How does Matthew 25:31-46 ("The Sheep and the Goats") reconcile with salvation by faith?

Judged according to what they had done, echos...

Have a look at any of the other verses that talk about the day of Judgement, they all speak about what a person did in the flesh. They all mention "works" in some fashion.

  Revelation 20:11-13

  11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth
  and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I
  saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books
  were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The
  dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the
  books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades
  gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged
  according to what he had done.

  Romans 2:5-11

  5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are
  storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his
  righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person
  according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in
  doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal
  life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth
  and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be
  trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for
  the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for
  everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11
  For God does not show favoritism.

  2 Corinthians 5:10

  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each
  one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body,
  whether good or bad.

Not by Faith alone?

The only place in the Bible that "faith alone" is mentioned, is here.

  James 2:24 NIV

  You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not
  by faith alone.

The command to love.

Mathew 25 is showing us that Jesus is literally judging people based upon whether or not they showed true love to one another. This is the purpose to life as the Bible defines it: That we are the first of all creation to bear a new kind of fruit, and that fruit is love.

  1 John 2:3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands.

  John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The
  one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them
  and show myself to them.”

  John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands.

  Mark 12:31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no
  commandment greater than these.”

  1 John 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus
  Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

  1 John 5:3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands
  are not burdensome,

  2 John 1:6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
  have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

  Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love
  your neighbor as yourself.”

  Daniel 9:4 I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: “Lord, the
  great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who
  love him and keep his commandments,

  Nehemiah 1:5 Then I said: “LORD, the God of heaven, the great and
  awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him
  and keep his commandments,

  Deuteronomy 5:10 but showing love to a thousand generations of
  those who love me and keep my commandments.

Mans rejection of God

Understand man kind. THEY HATE GOD, but more then hating God, THEY HATE EACH OTHER.

  Romans 1:29-30 (NIV)

  29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed
  and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and
  malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent,
  arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey
  their parents;

Eighty percent of Americans consider themselves to be saved Christians, through faith in Christ. However Jesus said that there is a way that seems right to a man that leads to death. There is a wide road and a wide gate that leads to hell and many follow it.

But the road that leads to life is small and the gate is small and few find it.

By saying FAITH ALONE a person is basically telling you that they have no responsibility to care for anybody else. Why would they? They've already been saved, "so let Jesus worry about doing the work through you and you can go about living  your sinful, wicked ways." This is plain WRONG.

Study for yourself Faith + Love and you will find the path that Jesus is pointing to over and over again. IF you have not learned to love people, then you do not know who God is.

We know we have come to know God, IF...

  1 John 2

  3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4
  Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a
  liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his
  word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we
  know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus
  did.


Hebrews 1:3a says “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.”  Similarly, Colossians 2:9 says “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”
Hebrews 1:4 calls Jesus superior to the angels.  Jesus created the angels and is above them.  No created angel can ever be called the Son of God – only Christ Jesus commands that title.
Christ’s superiority to angels is documented by seven Old Testament quotations between verses 5 and 14.  The section proves that God’s Son is worshipped by angels.  It also shows that the Son is distinguished from the Father.

You are my Son; today I have become your Father (Hebrews 1:5).

This is taken from Psalm 2:7 and is quoted in Acts 13:33-34 as proof that this prophecy was fulfilled by Christ Jesus upon his resurrection:

The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words:

“I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.”

Jews acknowledged the words “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son” (from 2 Samuel 7:14) as a Messianic prophecy.
Hebrews 1:8 is a passage that points to the deity of the Messianic and Davidic King – the Son of God.  This view is upheld by Trinitarian Protestants.


What is the Biblical basis of the idea that men can be given authority to forgive sins?
St. John speaks of it in his Gospel (John 20:19-23):

Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

St. Matthew also speaks of this in his Gospel (Matthew 18:15–18):

Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

St. James speaks of this in his Epistle (James 5:13-15):

13 Is any of you sad? Let him pray. Is he cheerful in mind? Let him sing.
14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

St. Paul speaks  as follows in 2 Corinthians 2:10:

10 And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.


Was Martin Luther's marriage to Katharina von Bora due to their love for each other?

Martin Luther married Katharina von Bora (1499-1552) on June 13, 1525. Katharina came from a family of higher social rank than Luther’s family. The Von Boras were members of the knightly class, a proud but declining segment of German society. Luther came from peasant stock. His father Hans was a miner who got involved in the business side of the mining and became well-to-do.  Katharina was only three when she was sent away to school and eventually took vows to become a nun.

Was their marriage based on love for each other? you ask. We can only speculate due to various comments Luther is known to have written, as hardly anything can be found on Katharina from herself. I have not seen the documentary you mention. The following I have extracted from chapter 17 (The School For Character) in the book Here I Stand by Roland Bainton (Lion, 1978) and the historical novel by Margaret Skea, Katharina: Deliverance - A novel of the wife of Martin Luther (Sanderling Books, 2017).

Luther had no thought of marrying but when monks began to marry during his stay at the Wartburg [from 4 May 1521] he had exclaimed,

  "Good heavens! They won't give me a wife." After the event he said
  that if anyone had told him at Worms that in six years he would have a
  wife, he would not have believed him.

The problem with monks and nuns was so bad, Luther helped many nuns escape. One event had been prompted by some Cistercian sisters in a nearby village seeking Luther’s counsel as to what they should do in view of their evangelical persuasion. He took it upon himself to arrange their escape. This plot was carried out on the Eve of the Resurrection in April 1523 when 60-year-old Burgher of Torgau, Leonard Kopp, put 12 nuns into his covered wagon full of empty barrels of herring from a convent.

  Luther felt responsible to find them homes, husbands, or positions.
  When someone suggested he marry one of them, he wrote on November 30,
  1524 that he had no such intention, not because he was a sexless
  stone, nor because he was hostile to marriage, but because he expected
  daily the death of a heretic.

Well, two years after Katherina's escape she was still in domestic service. She was intended for a young patrician of Nurnberg but his family objected and he married someone else. So, Luther selected a Dr. Glatz but she would not accept him.  In those days, a woman of 26 was viewed as at the upper limits of eligibility for marriage. She asked a Dr Amsdorf of Magdeburg to tell Luther that she could not abide Glatz but she would take Amsdorf himself, or Luther.

  He did not respond seriously to the suggestion until he went home to
  visit his parents. His father said it was a realistic proposal. In May
  1525 he decided to marry Katie. It was no love match, though. He gave
  three reasons for his marriage - to please his father; to spite the
  pope and the Devil; and to seal his witness before martyrdom.  On 27
  June 1525 they were married. His invitation to Spalatin read, "You
  must come to my wedding. I have made the angels laugh and the devils
  weep."

Thus a 42-year-old former monk and a 26-year-old former nun voluntarily entered into holy matrimony on June 13, 1525.

On home and his wife, Luther is reputed to have said in 1534:

  “At home I have good wine and beer and a beautiful wife, or (shall I
  say) lord.”

Luther liked to tease Katherine and she gave him back as good as she got.  During one dinner table conversation, Luther remarked,

  “The time will come when a man will take more than one wife.”
  Katherine responded, “Let the devil believe that!” to which Luther
  answered, “The reason, Katy, is that a woman can bear a child only
  once a year while her husband can beget many.”  Undismayed, Katherine
  cited from First Corinthians 7:2. “Paul said that each man should have
  his own wife.” Luther quipped back, “Yes, ‘his own wife’ and not ‘only
  one wife,’ for the latter isn’t what Paul wrote.” The jesting
  continued for a while longer until Katherine ended the discussion when
  she said, “Before I put up with this [polygamy], I’d rather go back to
  the convent and leave you and all our children.”

I suggest that when all the available accounts are put together, we get a balanced picture which does not require an "either, or" conclusion. It seems to me that they grew in mutual love and respect, without losing any of their individuality and characters. But I doubt very much if they were “in love” with each other prior to their wedding. It might be worth mentioning that the Bible commands Christian husbands to so love their wives as Christ loved the church he died for (before the still-future marriage of Christ to his bride), and wives are to respect their husbands. The key point seems to me to be that husbands must do what they find most difficult to do - show considerate love - while wives must do what they find most difficult to do - give respect. Nowhere in scripture are married couples exhorted to "be in love" with each other prior to marrying. Yet love is a key requirement in matrimony, not least because it engenders respect.


Under what basis does the Catholic Church condemn the use of drugs while permitting alcohol?

I will attempt to answer this question from a natural-law perspective (to complement Geremia’s excellent Scriptural analysis).

The Church’s current teaching on drugs

As the O.P. points out, the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] states the following in number 2291 (which I repeat for the reader’s convenience):

  The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.

Drug dosage and potency

So, what is the problem with the non-therapeutic use of drugs? The fact that they cause “very grave damage on human health and life.” Said in other terms, drugs (when used for recreation) are essentially poisons that happen to have pleasurable side-effects, which can provoke psychological or (in some cases) physical addictions.

In medicine, there is a maxim that states “the dose makes the poison.” The principle is simple: any chemical substance—even water, sugar, or oxygen—is toxic when taken in an excessive quantity. (For instance, water poisoning requires a lot of water, but it is possible.)

The problem with the most problematic drugs—cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and so forth—is that it takes a very small amount to produce a catastrophic effect. It is easy to overdose, and even with a “normal” dose, the person becomes fully intoxicated: that is, he loses control of his actions. Moreover, these drugs are susceptible to various kinds of addiction (physical and psychological), as well as severe long-term health effects. Because these drugs are so potent, there is generally no way to produce a mild dose, except in a controlled medical environment. For this reason, such substances should only be used for therapeutic, never recreational, purposes. (And as far as I know, of these, only the narcotics—morphine and its relatives, including heroin or “diamorphine”—are currently medically useful. It is also sill possible to use cocaine as a topical anaesthetic and vasoconstrictor, which is very different, obviously, from its internal use.)

Other drugs are less potent and therefore somewhat subject to debate; for example, marijuana (cannabis). (The Church does not have an official teaching on particular drugs, and so it is up to moral theologians to discuss these issues, in the light of the findings of medical science; this debate is ongoing as we speak. It seems to me that it is an exceptionally bad idea to smoke marijuana, either recreationally or as a therapy, since it is certainly a good deal more potent than either tobacco or alcohol. Using the active ingredient, THC, as a medicine for pain relief or other purposes, could be legitimate, much as morphine is.) In any event, it is clearly immoral to use marijuana to the point of intoxication. (See below.)

On the other hand, alcohol poses no particular health risks when it is used in moderation.* Evidently, its abuse leads to intoxication in the short term, and even if it does not, excessive drinking leads to long-term health problems.

The reason that alcohol is so much less problematic is that it that it is much easier to “dose” than other substances: keep your drinking to one or two per day, and you will never have a problem.

The fundamental pitfall to avoid: intoxication

The problem common to all substance abuse is intoxication, the condition in which the person loses control over his actions; drunkenness is one example. However, practically all of the drugs mentioned in this answer produce an intoxicating effect, which may vary in its particular manifestations (e.g., some drugs are stimulants, whereas others are depressants), but all of them are capable of acutely and severely impairing judgment and self-control.

This condition places both the intoxicated person and others in grave danger of life and health. A drunk person can easily do or say things that he would never do if he were sober—even to the point of violence. The particular kind of intoxication produced by a given drug may vary, but the very fact of losing self-control poses a grave danger to self and others.

For that reason, deliberately becoming intoxicated, by any means, is always gravely and intrinsically immoral.

The so-called “hard” drugs have the property that, practically speaking, even the minimum dose produces intoxication. Therefore, these are never to be taken recreationally or outside of a controlled medical environment. (E.g., properly packaged oxycodone will be correctly dosed if used according to the doctor’s instructions; heroin bought on the street will not.)

The so-called “soft” drugs are somewhat less potent, and hence the strict immorality of taking them is open to debate. (I tend to think they are more potent than people appreciate, hence I still think it is an exceptionally bad idea to take them, even once.)

On the other hand, alcohol is clearly safe to take in moderation, since it does not even produce intoxication when taken in small amounts. In fact, the proper enjoyment of alcoholic beverages does not entail intoxication at all.

(One difference, for instance, between marijuana and alcohol, is that plenty of people take alcohol for the taste; no one takes marijuana for the taste, but principally for its systemic effects.)

Short-term and long-term effects

The secondary consideration is the short-term and long-term health effects.

Some drugs (e.g., cocaine) have the potential to cause catastrophic health effects even with one use; and others (e.g., heroin) cause extremely debilitating physical addiction. Even apart from the intoxication, that would be reason alone for making it immoral to take these drugs recreationally.

They also cause terrible long-term effects.

With other drugs (e.g. marijuana), these health effects are debatable. Nevertheless, the problem of intoxication remains.

However, with alcohol, its prudent and moderate use poses practically no health risks, as mentioned. (Naturally, its excessive use poses plenty of risks.)

Summary

The problem with drugs (especially “hard” drugs, but to some extent all recreational drugs) is fundamentally that their principal effect is intoxication, which, when deliberately provoked, is gravely and intrinsically immoral.

With some drugs, there is the added danger of severe and lasting dangers to health and life (apart from the intoxication itself).

Some drugs (e.g., the “hard” drugs), are so potent that it is practically impossible to take them and avoid intoxication. Others (e.g., the “soft” drugs) are less potent, but still easily produce intoxication.

For alcohol, on the other hand, its principal purpose (when used properly) is not intoxication. Its systemic effects (when used in moderation) are very mild—in fact, are hardly perceptible—and pose no particular health problems, nor—crucially—do they produce a loss of self-control. Therefore, whereas drinking in order to get drunk is clearly immoral (especially when followed by a dangerous activity, such as driving), drinking in moderation is not morally problematic at all.

The Catechism sums this teaching up follows:

  The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air (no. 2290).

* Health agencies other than the CDC, such as Chief Medical Officer of the United Kingdom, have made the claim that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. However, if one consumes alcohol at the rate recommended by the CDC (a maximum of two drinks per day for men, and one drink per day for women) or less, then the long-term health risks are vanishingly small. In any case, a small health risk does not make an action immoral; skiing, for example, poses a risk of significant injury or even death, and yet that risk is still relatively small. Only a grave risk to health makes an action immoral.


I've heard a few different things. You're right though: it's not in canonized scripture. The idea of "three" wise men is only (mostly unimportant, but interesting) tradition.

The enumeration of three specific gifts contributes to the "trio" of persons. Their alledged names even appear in writings later in history.

Dr. Talmage remarks on this in his excellent book, Jesus the Christ:

  Much has been written, beyond all possible warrant of scriptural authority, concerning the visit of the magi, or wise men... As a matter of fact, we are left without information as to their country, nation, or tribal relationship; we are not even told how many they were, though unauthenticated tradition has designated them as "the three wise men," and has even given them names; whereas they are left unnamed in the scriptures, the only true record of them extant, and may have been numbered but two or many.

See also: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/356642/Magi


Are there current denominations that have doctrines stating that The Lord will return at a particular date?

There are almost always such groups. And since the term denomination is so ill-defined, and so broad that any group of united believers qualifies, the answer is most certainly, "yes, at any given time, there are several groups that could be called 'denominations' that have a predicted date for Christ's return".  Invariably, they backpedal when that date passes without said event.

To answer your specific question...  Currently, this group, for example, predicts  Yom Kippur 2017 (September 30th 2017) as the date.

Of course, most Christians believe what Jesus actually said, and reject the idea that the date can be predicted.


What is an overview of Jesus' ministry during Holy Week?

This comes from the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible p. 967, "An Historical and Chronological Table of the New Testament":(with minor updating of scriptural reference style and proper name spellings)

A.D. 33
His transfiguration, Matt. 17.

Sunday of Holy Week (Palm Sunday):(Jesus makes the Jews' annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem.)

The Sunday, or first day of the week, in riding upon an ass into Jerusalem, Matt. 21.
In the beginning of the that week he went daily into the Temple, and in the evenings retired to Bethany, to pray in the garden of Gethsemane, Luke 21:38 etc.

Fig Monday:
"Holy Monday is also called Fig Monday because Our Lord cursed the fig tree this day (Matthew 21: 18-22). In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the gospel tells the story of Mary anointing Jesus' feet (John 12: 1-9), which also occurred on this day" (courtesy: Ken Graham)
Spy Wednesday:

On Wednesday Judas made a bargain with the chief priests, to deliver him up to them for a sum of money, Matt. 26:15.

Maundy Thursday:(Thursday evening was for the Jews the "First day of the Azymes," the beginning of Friday; azymes = feast of unleavened bread)

On Thursday he sent his disciples in the afternoon to bring the paschal lamb, offered in the temple, which after sunset he ate with his twelve Apostles, Matt. 26.
He washed their feet, John 13.
After supper he instituted the Blessed Sacrament and Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, Matt. 26.
He gave his Apostle those excellent instructions set down by St. John, 14-17.
Christ's prayer in the garden three times repeated.
He is there seized, being betrayed by Judas.
He is led away to Annas, and then to Caiphas.
He is condemned as guilty of blasphemy to death, for owning imself the Son of God. He is spit upon, buffeted, etc.

Good Friday:(a Sabbath Day for the Jews, when they sacrificed their Pascal Lamb according to Exodus 12:1-11 and, at the same moment, crucified Jesus; the Jews called the evening Parasceve)

On Friday morning they deliver him up to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who sees and declares him innocent, yet fearing not to be thought a friend to Cœsar, condemns him to the death of the Cross.
He dies on the Cross, and is buried. For the history of his Passion, see Matt. 26, 27, 28; Mark 14, 15, 16; Luke 22, 23, 24; John 18, 19, 20.
The miracles at his death, ibid.

Easter Sunday:

He riseth from the dead the third day, ibid.
His different apparitions that very day; and others afterwards, ibid.

Before his Ascension forty days later:

He gives his Apostles power to forgive sins, John 20:23.
He gives to St. Peter the charge over his whole Church, John 21.
He promiseth to be with his Church to the end of the world, Matt. 23.


Any research done on the Narrative of Zosimus & Lehi's "Tree of Life" Dream in 1 Nephi (LDS scripture)? Similarities? More info on N. of Zosimus?

To answer all five of your questions.

Yes, there is more information.
There are English translations.  You can find a rendering of the text in English at newadvent.org. that appears to date to 18961.  There is another English rendering here with a helpful introduction.
If not a correlation, there is some similarity.

A twenty-two page analysis of text, as compared to text in Nephi, is available on line through Brigham Young University.   The author is John W. Welch, who wrote "The Narrative of Zosimus (History of the Rechabites) and the Book of Mormon" in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited (1997).  The conclusion is cited from that paper/chapter.

  Despite the many similarities set forth in this article between the
  Book of Mormon and the Narrative of Zosimus, it is difficult to draw
  any specific conclusions regarding possible direct relationships, or on
  the other hand, the independence of these documents with respect to
  each other.  We simply know too little about the authorship and
  transmission of the Narrative of Zosimus to venture any judgment about
  the kind of spiritual experiences its author had as compared with the
  visions and revelations of Lehi.  Similarly, we cannot know precisely
  what influence general literary or cultural backgrounds may have had
  upon those responsible for composing and transmitting the Narrative of
  Zosimus, or for that matter, upon Nephi as he recounted his own and his
  father's inspirations.  Perhaps someday we will have greater knowledge
  to assess what connections if any stand between these two intriguing
  ancient accounts.  In the meantime, however, it seems both reasonable
  and productive that one continue to study these two texts together.  Both deserve greater attention and neither should be erroneously
  judged amiss against valid ancient Judeo-Christianity.  Before the
  recognition of similarities, such as those between the book of Mormon
  and the Narrative of Zosimus, it was possible to reserve interest in
  the Book of Mormon by wondering why no other ancient near eastern
  books existed which closely resembled it on that score. One need
  wonder no longer.

Other scholars have shown an interest in and done work to give greater accessibility to this narrative.  From the BYU paper:

  Dr James H Charlesworth, Professor of Christian Origins at Duke
  University, Durham NC, has compiled the most complete, published
  bibliography and has made a thorough study of this long neglected
  narrative.  He concludes that its most ancient portion was
  written somewhere in Judea, that it was originally written in Hebrew,
  and that it would be unwise to ignore the possibility that this oldest
  section is a Jewish work that predates the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
  How long before AD 70 this early material was actually written down is
  difficult to tell.  The traditions underlying many sections in the
  narrative of Zosimus undoubtedly go back even further.

Dr Charlesworth produced a recent translation into English. (p. 312, same source)

  Professor Charlesworth reports having examined in Paris, Oxford, London
  and Manchester manuscripts of this document written in Greek, Syriac,
  Ethiopic, and Karshuni.  His English translation of Zosimus will appear in Doubleday's forthcoming publication of the Pseudepigraphia, and soon a new edition of the Greek Syriac and Ethiopic texts will be available in the SBL Pseudepigrapha series

Jack Welch is an LDS scholar.  You can evaluate his theories in that 22 page excerpt, which conclusion I cited.  He found it difficult to draw conclusions.  He noted that more scholarship is needed.

1 Translated by W.A. Craigie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1009.htm.


If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity?

For a fairly detailed explanation of the Trinity, see this answer.  But the gist of it is that God is three in person and one in nature.

Since then, there are three persons in God, they exist in relationship.  The terms Father and Son express the relationship between two of the persons; these terms do not speak in any way to the nature of God.

The question of how the relationship of Father and Son makes sense in the divine eternity is somewhat complex.  Begetting is a concept which we are less in tune with in our modern western culture, but it speaks to an idea of bringing into existence by the process of reproduction, giving rise to; bringing about.  It is the act of reproducing something of the same nature as the original being.

In our experience, begetting is temporally limited; a Father must be born and then mature before he begets.  But when he begets it's another person of like nature (note that a person begets of similar nature, but God, being inifinite, necessarily begets of perfectly identical nature).

However, in God's eternal present, begetting occurs in the immediate eternal such that there never was a time when the Son was not, but yet the Son is a second person in eternity arising from the nature of God.

In my thinking, and this is just my thought, it's as if the nature of God necessitates from all eternity that there be three persons for relationship and communion.

As something of an aside, a further point of confusion that arises is because Jesus "put off" his divine nature in order to be incarnate as a man:

  Phil 2:6-8

  6 Who, being in very nature God,
     did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

  7 rather, he made himself nothing
     by taking the very nature of a servant,
     being made in human likeness.

  8 And being found in appearance as a man,
     he humbled himself
     by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

and again:

  Heb 2:9

  9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

In order to properly be able to redress the disobedience of Adam, it was necessary for Christ to enter our dimensions of time and space and to function in obedience as a man. To this end, scripture teaches he emptied himself of his divine nature; he was the same person, but with a temporarily (that is, within the dimensions of our temporal existence) diminished nature. He chose not to exercise his God-nature except via the Holy Spirit as a man.

So while on earth, Jesus functioned in a limited capacity, as a man invested with the Holy Spirit.  Thus he said, "the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing":

  John 5:19

  16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

  19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Note there is a duality of sorts here; Jesus is still God in person, but has emptied himself of his divine attributes in order to become man.


What is the basis that many mainstream Christian groups justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?

Before we start to answer this, a little history is needed. Both the Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist churches. That means that they were founded on the belief that all the other churches in the world had ceased to hold to the whole correct Christian doctrine, and that a direct revelation from God to the founders caused them to start an entirely new church, and to separate themselves from the 'corrupt' churches that were then in existence (yes, 'corrupt' was the word they used at the time. I'm aware it has a technical meaning that isn't the same as 'dishonest', but it's not very polite even in its technical meaning, which is essentially of a church that has stopped following God). Today both will attempt to convert members of other denominations to their own faith, and insist that people baptized in other Christian denominations are rebaptized to become members of their sects. Cooperation of any kind between Mormons and mainstream churches is extremely rare (compared with cooperation between other denominations), and the non-mainstream sects are at least as assiduous in rejecting it as the mainstream churches.

So in short, both Mormons and JWs stated for themselves that they are a completely different faith from the mainstream church, and continue to act in that way towards others.

Mormons hold to an additional revelation and additional scriptures, belief in which they consider essential to their own faith, and which are not accepted by other churches and in many cases contradict the tenets of other churches. JWs use a unique Bible translation which they hold to be authoritative and which disagrees in many places with all other translations. Both hold to unique doctrines, particularly about the person of Jesus,  which differ fundamentally from what mainstream churches believe and which they consider to be a non-negotiable part of their faith.

Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that mainstream churches find it hard to accept churches which do not accept them as valid Christians. However this is by no means a fixed rule. Some denominations do accept Mormons and JWs as a valid form of Christianity.


How do Calvinists account for Calvin's statements on atonement?

I see three questions beneath your one question, and I will handle them each separately.

Are Calvinists allowed to disagree with Calvin?

First of all, they get their name from him because they are believed to be in accord with him on most/all doctrine, not because they get their doctrine from him, although he is of course a highly esteemed and respected theologian. So in that sense, if Calvin taught something different than Calvinists, who cares? Many of them would care, but more because they want to know why they hold a different position than he does than because they need to agree with him. He is not a prophet.

The most important question for a Calvinist is not, "Does John Calvin teach limited atonement?" but rather, "Does the Bible support limited atonement?"

Do Calvinists disagree with Calvin?

Calvin's views of limited versus universal atonement are controversial. Both sides of the debate claim him. The quotes you provided in the question are sufficient context for seeing why he's claimed by the "universal" side. The article John Calvin's View of Limited Atonement by Roger Nicole concludes, after examining both sides' claims, that Calvin actually held to limited atonement and gives several reasons, mainly having to do with Calvin's strong covenantalism, trinitarianism, and belief in penal substitutionary atonement. Calvin also often stresses that Christ secured blessings "for the elect." None of it is a slam dunk, but Nicole says one passage (from a treatise written against one Tilemann Heshusius) "deserves special attention":

  I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which
  was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was
  not shed to expiate their sins.

His strongest argument, in my opinion, is this:

  A historical difficulty appears when we attempt to explain how
  Reformed thought moved so quickly from Calvin’s alleged endorsement of
  universal atonement to the very emphatic support of definite atonement
  by all but one or two of the delegations at the Synod of Dort. What
  happened in these fifty-five years to cause the Reformed community to
  make such a drastic shift?

But ultimately, I don't know if Calvin believed in limited atonement or not. There are two confounding issues here:

Calvin used Biblical vocabulary and left himself open to interpretation on some issues in much the same way Scripture itself is open to interpretation.
The controversy hadn't even happened yet! How could he have defined his position on a debate that hadn't taken place? So we're left guessing as to his position. Either his thought is more consistent with one position or with the other, but the question hadn't yet been formally considered. (However, the Wikipedia article does mention that there is support for the doctrine in theologians predating Calvin. But just like him, they didn't seek to define their support or opposition to limited atonement -- they merely held to a theological system that supported it and that showed in their writings.)

Why do Calvinists hold to limited atonement?

From a theological point of view, Calvinism is a systematic theology. John Hendryx of Monergism.com says that it is impossible to deny limited atonement and at the same time affirm unconditional election. R.C. Sproul says that four-point Calvinists always, on investigation, turn out to be "no-point Calvinists." The "L" in TULIP is one cog in a well-oiled machine, as they say.

From a historical perspective, as with all confessional forms of Christianity, time revealed new challenges to the system that needed to be answered. Jacob Arminius placed himself in opposition to Calvin and the system of theology expressed in the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. The Dutch church needed to figure out, together, how to respond to his challenge. So they drew up the Articles of Dort, now remembered for giving us the five points of Calvinism, which answered the five points given in the Articles of Remonstrance. The development of the doctrine of limited atonement was simply a fleshing-out of the theological system developed by Calvin and his successors.


The Epitome of the Formula of Concord- Free will in Lutheranism

First, it's important to realize that there are many shades of Stoicism and many shades of free will.  Within Christianity, the relevant topics are divine foreknowledge, divine plan, moral responsibility, grace, sin, and election, all of which need to be harmonized one way or the other.  So it's no wonder that different traditions will harmonize them differently, and even for a single tradition like Lutheranism, a single work like Luther's "Bondage of the Will" may emphasize different aspect of free will than later formulation of the Lutheran position (such as the Formula of Concord).

The Stoic position as defined in the Formula of Concord you quoted has to do with determinism that excludes free will which most Christians cannot accept because it excludes moral responsibility.

But Martin Luther in his "Bondage of the Will" was responding to Erasmus's understanding of free will vs. divine foreknowledge which had nothing to do with Stoicism where divine foreknowledge is not a factor.  So comparing the two is like comparing apple to orange.

Within Christianity there are different ways to balance affirming both free will and divine foreknowledge, so it's understandable that Luther disagreed with Erasmus.  The language "necessity of consequence" has to do with describing the relationship, which has to be distinguished with "necessity of consequent" described in the 2014 Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther's Theology, Chapter II (Luther as Late Medieval Theologian), Section IV (De Servo Arbitrio), pages 40 to 42.  This is a distinction maintained by the Scholastics (including Erasmus, I think) but denied by Luther (emphasis mine):

  Luther closely connects his distinction with the problem of 'whether God foreknows anything contingently, and whether we do everything of necessity'.  In doing so, he takes up a problem that was discussed by scholastic theologians and philosophers for centuries.  God is omniscient, he cannot be deceived, his knowledge is immutable, and since he is a necessary being, his knowledge is necessary, too.  Nevertheless, the problem is whether God who knows all and everything knows contingent entities and events as contingent or whether the necessity that he knows everything has the consequence that everything he knows is itself necessary. In this case, free will would not exist.  Scholastic theologians made many and very different attempts to avoid this consequence and demonstrate that God's necessary knowledge is compatible with the contingency of the created world and with free will.  Luther in fact broke with this tradition arguing: (a) God's will is immutable: thus his foreknowledge is immutable, too, and (b) if his foreknowledge is immutable, then 'God foreknows necessarily'

In another work discussing this issue, from 2018 book Luther's Outlaw God: Volume 1: Hiddenness, Evil, and Predestination:

  Consequence means God does something but consequent means God refrains from doing anything. Both are done in order to make God's eternal law the deciding factor in human lives.

It can be argued that Luther, in the heat of rhetoric, went too far (see Introduction of a translation of "On the Bondage of the Will"):

  Erasmus had found a way of dissociating himself from Luther without in any way repudiating that concern for reform which they shared in common. He could take issue with him on a point of doctrine, concerning divine grace and human freedom, on which he differed from him totally. For Luther in his Assertio, 9 published in 1520, had utterly denied the reality of human freedom and asserted that everything that happens, happens by absolute necessity.10 This was in fiat contradiction to the teaching of the church, which, however much room it had left for debate about its extent and efficacy, had always maintained the reality of human freedom. Here Luther was wrong; and he was wrong, not only in what he taught, but in publicizing it; for it could not but have effects deleterious to any reform—it provided the common herd with a perfect excuse for every kind of wickedness and ungodliness.

In a summary of Luther's Bondage of the Will the author also warns us that "necessarily does not mean compulsorily":

  I could wish, indeed, that a better term was available for our discussion than the accepted one, necessity, which cannot accurately be used of either man's will or God's. Its meaning is too harsh, and foreign to the subject; for it suggests some sort of compulsion, and something that is against one's will, which is no part of the view under debate. This will, whether it be God's or man's does what it does, good or bad, under no compulsion, but just as it wants or pleases, as if totally free.

Therefore, to properly interpret what Luther meant by "free will" it's very important to realize that in that work Luther focused on how we cannot have faith in Jesus apart from 100% God's grace, a kind of predestination, although different than the Calvinist flavor, as argued in a First Things magazine article by a Lutheran.

Therefore, the discussion of "necessity of consequence" in that work does not mean Luther abandoned free will totally, but has to be interpreted in light of divine foreknowledge of how certain humans (like Judas) will sin while maintaining Judas's "real" freedom to sin.  There is already a fine answer to a related question by Mike which tried to show how even within "Bondage of the Will" Luther still affirms free will, although it's free will to sin.

Luther's position in that work I think harmonizes well with the conclusion of the Formula of Concord Section II (Free Will), 3rd Affirmative Thesis:

  With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes everything to God's grace, in order that no one may boast before God.

It's important to remember that philosophical discussion of free will within moral philosophy (i.e. human agency) should be distinguished from theological discussion of free will within theology (where human will is corrupted by sin).  A good background and contrast can be found in Chapter 6: The Protestant Reformation of The Cambridge History of Moral Philosophy

Personal assessment (not necessarily the Lutheran position)

Luther rightly points out the danger, especially when we were not yet regenerated, that our free will is in bondage and in desperate need of God's grace, especially in coming to Jesus to be born again (where we need God's grace 100%, so we cannot boast).  While Luther may have gone too far in linking God's foreknowledge to human action (which I think could make God a party to our sinful actions), as regenerate Christians currently undergoing sanctification we should have a daily reminder that:

Our "free will" is still under the dark spell of evil tainting our desires and thus corrupting our reason which has the role to inform the will.  Therefore we still need a daily dose of God's grace to counter it, making us humble before God
Just because God has the foreknowledge of our sinful actions, we cannot waive responsibility and give up either, because God truly wants us healed, and I think the healing will culminates in the total recovery of our free will, if not on earth, but for sure in the new creation after the day of judgment.


That is a great question, and sometimes I have pondered that myself. Through study of the scriptures and church resources I have come to this conclusion:
What is Agency?
Basically, agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. Agency is essential to God's Plan of Salvation. Without it, we could not make the choices for ourselves. Satan wanted to remove agency from the Plan so everyone would come back and live with God again. (Moses 4:3) Agency allows us to be “free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil” (2 Nephi 2:27)
Jesus knew Peter would deny Christ three times before the cock crowed. This is not stripping him of his free agency. As a father, I watch my children, and often times I know what they will do, or what the outcome of their choices will be before they make them.  I then warn them. Often they still follow through.  I am not stripping them of their agency.  They still make the choice and the consequence follows. In my case, I know what will happen because I have learned their personalities and what choices they will make combined with my experience.
What is the purpose of a prophet?
As stated in the church's website:

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.
Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God's will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.
We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38).

Prophets purpose is to testify of Christ and warn of the consequences of sin. Isaiah was a prophet who testified of the destruction of Jerusalem and what it will be like in the last days. John wrote Revelation which is all about the destruction of the world.  Their prophecies did not rid people of their agency. Like them of old, the prophets in our day can see into what will happen but this will not rid an individual of their agency.
I hope this answered your question. If you need clarification, please let me know!


Why and when did allegorical interpretations of Scripture lose their appeal?

I'm not sure it completely has abandoned allegorical interpretation.  The PCA church still takes much of Revelation to be allegorical, although the rest of the United States doesn't so much anymore... a result of John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield in the 19th century, who came out with the Scofield Study Bible, with Darby's dispensational, and somewhat more literal interpretation of Revelation.

Many of Jesus parables are still taken allegorically, though they're often coupled with a philosophical Occam's Razor in order to come up with the simplest explanation.

I don't think it's that we don't take parts of the Bible allegorically, I think it's just that we no longer go out of our way to do so, unless the text seems to call for it.

That being said, much of the shift that you're referring to, at least according to Wikipedia, comes from Luther and Calvin, the former of whom came up with the principle of scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Scripture is it's own interpreter), and the latter of whom came with the principle: brevitas et facilitas, brief and relevant.  That, combined with the rationalist and humanist movements of the 15th and 16th centuries combined to make the shift.


The "renewing of the Holy Ghost" is believed to pertain to the work that the Holy Spirit does within us; the process known as sanctification.  This is the process of God's spirit to working in us  to help us to become more like Him, or in other words, cleansing us from our sin nature.  it is the replacement of our own sinful nature with God's Holy nature, enabled and achieved by the work of the Holy Spirit within us.

From Thomas Watson's article on Sanctification:

  First, such as are sanctified, can remember a time when they were
  unsanctified. "Once we too were foolish and disobedient. We were
  misled by others and became slaves to many wicked desires and evil
  pleasures. Our lives were full of evil and envy. We hated others, and
  they hated us. But then God our Savior showed us his kindness and
  love. He saved us, not because of the good things we did, but because
  of his mercy. He washed away our sins and gave us a new life through
  the Holy Spirit." Titus 3:3-5.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on these verses speaks of the outward behavior of the christian, and how all our good deeds are fine and dandy, but without the renewing of the spirit making changes to our own nature, it's all worthless:

  Most pretend they would have heaven at last, yet they care not for
  holiness now; they would have the end without the beginning. Here is
  the outward sign and seal thereof in baptism, called therefore the
  washing of regeneration. The work is inward and spiritual; this is
  outwardly signified and sealed in this ordinance. Slight not this
  outward sign and seal; yet rest not in the outward washing, but look
  to the answer of a good conscience, without which the outward washing
  will avail nothing. The worker therein is the Spirit of God; it is the
  renewing of the Holy Ghost. Through him we mortify sin, perform duty,
  walk in God's ways; all the working of the Divine life in us, and the
  fruits of righteousness without, are through this blessed and holy
  Spirit.

This verse is often understood by commentators of the verse to be referring to Baptism. The "washing of regeneration"  is believed to refer to the physical rite of Baptism, and the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" refers to the work of the Spirit within us to regenerate and perfect us.  In other worlds Baptism is the "outward sign" and the renewing of the Spirit is the internal work of purification of the soul.

The Wesley's notes commentary says this:

  3:5 Not by works - In this important passage the apostle presents us
  with a delightful view of our redemption. Herein we have, The cause of
  it; not our works or righteousness, but the kindness and love of God
  our Saviour. The effects; which are, Justification; being justified,
  pardoned and accepted through the alone merits of Christ, not from any
  desert in us, but according to his own mercy, by his grace, his free,
  unmerited goodness. Sanctification, expressed by the laver of
  regeneration, (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the
  outward sign,) and the renewal of the Holy Ghost; which purifies the
  soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of
  God. The consummation of all; - that we might become heirs of eternal
  life, and live now in the joyful hope of it.


Have any Catholics (e.g. Eastern Rite) ever followed the Old Calendar since the late 16th century?

Since 1923 Eastern Rite Catholic follow a modified Gregorian calendar, while keeping some of the nuances of the Julian calendar.

  Traditionally, the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches use the Julian Calendar to calculate their feast days. Beginning in 1924 the Patriarchate of Constantinople made an adjustment to their liturgical year to bring the fixed cycle in conformity to the modern Gregorian Calendar. The Paschal cycle, however, continued to be calculated according to the Julian Calendar. This composite calendar is known as the Revised Julian Calendar. Constantinople's example was followed by the Church of Greece as well as a number of other autocephalous churches. Today, some churches continue to follow the Julian Calendar while others follow the Revised Julian Calendar.

  In 1923 the Eastern Rite Churches adopted a modified form of the Gregorian Calendar. October 1, 1923, in the Julian Calendar became October 14, 1923, in the Eastern calendar. From this we see the celebration of Christmas on January 7th and New Year's on January 14th.

  The date of Easter is determined by reference to modern lunar astronomy (in contrast to the more approximate lunar model of the Gregorian system). If you wish to see how these dates are calculated, the Astronomical Society of South Australia has an excellent page showing how it's done. - Український Католицький Собор Успення Пресвятої Богородиці

Wikipedia explains it this way:

  Traditionally, the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches used the Julian Calendar to calculate their feast days. Beginning in 1924 the Patriarchate of Constantinople made an adjustment to their liturgical year to bring the fixed cycle in conformity to the modern Gregorian Calendar. The Paschal cycle, however, continued to be calculated according to the Julian Calendar. This composite calendar is known as the Revised Julian Calendar. Constantinople's example was followed by the Church of Greece as well as a number of other autocephalous churches. Today, some churches continue to follow the Julian Calendar while others follow the Revised Julian Calendar. Only the Orthodox Church of Finland has adopted the Western calculation of the date of Pascha (see computus); all other Orthodox Churches, and a number of Eastern Catholic Churches, celebrate Pascha at the same time, according to the ancient rules. - Byzantine Rite

A Ukrainian Website site puts it this way:

  Outside of the U.S. and Western Canada, many Ukrainian Catholics, especially those in Ukraine, follow the Julian ("Old") Calendar as opposed to the Gregorian ("New") Calendar. The latter is used by the Western Churches — Catholic and Protestant — and in all civil societies. In these ways and others, Ukrainian Catholics may seem more Eastern Orthodox than Roman Catholic. - What is Ukrainian Catholic?


Can one sin be worse than another sin, or are all sins equal?

There are two primary views of this.

There are different levels of sin
All sin is equal in God's eyes.

Unfortunately, they're both pretty sound beliefs.
All sins are not equal
There are many verses to back up this belief that all sins are not equal.  Here are some of them:
Matthew 12:31-32 (NIV)

31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come

1 Cor. 6:18 (NIV)

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

John 19:11 (NIV)

Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Matthew 7:3 (NIV)

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

All sins are equal
The idea that "all sins are equal in God's eyes" comes from the idea that any one sin will lead to death.  If we commit a single sin, we are as guilty (in God's eyes) as if we had committed the worst sin--regardless of which sin we committed.
It's based on the idea that God's holiness is so extreme, that even one transgression is greater than he can accept.  This idea is supported with two key verses
James 2:10 (NIV)

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Romans 3:23 (NIV)

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

The argument goes, therefore, that if even the smallest sin prevents us from attaining the perfection that God calls us to seek, then that one single sin is as great as the worst sin.
Summary
We can reconcile these two seemingly opposing viewpoints: we can clearly see that some sins are greater than others, but that any sin will prevent us from going to heaven without the saving grace and sacrifice of Jesus.
Essentially, any one sin is sufficient to keep us from God, but all sins are not the same.


Is there a prayer to rebuke storms at sea?

The particular prayer that your grandfather once prayed to calm storms at sea will be rather hard to pinpoint as there are many saints invoked against storms and this list is not a complete one. Both St. Michael the Archangel and St. Nicholas of Myra are traditionally invoked against storms at sea. St. Peter is one of the patron saint of fishermen. As you see there is a large list in play and we may never know for sure.

I will give here three hopeful possibilities, but before going into detail I would like to mention the Scriptures tell us that Our Lord (Matthew 8:24-28) and the Prophet Jonah (Jonah 1:11-12) both calmed storms at sea and could be invoked as the need presents. The Prophet Jonah is honoured on September 21 in the Roman Martyrology.

The most popular saint invoked against storms is St. Scholastica (February 10). In Malta, there is a unique feast in St. Paul the Apostle's honour known as the Shipwreck of St. Paul (Naufragium S. Pauli), which is also held on the 10th of February. How St. Scholastica became invoked against storms can be found here. In times of real necessity the short prayers are the easiest to recite.

St. Scholastica and St. Paul the Apostle, pray for us.

My second suggestion is the traditional prayer to repel dangerous storms taken from the missal of 1962. I personally use these sort of prayers in my own private devotional life accompanied with St. Scholastica.

  When a major storm is headed your way, you should prepare as much as you can. But you should also pray.

  Prayer is powerful, and it can change history. No, we don’t always get what we prayed for. But God always hears us – and sometimes he does grant us what we pray for.

  These prayers, titled “Ad Repellendas Tempestates” (“To Repel Storms”), are meant to be used in the extraordinary form of the Mass at their respective parts (and some people are using them!). But feel free to use them as inspiration for your own personal prayer.

  Here’s the original Latin:

  A domo tua, quǽsumus, Dómine, spiritales nequítiæ, repellantur: et aërearum discédat malígnitas tempestatum. Per Dóminum.

  And here’s an English translation:

  We beseech Thee, O Lord, that all wickedness being driven away from Thy house, the fury of the raging tempest may pass away. Through our Lord.

  The Traditional Catholic Mass Prayers to Repel Dangerous Storms

My last suggestion is a prayer to St. Medard.

  Prayer against tornadoes?

  I am not aware of any specific prayer against tornadoes, but I do know that St. Medard is traditionally regarded as the patron saint against bad weather. He was a bishop in France during the first half of the sixth century.

  Legend has it that when he was a child, he was once sheltered from a violent rainstorm by an eagle that hovered over his head. That is how he is commonly depicted in art, and Christians have long invoked his aid in stormy weather.

  The prayer that is said admits of different versions but generally goes something like this:

  “Lord Jesus, though the intercession of St. Medard, be with me during the storms of my life and the storms of nature. Protect the victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Send in helpers and multiply the supplies that are needed for their aid. You calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee; deliver us now from the storms that rage around us. Amen.”


Why does no one know what Jesus looks like?

Civilisations have to put a lot of effort into recording images. It's only rulers and powerful or politically-influential people who get their portraits painted or made into some other reasonably-permanent physical form.

That's true today: how many portraits are there of the British Queen, for example [on every coin and banknote and many many more] compared to Joe Bloggs? Even if Joe lives in a nice house, or is a Member of Parliament, far fewer. In this internet age, there are many images of media celebrities, but even they are mainly digitally stored and don't exist in a permanent form like a sculpture.

Jesus wasn't a ruler. He was an itinerant preacher. If there were any portraits of him they were likely to be on Wanted posters; even if his disciples had painted portraits they would have been on ephemeral materials.

The theological reason that there are no images is that what he looked like is not important. In fact it could be counterproductive. It's what Jesus did and what he said which are important, and they were certainly remembered and written down for posterity.

Jesus is the epitome of being "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22) — because there is no contemporary image, we are free to imagine him as we will so that what he tells us is relevant to us and not limited to those in some far-off place who happen to look like him.


How does an unconfirmed Catholic engaged person get confirmed before marriage?

Technically, one does not absolutely need to be confirmed in order to be married. Canon 1065 section 1 of the Code of Canon Law reads

Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are to receive it before they are admitted to marriage if it can be done without grave inconvenience.
(emphasis added)

What constitutes "grave inconvenience" is ultimately up to the bishop, who according to canon 882 is the ordinary minister of Confirmation. But the term "grave" is reserved for very serious situations, such as when the bishop is exiled from the diocese. It's safe to say that under nearly all situations, you do indeed have to get confirmed.
The pastor, who is the lowest-level person spiritually responsible for the one to be confirmed, bears the responsibility of making sure that they are spiritually prepared for the Sacrament:

Pastors of souls, especially pastors of parishes, are to take care that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and come to it at the appropriate time.
(Canon 890)

This preparation is important, and includes gaining an understanding of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and how the Spirit works in one's life:

Preparation for Confirmation should aim at leading the Christian toward a more intimate union with Christ and a more lively familiarity with the Holy Spirit—his actions, his gifts, and his biddings—in order to be more capable of assuming the apostolic responsibilities of Christian life. To this end catechesis for Confirmation should strive to awaken a sense of belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, the universal Church as well as the parish community.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1309)

Parishes typically run a program of catechesis (known as the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, or RCIA) for those adults who are planning to enter the Church each Easter Vigil. All these people will be confirmed; those who have not been baptized as Christians will be baptized as well. Those who are already members of the Church are typically welcome at RCIA sessions; and this would seem to be a handy approach to the catechesis needed for an unconfirmed Catholic to be confirmed. The difficulty with this is that RCIA sessions are planned to be over just before Easter; timing may be an issue especially if the couple first meets the priest in the late spring.
The priest preparing the couple for marriage—ordinarily the pastor of the parish—ought to ask whether both have been confirmed, and typically requests their baptismal certificate, which has a record of the confirmation. Thus, he should know that one of the couple has not been confirmed, and should be in a position to recommend the proper course of receiving catechesis for the Sacrament. It is likely, but not necessary, that attendance at RCIA sessions will provide the needed catechesis. If that approach is not taken, the pastor may undertake the catechesis himself, or may appoint another person or persons to do so, at his option.


Is there an appropriate response to "Jesus Loves You"?

I guess if I was in Italy and someone said "Jesus loves you" in Latin, I might reply "et tu frater" or "et tu sorror".  Don't know if I could get away with "Jesus te amo" or if that would give out the wrong signal, though.

In English, I would probably respond with "You too, brother" or "You too, sister".  Or perhaps "Such love! Amazing love!" accompanied by a great big smile and a cheery wave.


Do Messianic Jews accept the entire New Testament?

Do Messianic Jews accept the entire New Testament as a base of their belief?  Yes.

The Holy Bible is the main religious text for Messianic Jews. They follow the teachings of the Torah (Old Testament) while also holding the New Covenant (New Testament) as God’s Truth. They believe Old Testament prophesies about the coming Messiah were fulfilled in the New Testament with the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Bible - Messianic Jews believe the Bible is God’s Holy Word and follow the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament serves as a history of the Jewish nation, God’s covenant with Abraham, and the commandments given to Moses. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament through the coming of Jesus Christ, the Promised Messiah and God’s Son.

Jesus Christ - Messianic Jews believe that Jesus Christ is the Promised Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. He is referred to in Hebrew as Yeshua and regarded as the way of salvation for all who believe in his death and resurrection. They believe that Jesus’ death was payment for the sins of all. (Acts 2)

Trinity - Most Messianic Jews believe in the Trinity as God in three parts. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all displayed in the New Testament Scriptures through the Gospels (the first four books) and the book of Acts.

Sin - Messianic Jews acknowledge that sin is any behavior that is against the teachings of the Bible. Sin can only be forgiven through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 5)

Source: https://www.christianity.com/church/denominations/what-do-messianic-jews-believe-and-practice.html
Most, but not all, Messianic Jews accept the orthodox view of the Trinity.  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as three representations of the same divinity.

God the Father: Messianic Jews believe in God, and that he is all-powerful, omnipresent, eternally existent outside of creation, and infinitely significant and benevolent. Some Messianic Jews affirm both the Shema and the Trinity, understanding the phrase "the LORD is One" to be referring to "a differentiated but singular deity" and "eternally existent in plural oneness".

God the Son: Most Messianic Jews consider Jesus to be the Messiah and divine as God the Son, in line with mainstream Christianity, and will even pray directly to him. Many also consider Jesus to be their "chief teacher and rabbi" whose life should be copied.

God the Holy Spirit: According to some Messianic Jews, the Spirit is introduced in the Old Testament, is the inspirer of prophets, and is the spirit of Truth described in the New Testament.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism#The_Trinity
You say: “Stating «the Word was God» and «the Word became flesh» he sets the base for the thought that God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same, which is not the Jewish (and Muslim) concept of God.”
Please be aware that the the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not “the same”.  That is not the Trinitarian concept.  Trinitarians acknowledge that there is only the One Being of God within whom subsist the three personages of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Each is co-eternal and co-equal but they are DISTINCT, one from the other.  Source: Athanasian Creed.


In the following Scriptures joy fills Heaven when a sinner repents, conversely is there great sorrow when an unsaved rejects salvation?

Your question is mainly based on scripture, and I'm assuming you are looking for an answer also mainly from scripture.

There is no pleasure in the death of the wicked:

  Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? Ezekiel 18:23, ESV

  Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? Ezekiel 33:11, ESV

There may be laughter however, but not the kind that indicates joy:

  He who sits in the heavens laughs;
  the Lord holds them in derision. Psalm 2:4, ESV


What are the biblical arguments against Arianism?

Some background regarding Arianism
To answer the question, it is important to understand that Arianism is a Trinitarian heresy that denies the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity. Specifically, Arius held that the Son, or the Word, was created out of nothing, and that there was a time when He did not exist. The Son was, therefore, the Father’s first creature, but not God in the proper sense. Arius’ views represent the most extreme form of a current called subordinationism.
It is important to recall that Arius never denied the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ. (If anything, he tended to deny the full humanity of Christ, like Apollinarius of Laodicea, but this was not at the heart of the controversy associated with him.)
Biblical passages
In order to refute Arianism, it is sufficient, therefore, to find passages in the Scriptures that show that the Son is fully God, with just as much right to be called “God” as the Father.
St. John’s prologue
The most straightforward passage is the prologue of St. John’s gospel:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).

I include the original Greek, because the grammar of the text makes a subordinationist interpretation impossible. Notice how the words have a perfect chasmic structure (which is lost in English): the second half of each sentence is always repeated as the first half of the next (ὁ λόγος with λόγος; τὸν θεόν with θεὸς); this was a common rhetorical device in antiquity. St. John must, therefore, be identifying θεὸς with τὸν θεόν, and τὸν θεόν is clearly and unambiguously God.
There is also a reference here to Genesis chapter 1:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

If the Word was with God “in the beginning,” then Arius’ claim that there was a time before the Son existed is refuted; moreover, since there was only God “in the beginning,” that Word must be God.
Note that St. John clearly identifies the Word with the Son, and both with Jesus Christ, in the following passage:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14).

“Glory” is something that the Old Testament attributes only to God. Therefore, we may also legitimately use any passages in which Jesus attributes divinity to himself as a refutation of Arianism.
Jesus’ own claims to divinity
Jesus made a number of claims to divinity, although, at least at first, his claims were not often open and explicit, so to as to avoid causing scandal during his ministry.
One of the most explicit claims is found at John 8:58-59:

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

The key phrase is “I am,” which recalls Exodus 3:14, where God solemnly reveals His holy name:

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Jesus is claiming, at a minimum, to be greater and older than Abraham, but that is not sufficient to arouse such a violent reaction from the Pharisees: they understand him as claiming to be God.
There are also Jesus’ claims to be one with the Father:

[Jesus said,] “I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him (John 10:30-31).
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20-21; the chapter continues with similar claims).

Jesus also makes an affirmation of His divinity just before his crucifixion, and it is the immediate cause of the charge of blasphemy:

Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64).

This one might be less obvious, but Jesus is putting together passages from Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1. Taken individually, the passages are ambiguous: the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7 seems to refer most directly to the People of Israel. When in Psalm 110, the Lord says, “Sit at my right hand,” the meaning is metaphorical. However, when the passages are taken together and applied to Jesus, we see that Jesus is interpreting the passages to mean that the “Ancient of Days” (who is clearly God) asks the “Son of Man” (in this case Jesus) to sit at his “right hand,” which is a place of equal honor and dignity. Jesus’ persecutors, at any rate, seem to have understood him in this way.
There are also the numerous times, particularly (but not only) in John’s gospel, in which Jesus reveals something important about himself beginning with the words “I am.” (“I am the vine,” “I am the good shepherd,” and so on.)
We could also add that Jesus accepts without protest acts of worship, whereas his disciples in analogous circumstances protested vigorously. For example, compare

Jesus heard that they had cast him [the man born blind] out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.” He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped (προσεκύνησεν) him (John 9:35-38).

to

And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you” (Acts 14:13-15).

In a similar vein, there is also the profession of faith by St. Thomas the Apostle:

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:27-28).

We could also mention that Jesus performs actions that are explainable only by his Divine Nature: his miracles, the way that he can read people’s intimate thoughts (see, for example, Mark 2:8), and even forgive sins:

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:5-7).

Jesus never challenges the principle that God alone can forgive sins (at least by His own authority, or ἐξουσία), but he does communicate the power to forgive sins:

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld” (John 20:22-23).

It is not a mistake that most of the citations here are from the Gospel of John. St. John seems to have been particularly concerned with emphasizing Jesus’ divinity, perhaps because a current of subordinationism was already present in the early Church.
Passages from other New-Testament writers
It is not only Jesus himself who claimed to be divine, but his disciples taught his divinity in the other New-Testament writings.
Examples from the Pauline epistles
The clearest of these affirmations come from St. Paul. For example, there is the famous Christological hymn from Philippians 2:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 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 2:5-11).

This passage is extremely rich. Among many other things that could be said, I note the following:

St. Paul says that Jesus Christ is “in the form of God” (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ). The expression “form of God” sounds strange to us, but at the time of Paul (especially in a Greek-speaking and fully Hellenized area such as Philippi in Macedonia) the term would have made people think immediately of Aristotle’s μορφή (form) and Plato’s εἶδος (idea or form). Paul is essentially saying that God has the divine μορφή, or nature, in our parlance. In other words, Jesus is fully divine. Notice that later on Paul says that Jesus takes on the “form” (μορφή) of a slave (i.e., of man). So μορφή is Paul’s term for “nature.”
Jesus “did not count equality with God [literally being equal to God, τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ] a thing to be grasped,” but neither did he divest himself of that equality. Rather his “emptying himself” consisted in taking on human nature, and, above all, in dying on the Cross.
Paul says that all creatures (in heaven, on earth, and below the earth, by which Paul means, “the good angels, man, and even the demons”) should “bend the knee.” But this kind of honor is reserved only to God.

There is also a similar passage in the Letter to the Colossians:

He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 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 1:15-20).

Although Arius left no extant writings, one can imagine that he seized on Colossians 1:15 (that Christ is the “firstborn of all creation”) as “proof” for his doctrine. He would soon have encountered a problem, however, because the “firstborn” is a technical term that specifically implies the right to inherit; in other words, one need not infer from this passage that Jesus is a creature. He could hardly be a creature in any case if he is “before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church”— such things can only be attributed to God. (The phrase “fullness of God,” in fairness, is something of a modern gloss, because the words “of God” do not appear in the original Greek. Still, true ontological fullness, or πλήρωμα, could only dwell in God.) As with the term μορφή from the passage in Philippians, in St. Paul, the term “image” (εἰκών) does not mean “imitation,” but rather “exact likeness.”
Examples from the preachings of the Apostles
Other affirmations of Christ’s divinity can be found in the preachings of the Apostles after Pentecost. For example, there is St. Peter’s discourse at Pentecost:

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool [Psalm 110:1].

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:32-36).

So Jesus has the prerogative of pouring out the Holy Spirit (v. 33), a power that can attributed only to God. As Jesus himself did during his trial, St. Peter applies Psalm 110 to Jesus, attesting that Jesus sits at the right hand of God, which, in the Jewish mentality, means that he has honor and dignity equal to God.
After Peter cures a lame man, he makes a discourse at the Portico of Solomon. There, he says, in part:

But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead (Acts 3:14-15).

He is, of course, referring to Jesus’ trial, in which Barabbas was released in his place. Peter affirms not only Jesus’ innocence, but his authority over life itself; this authority can only be God’s. Moreover, the title of “Holy One” in the Old Testament refers to God. (See, for example, Isaiah 30:12.)
We could point to other passages, but these are the clearest.
Conclusion
In summary, we can say that St. John’s gospel makes a very deliberate attempt to demonstrate Jesus’ divinity, and (more centrally to our question) the full divinity of the Word or Son. It is in his gospel that all of the most explicit claims to that divinity can be found.
However, the other Gospels, as well as the other New-Testament writings, make many assertions that imply Jesus’, and hence the Son’s, divinity. Among these, the clearest are St. Paul’s Christological hymns, but there are many other passages that imply, hint at, or otherwise confirm the divinity of Christ.


What verses from the Bible claim that Jesus has justified and redeemed man by his sacrifice on a cross?

What you're talking about is called "substitutionary atonement"  There are several references that support this viewpoint.

Isaiah 53:4-6

  Surely he has borne our griefs
      and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken,
      smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions;
      he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
      and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray;
      we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him
      the iniquity of us all.

2 Corinthians 5:21

  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we
  might become the righteousness of God.

1 Peter 2:24

  He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to
  sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

1 Corinthians 15:3

  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:
  that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures

Romans 4:23-25 (Jesus was delivered up for our sins, and raised for our justification)

  But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake
  alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him
  who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our
  trespasses and raised for our justification.

1 John 4:10 (Propitiation: sufficient substitution for our sins)

  In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and
  sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1 Peter 3:18 (Christ suffered for sins, though he was righteous, so that we may be considered righteous)

  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the
  unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the
  flesh but made alive in the spirit,

Galatians 3:13 (Christ became the curse for us, taking our penalty)

  Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for
  us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”

Galatians 2:20-21 (If salvation is by works, then Christ's death was for nothing)

  I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but
  Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by
  faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.  I do
  not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the
  law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Romans 3:21-26 (The righteousness is apart from the law, and given based on Christ's blood)

  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the
  law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the
  righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who
  believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall
  short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift,
  through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward
  as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to
  show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had
  passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the
  present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one
  who has faith in Jesus.


Do Jehovah Witnesses believe it is immoral to pay for blood transfusions through taxation?

I found an article from the Jehovah’s Witness official web site that indirectly answers your question.  It uses the example of governments using income taxes to pay for wars and points out that it is the responsibility of governments to decide how tax payers’ contributions are spent:
Watchtower 1 April 1975 – Are you guided by a sensitive Christian conscience?  Paragraph 4: For example, a person might recognize that Jehovah is not backing the wars of the nations, but that he urges his people to learn the ways of peace. (Isa. 2:4) Knowing that usually the nations support their armies with tax money, would it be balanced and Scriptural for his conscience to lead him to refuse to pay taxes? Or to pay his taxes minus a percentage corresponding to what the government spends on its defense budget? While some persons have taken such a stand, the Bible evidence weighs against a conscience that leads to such a course. Christians are plainly told to pay their taxes, and this was put in the Bible despite the fact that the then-existing Roman government supported a vast army. (Matt. 22:17-21; Rom. 13:1, 7) Thus the Christian can, with a clear conscience balanced by God’s Word, pay his taxes, leaving with the governments the responsibility of how the money is used.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1975246#h=4:0-8:330
A Jehovah’s Witness therefore has a clear conscience when it comes to paying taxes – how the government decides to use that income is not the responsibility of the Witness.


Which sacraments can an intersex individual receive in the Catholic Church?

Hermaphrodites can be baptized.

Regarding 1917 Canon 748 (which has no equivalent in the 1983 Code), which deals with baptism in the case of deformed or abnormal fetal humans, canonist Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., writes in A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, on Can. 746:

  There is no difficulty as to hermaphrodites, because sex does not affect the validity of Baptism.

Complete hermaphrodites cannot be validly ordained.

Dom Augustine wrote on 1917 Can. 968 (= 1983 Canon 1024):

  Concerning hermaphrodites, it must be said that complete hermaphrodites, whose sex cannot be determined, may not be validly ordained; whereas those with whom the male sex prevails may be ordained validly but not licitly.

Complete hermaphrodites cannot validly marry.

Dom Augustine wrote on 1917 Can. 1068 (= 1983 Canon 1084), which deals with sexual impotence, an impediment to the valid reception of the sacrament of marriage:

  As to hermaphrodites, or such persons as have the sexual characteristics of both sexes, whether it be androgynia or gynandria or hermaphroditismus neuter, the testimony of physicians is required [to determine whether they are sexually impotent or not]. No hermaphroditus neuter can possibly be called capable of marrying because the sex is not sufficiently determined.

androgynia = hermaphroditic with male aspect predominant
gynandria = hermaphroditic with female aspect predominant
hermaphroditus neuter = a complete hermaphrodite (equal male and female aspects)

There are no other canons explicitly forbidding hermaphrodites qua hermaphrodites from receiving the other sacraments (Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction).