (p52) dates to sometime between 96 and 125 AD.  Seeing that some people date John to the 90s (others to the 60s), the gap is extremely small indeed.

More interestingly, a good apparatus (like this) can actually show you every variation on the texts, and you will see they are few and far in between. This question shows how an apparatus works.

Other Questions

Finally, you said that we could probably piece together the gist of the bible from early church correspondance.  This is completely accurate - as many of the early church fathers were already quoting New Testament Scripture by 100 AD  (Martyrdom of Polycarp? 1 Clement? the Didache!)  Indeed, Contra Celsius, in 150 is sometimes used to verify reconstructions.
Even the existence of extra-biblical works, both pro and con lend credence to the theory that at least "something" was already going on about Jesus pretty shortly after the events of the New Testament.

More importantly, however, is the fact that much of the New Testament actually is correspondance between churches.  Epistles are just that - letters (often from Paul) to churches that predate the Gospels and give a "second witness" to the Good News.


Is there more than one Joseph in the Bible?

There are 3 distinct (fairly) well-known Josephs in the Bible, firstly in the Old Testament (mainly):

Joseph the son of Jacob/Israel (aka The Patriarch Joseph). This Joseph is actually referred to in a few select places in the New Testament: John 4:5; Acts 7:9-18; Hebrews 11:21-22 & Revelation 7:8.

However, it's more likely that a Joseph in the New Testament would be one of:

Joseph husband of Mary and surrogate father of Jesus (aka St. Joseph).
Joseph of Arimathea in whose tomb Jesus was laid to rest.

There's also another 9 or 10 more obscure Josephs referred to in the Bible*, 4 more in the Old Testament*:

Father of Igal of the tribe of Issachar (cf. Numbers 13:7).
One of the "sons of Asaph" (cf. 1 Chronicles 25:2 & 9).
A descendant of Binnui, a contemporary of Ezra (cf. Ezra 10:38-42).
Head of the priestly family of Shekaniah, a contemporary of Nehemiah (cf. Nehemiah 12:14).

And 5 or 6 more in the New Testament:

One of the (half-)brothers of Jesus (often translated as "Joses" - cf. Mark 6:3).
The son of "Mary" and brother of James (possibly/probably The Mary, if so, identical to Joseph number 8. - cf. Mark 15:40 & 47).
The son of Mattathais (and father of Jannai) appearing in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (in which Joseph number 2. also appears - cf. Luke 3:24-25).
The son of Jonam (and father of Judah) also appearing in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (cf. Luke 3:30).
One of the nominees to replace Judas as an apostle, aka Barsabbas aka Justus (cf. Acts 1:23).
A Levite from Cyprus aka Barnabas who probably deserves to be listed amongst the "well-known" Josephs except that he is almost always referred to as Barnabas instead (cf. Acts 4:36).

*That is in the Protestant Canon, there are another 3 in the Deuterocanonical books: Son of Oziel (great-grandfather of Judith - cf. Judith 8:1); Son of Zechariah (cf. 1 Maccabees 5); Brother of Judas Maccabeus (aka John - cf. 2 Maccabees 8:22).


Can people come back from Heaven or Hell?

The short answer is no. There are many reports of people "seeing" Heaven or Hell and coming back, but as for entering, there is no return. That being said, Heaven and Hell are spiritual states (at least before Second Coming/Apocalypse) and not physical places; so, in theory, being in Heaven or Hell would rule out "presence" (in a non-physical sense) on Earth.

Take miracles which are attributed to saints. Such happenings suggest that human souls in Heaven can have some effect on the physical world. This being said, it seems much more common that spiritual interactions on Earth are on account to angels/demons.

But coming back as a "ghost", that is, a human spirit that has physical presence on Earth is not possible. Accordingly, I do not think there is a definitive answer to the nature of the "presence" which your room-mate feels; though I would be careful considering it to be her grandfather himself.

--Roman Catholic


Do Christians have the authority to forgive sin?

The sacrament of confession (or penance or reconcilliation) was not specifically instituted by any of the Gospels.  However, all four Gospels address the forgiveness of sin and the sacrament is entirely consistent with what Jesus is purported to have said and done.  This is evidenced not only by John 20:22-23, but on the other Gospel accounts of Jesus forgiving sins as an inherent component of the act of healing (Matt 9:2-8; Mark 2:5-12; and Luke 5:20-26).

Early New Testament churches were more focused on compassion, correction, and forgiveness.  Mutual correction and forgiveness were part of the fabric of community life.  Compassion was balanced with the understanding of the impact of sin upon the communal life and mission of the church.  At times, a form of excommunication (1 Cor 5: 3-5; 1 Tim 1: 19-20) was exercised for the good of the church.

Over time, the sacrament of confession changed as the church spread to different cultures and societies.  At times, Confession was a sacrament that was to be administered only once during an individual's lifetime.  This administration usually was for the forgiveness of particularly onerous offenses such as apostasy, murder of adultery or upon the deathbed of the individual.  The sacrament usually required demonstrable proof of repentance and often included a vow of celibacy from that point forward.  For this reason, many individuals delayed the sacrament until they were close to death.  A penitent (person requesting forgiveness) would be excluded from receiving the Eucharist and would be excused from the celebration at the offertory along with the catechumens.

As the needs of the people and the circumstances of the Church changed, private penance became the norm.  By the end of the 6th century, "penance" became known as "confession."  The once in a lifetime public rite of penance ended in the Western Church with the Fourth Council of Lateran's decree in 1215 that all baptized Christians must confess their sins and receive Holy Eucharist at least once each year.

The sacrament was influenced over the intervening centuries by many factors.  The influence of the Celtic churches was significant.  The monastic nature of the Celtic Churches brought the sacrament into a more private environment.  In effect, the sacrament was taken out of the church as a whole and into the private chambers of the penitent and his/her confessor (the person hearing the confession).  This Celtic influence extended the confessor relationship to priests as well as bishops who had that role exclusively exclusively.

From the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries, major changes occurred in the sacrament of penance.  Penance became the satisfaction, confession, contrition and absolution of sins.  The emphasis had shifted from the reconciliation of the sinner with the Church (and with God) to doing 'penance.'  Also, the act of confession was deemed to have redemptive value in the life of the penitent. That redemptive value also assisted in converting the heart of the sinner, who if truly contrite, was already forgiven even before the act of confession.  This aspect contributed to Albigensian and Waldensian heresies that denied the need to confess to a priest.  These heresies were condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council as well.  The role of the priest was then reinforced and the element of absolution was added to the sacrament.

St. Thomas Acquinas had a great influence on the sacrament and his views were incorporated into the Council of Florence decree for the Armenians in 1439.  This document stated that Penance is a sacrament; it consists of contrition of the heart; oral confession to a priest; satisfaction (such as prayer, almsgiving, fasting, etc...); and absolution by the priest. The end result of the sacrament is the forgiveness of sins.

During the Reformation, there were some objections to this formula.  Luther accepted Penance as a sacrament, but rejected the aspect that an individual's works were in any way more important than God's Mercy.  He also rejected that the power of forgiveness was limited to priests.  Calvin accepted private confession and absolution as a means of arousing faith and the recognition of God's Mercy but rejected it as a sacrament.  These arguments were addressed by the Council of Trent in 1551.  In the Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, the following teachings were affirmed: Penance is a sacrament instituted by Christ; it is distinct from Baptism; the three acts of the penitent are contrition, confession of all serious sins and satisfaction; and absolution is reserved to priests alone.

As a result of Vatican II, there has been a revision to the Rite and nature of the sacrament.  The purpose of these revisions is to express both the nature and the effect of the sacrament.  The purpose is to "obtain pardon from the mercy of God: and to be "reconciled with the Church whom sinners have wounded by their sin."  The new Rite of Penance is frequently referred to as the sacrament of Reconciliation.  That name more accurately reflects the intended purpose of the sacrament.  It takes the focus off the acts of restitution and places it more on the restoration of the individual to the body of Christ, His Church.

There are four forms in the new rite.  They are indidual, communal with individual confession and absolution, communal with general absolution and an abbreviated ritual in cases where death is near.  The new rite clearly shows the nature and effect of the sacramen; the role of the church community; an emphasis on the reading of God's Word; a shift of emphasis to the public and away from the private forms; and simplicity.

Finally, a thought about the role of the priest in the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.  In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1441 states, "Only God forgives sins. Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: “Your sins are forgiven.” Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name."  This clearly indicates that it is not the individual priest who is forgiving sins and granting absolution... It is the priest acting in the name of Jesus Christ.  This is a role that is granted to the priest when Holy Orders are bestowed upon him.

Fr. Chuck Bradley


What is the role and significance of Zion in Christianity?

As the Wikipedia article on Zion says, Zion is a synonym for Jerusalem.

Revelation 21 depicts the New Jerusalem, the dwelling-place of God with men:

  21:2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; 3 and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them. ...” [RSV(CE)]

It is this Promised Land [a similar metaphor] to which Isaac Watts’ hymn refers:

  The hill of Zion yields
  A thousand sacred sweets
  Before we reach the heav’nly fields,
  Before we reach the heav’nly fields,
  Or walk the golden streets,
  Or walk the golden streets.

  Refrain

  Then let our songs abound,
  And every tear be dry;
  We’re marching through Immanuel’s ground,
  We’re marching through Immanuel’s ground,
  To fairer worlds on high,
  To fairer worlds on high.

  Refrain

There’s a Wikipedia article on the New Jerusalem as well.

  Based on the Book of Revelation, premillennialism holds that, following the end times and the second creation of heaven and earth (see The New Earth), the New Jerusalem will be the earthly location where all true believers will spend eternity with God. The New Jerusalem is not limited to eschatology, however. Many Christians view the New Jerusalem as a current reality, that the New Jerusalem is the consummation of the Body of Christ, the Church and that Christians already take part in membership of both the heavenly Jerusalem and the earthly Church in a kind of dual citizenship. In this way, the New Jerusalem represents to Christians the final and everlasting reconciliation of God and His chosen people, "the end of the Christian pilgrimage." As such, the New Jerusalem is a conception of Heaven.


What is the Order of Special Full-Time Servants?

The different types of full time servants among Jehovah's Witnesses are:

Regular pioneers usually spend 70 hours a month in the field ministry. Some serve in a congregation where the need is greater.

Special pioneers usually spend 130 hours a month in the field ministry. They are often assigned to a congregation where the need is greater.

Circuit overseers visit congregations to help them improve in their ministry and encourage them in other ways.

Bethel family members serve in a branch office or a translation office. They help provide literature and direction for the ministry in the territory that is supervised by the branch.

Missionaries are usually assigned to serve in another country. Many missionaries spend 130 hours a month in the field ministry

International servants and volunteers go to various countries to assist with the construction of branch offices, remote translation offices, Assembly Halls, and Kingdom Halls.

Kingdom Hall construction servants are trained to build Kingdom Halls and assist with other construction projects in their own country.

For additional information  see the following article from the September 2014 Watchtower:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/ws201409/remember-those-in-full-time-service/#link0

As for the specific title of your question there is indeed a group  called the Worldwide  Order of Special Full Time Servants. According to the April 2017 Watchtower:

  Currently, there are some 67,000 members of the Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some perform Bethel service, others engage in construction or in circuit work, serve as field instructors or special pioneers or missionaries or as Assembly Hall or Bible school facility servants. They are all bound by a “Vow of Obedience and Poverty,” with which they agree to do whatever is assigned to them in the advancement of Kingdom interests, to live a simple lifestyle, and to abstain from secular employment without permission. It is not the people but their assignments that are viewed as special. They realize the seriousness of humbly living up to their solemn vow for as long as they remain in special full-time service.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017365?q=special+order+of+full-time&p=par


What is the Biblical basis for Universal salvation?

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. —Romans 5:18

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. —Colossians 1:19-20

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. —Philippians 2:10-11

For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. —Romans 11:32

English Standard Version (ESV)

Also see "St. Paul's Universalism".  This is the fifth chapter of The Inescapable Love of God by eminent Christian Universalist and Philosopher Tom Talbott.  In this chapter, he makes a case for Universalism from Paul's writings, especially Romans.
You can find more free chapters from Talbott's book here (scroll to the bottom).
As for 2 Thessalonians 1:9, a universalist would probably translate it:

They will be punished with destruction of the age to come — destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

The word for "from" here (apo) is ambiguous.  It can mean that those punished are punished away from the Lord, or simply that the punishment comes from the Lord; that is, it is administered by Him.
There has been some controversy over the meaning of the terms translated as "eternal punishment" (aionios kolasin).  For this I would point you here. In summary, the terms used by the biblical authors to describe eschatological punishment are different from the terms used by those who believed in never-ending torment/imprisonment (the pharisees).  There is a discussion of the contemporary usage of aionios and kolasin.  Aionios is often used to describe a period of time of finite length (though it could be very long), and kolasin is typically used to describe punishments administered for corrective purposes.
EDIT: I just noticed that the word used in the 2 Thessalonians verse is olethron.  Kolasin is used elsewhere, like in the parable of the sheep and the goats.
One last thing. Pithy arguments posted on a Q&A site hardly do an entire theological viewpoint justice, so you should probably look into reading a book.
And if you are looking to buy just one book on biblical universalism, I would highly recommend Gregory MacDonald(a.k.a. Robin Parry)'s The Evangelical Universalist, which gives a universalistic exegesis of the Bible as a whole. And it has a whole chapter on Revelation!  Unfortunately, it doesn't have free chapters like Talbott's book (which I consider second best choice), but you can read reviews here (Also see Amazon sneak peek).
(I am not affiliated with any of the books I have referenced/recommended here)


What is the Biblical basis for accepting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God?
Pope Francis answers this question in Querida Amazonia;

“Jesus Christ appears as the Spouse of the community that celebrates the Eucharist through the figure of a man who presides as a sign of the one Priest. This dialogue between the Spouse and his Bride, which arises in adoration and sanctifies the community, should not trap us in partial conceptions of power in the Church. The Lord chose to reveal his power and his love through two human faces: the face of his divine Son made man and the face of a creature, a woman, Mary. Women make their contribution to the Church in a way that is properly theirs, by making present the tender strength of Mary, the Mother. As a result, we do not limit ourselves to a functional approach, but enter instead into the inmost structure of the Church. In this way, we will fundamentally realize why, without women, the Church breaks down”
https://wherepeteris.com/which-pope-said-this-136/

The Church Fathers also teaches God the Wisdom or the Holy Spirit as feminine;

The grammatical gender of the word for "spirit" is feminine in Hebrew (רוּחַ, rūaḥ),1 neuter in Greek (πνεῦμα, pneûma) and masculine in Latin (spiritus). The neuter Greek πνεῦμα is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew רוּחַ. The pronouns used to address the Holy Spirit, however, are masculine.

The Holy Spirit was furthermore equated with the (grammatically feminine) Wisdom of God by two early Church fathers, Theophilus of Antioch (d. 180) and by Irenaeus (d. 202/3).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_the_Holy_Spirit

BIBLICAL BASIS
St. Louis de Monfort in his book "Love of Eternal Wisdom" cited scriptural passages personifying God as Mother;

I am the mother of pure love, of fear, of knowledge and of holy hope.
In me is all grace of the way and of the truth; in me is all hope of life and strength.
Come to me, all you who desire for me, and be filled with my fruits.

Divine Wisdom shows himself to be the mother and source of all good and he exhorts all men to
give up everything and desire him alone.

Eternal Wisdom began to manifest himself "outside the bosom of God the Father" when, after a whole eternity, he made light, heaven and earth. St John tells us that everything was made through the Word, that
is eternal Wisdom: "All things were made by him" (Jn. 1:3; cf. Heb. 1:2; Col. 1:16-17).

Solomon says that eternal Wisdom is the mother and maker of all things. Notice that Solomon does not call him simply the maker of the universe but also its mother because the maker does not love and care for the work of his hands like a mother does for her child (Wisd. 7: 12,21).

Source: Love of Eternal Wisdom. http://www.montfort.org/content/uploads/pdf/PDF_EN_25_1.pdf
But to understand, this mystery, one needs to ponder God's Will in eternity and St.Maximillian Kolbe and Ven. Ab. Fulton Sheen and the wisdom of the Three Great Marian Saints like St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Louis de Montfort and St. Liguori will help us see Pope Francis wisdom behind his teachings in Amazonia Querida, saying God reveals two human faces, Son of Man in Jesus Christ and the Woman in Divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
God the Father sees the image of His Begotten Son the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the "Son of Man" existing in the "bosom of the Father" in eternity. This image was incarnated in the womb of a Woman to become flesh as Jesus Christ the Divine Mercy made flesh was incarnated and dwelt among us.
The Blessed Virgin Mary offered Her body & blood and gave face to the Logos the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
God the Father sees the image of the Holy Spirit the Third Person of the Holy Trinity in the perfect image of a Mother, a Consoler , a Comforter and Advocate. But, unlike the Logos, the Holy Spirit will be "quasi-incarnated" in the body,blood,and soul of the chosen Woman. The Holy Spirit was quasi-incarnated and perfectly and mystically indwelt the Theotokos in the Upper Room.
The Blessed Virgin Mary offered Her Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart and gave face to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.
God the Father has two image, one image is the Begotten Son Jesus Christ, and the other image is a Woman. a Mother which is the perfect image of the Holy Spirit. The child in the arms of a loving Mother, is the perfect image and likeness of God, and this two human faces is the image of God shown to humanity as the image of salvation.
The icon of the Madonna, is the image God the Father looked upon in eternity, and when God the Father created "Man & Woman", it is created in the perfect image of Jesus and Mary, while the "male & female" was created in the image & likeness as "Adam and Eve" progeny, a fallen mankind.

That's why scholars had seen two creation, having Man & Woman created and the image and likeness of God, and another set of creation creating mankind both "male and female".
More biblical passages on a Feminine attribution to God in this article written by Fr. James Martin who controversially uploaded a pronoun of God using "Her".
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/03/08/is-god-a-man-or-a-woman-catholic-240173


Has anybody heard the word "beatified love"? Is there a biblical passages or traditions to support this word?

"the love of God is better than the knowledge of God"

  beatified love is higher than beatific vision?

Perhaps you are asking if love of God is greater than knowledge of Him? St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica q. 82 a. 3 c., quoted in Petri 2016 p. 247, ch. "Love in the Summa Theologica"):

  When, therefore, the thing in which there is good is nobler than the soul itself, in which is the idea understood; by comparison with such a thing, the will is higher than the intellect. But when the thing which is good is less noble than the soul, then even in comparison with that thing the intellect is higher than the will. Wherefore the love of God is better than the knowledge of God; but, on the contrary, the knowledge of corporeal things is better than the love thereof. Absolutely, however, the intellect is nobler than the will.

Degree of knowing God in the Beatific Vision depends upon one's merits.

From my answer here:

  When we behold the Beatific Vision in heaven, we do not become God; we
  maintain our individuality. We will know God as perfectly as His grace
  enables us us know him,* but not as perfectly as He knows Himself.

  *There are hierarchies in heaven; not all saints (i.e., those in
  heaven) are equally close to God [i.e., not everyone sees God as equally deeply in the Beatific Vision]. The Blessed Virgin Mother is closest
  in her relation to her Son.

  St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Compendium Theologiæ cap. 106
  ("Fruition of Natural Desire in the Beatific Vision [in Heaven]"):

    …the most perfect way of attaining likeness with God: to know God in the way He knows Himself, by His own essence.

    Of course, we shall never comprehend Him as He comprehends Himself. This does not mean that we shall be unaware of some part of Him, for
    He has no parts. It means that we shall not know Him as perfectly as
    He can be known, since the capacity of our intellect for knowing
    cannot equal His truth, and so cannot exhaust His knowability. God’s
    knowability or truth is infinite, whereas our intellect is finite. But
    His intellect is infinite, just as His truth is; and so He alone knows
    Himself to the full extent that He is knowable; just as a person
    comprehends a demonstrable conclusion if he knows it through
    demonstration, but not if he knows it only in an imperfect way, on
    merely probable grounds.

    This ultimate end of man we call beatitude. For a man’s happiness or beatitude consists in the vision whereby he sees God in His essence.
    Of course, man is far below God in the perfection of his beatitude.
    For God has this beatitude by His very nature, whereas man attains
    beatitude by being admitted to a share in the divine light, as we said
    in the previous chapter.

and here:

  everyone in heaven is not equal [in their beholding of the Beatific
  Vision] because of the diversity of their merits.

  The degree of closeness to God in heaven [i.e., how deeply one sees
  God in the Beatific Vision] depends on one's merits. The Council
  of Florence, under the authority of Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447),
  defined the dogma (DZ 693) that

    the souls of those, who … are immediately received into heaven, … see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according
    to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another.

  Since the Blessed Virgin Mother has the greatest merits, she is the
  closest to God in heaven.


Why do religious people find it hard to accept that you don't need religion to have a good moral code?

Its not necessary for a person to have a religion to have good moral codes.

Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) was a Babylonian King who gave one of the First Law in the World. The law was very similar the Mosaic Law, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth".

  Exodus 21:24  Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
  foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Every human is given the ability to decide what is right and wrong. Even the murderers kill others knowing that it is bad, but they just don't care.

Many religions give the idea that doing good deeds is the way to Heaven and doing bad things will lead you to Hell. Thus promoting the idea of Salvation by Work. Some religions even lay down obligations to be fulfilled in order to enter Heaven/Paradise.

Christianity has a different concept. The Bible teaches us the idea of Salvation by Grace.

  Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV) For it is by grace you have been saved, through
  faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by
  works, so that no one can boast.

Your good deeds will not open the gates of Heaven. Your bad deeds are also not the main  reason why you should go to Hell. But Christians should do good deeds because we are saved by grace. Christians are called to be Holy, because God is Holy.

  Romans 12:1 (NIV) Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view
  of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and
  pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

Christ died for our sins. He took all our punishment on the cross. When we remember how much God had done for us, we recieve the power to overcome sin and reflect Christ-like character.


Does the Catholic church allow a previously divorced man to remarry?

Sometimes.

Canon 1059 of the Code of Canon Law states:

  Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

Therefore, the canons concerning marriage in the Catholic Church will be applied to the first marriage.

Now, in this case, the man's marriage will be assumed to be valid in the Catholic Church unless evidence to the contrary is presented:

  Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

(Canon 1060)

And therefore, the second marriage would not be valid:

  A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

(Canon 1085, section 1)

However, the Catholic man is free to request a judgment for an annulment of the first marriage. Whether or not this would be granted is uncertain, and I can't comment on it in the absence of additional information about the first relationship; it may depend to some extent on the reasons for the civil divorce. If the annulment is granted (i.e. if it is judged that there was no valid Catholic marriage in the first instance) then the marriage to the Catholic woman would be valid; otherwise not.


Can Christians accept prayers from other religions?

First, I commend the goodwill you demonstrate toward your Christian friend.  You obviously want to give something that your friend can appreciate.
My answer below tries to orient you to make your prayer gift to be well suited to a Christian so it will be well received by a Christian, by considering who a Christian God is, who Jesus is, and what a Christian needs when others pray for them.
Orientation to Christian God and Prayer needs
The most important starting point to keep in mind is that in Christianity prayer is always directed to God who is a REAL, conscious being, separate from our own consciousness.  He is not a projection, not another modality of our consciousness / psychology, but a real being out there.

Christians believe there is One Supreme Creator God who is in control and more powerful than

all other gods (whether they exist or not),
all angels and demons and all other kinds of spiritual beings
all human beings (whether still living, or in between reincarnation, in heaven, in purgatory, etc.)

Christians believe this Supreme God knows all our thoughts, see Ps 139:2.  So of course He can hear all prayers by non Christians, whether addressed to a lesser god, or to Himself under another name (for example, Moslems call this God by the name "Allah").

There are several Old Testament examples of people who worship a lesser god BUT who acknowledged the existence of the God of Israel and even knew His name (YHWH, denoted as small caps Lᴏʀᴅ in English translations of the Bible).  Christians and Jews believe that sometimes this Supreme God stirred the hearts of those non-Israelites to pray, bless, or do good to the Israelites.  For example:

God moved the heart of Cyrus, king of Persia, to grant exiled Jews to return to Jerusalem.  See Ezra 1:2-3:

“This is what King Cyrus of Persia says: “The Lᴏʀᴅ, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth. He has appointed me to build him a Temple at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Any of you who are his people may go to Jerusalem in Judah to rebuild this Temple of the Lᴏʀᴅ, the God of Israel, who lives in Jerusalem. And may your God be with you!"

Babylon King Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged that Israel's God was more powerful than his god after his dream's interpretation by Daniel came true, in which Nebuchadnezzar was humbled and then restored by God, so he sent a message acknowledging Israel's God to all his subjects (at the time when this happened, around 600 BC, Babylon was the most powerful empire in the world).  See Daniel 4:34-36:

“After this time had passed, I, Nebuchadnezzar, looked up to heaven. My sanity returned, and I praised and worshiped the Most High and honored the one who lives forever: 'His rule is everlasting, and his kingdom is eternal.  All the people of the earth are nothing compared to him. He does as he pleases among the angels of heaven and among the people of the earth.
No one can stop him or say to him, ‘What do you mean by doing these things?’  When my sanity returned to me, so did my honor and glory and kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored as head of my kingdom, with even greater honor than before."

If the person you are praying for is a true Christian, this Christian will be under the protection of this supreme God and this Christian can be assured through faith that he/she is counted right now as one of His beloved sons/daughters who after death are eligible for eternal life in heaven if he/she perserves to the end.  Therefore:

A more helpful prayer for your Christian friend will then to wish what a Christian will need in his/her earthly journey.  If you pray for health or peace it will be much better if you understand what health or peace means to a Christian, which is different from what other religions understand them to be.  To Christians, there is a notion of spiritual health which is freedom from temptation to sin, which is much more critical than physical health.  Also the Christian notion of peace is a state of heart where there is no enmity between the individual and this Supreme God.

Even if your notion of peace or health are NOT yet Christian in concept, the goodwill expressed toward your Christian friend will not go unnoticed by this Supreme God and He can potentially reward you if we take this Abrahamic blessing (Gen 12:3a) as a hint:

I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt.

In a Christian understanding, Jesus is the incarnation of the aforementioned God of Israel himself, which means after Jesus's resurrection Christians no longer call him Teacher / Rabbi, but with titles appropriate for the Son of the living God such as Lord (King) and Saviour.  A Christian can also call Jesus a Friend or a Brother, whom Christians should imitate so we can also have His character, especially in His relationship to God the Father and to fellow human beings.  You can therefore pray so that Jesus will help your friend's heart to be more conformed with His.

Conclusion
In summary, here are 2 points to help make your prayer gift to be well received by your Christian friend:

address it properly: either to

God the Father (the Supreme God above all gods, Creator of the universe) or to the
Lord Jesus Christ (Lord over all human beings)

pray for what a Christian needs (by using Christian-specific concepts).  Examples:

Spiritual health: so God helps your friend fight temptation and to be more conformed to Jesus's character
Peace: so your friend confess all sins to God to be reconciled
Increase in love: so your friend improves spiritually by loving God and others more
Persevere in hard times: so your friend would not lose faith and hope
etc.


Are Anabaptists' re-baptisms really conditional baptisms?

No, they are not.

Present day Anabaptist baptisms are not phrased in any way conditionally. Nor are they considered 'rebaptisms'. Conditional baptism is used only when there is uncertainty about whether someone has been baptised before or not. This is extremely rare in Anabaptist circles, because in their view valid baptism can only be performed on someone of an age to understand it. A person almost always knows whether they have been baptised as an adult. (It's more common with a denomination that admits infant baptism, because someone might have been baptised when they are too young to remember).