How are ectopic pregnancies supposed to be dealt with according to the Catholic Church?

Ectopic pregnancies are a classic application of the principle of double effect:

  The principle that says it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad. It may be used under the following conditions:

  the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences;
  the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good;
  the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded form the act;
  there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent.
  All four conditions must be fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, the act is morally wrong.

  An example of the lawful use of the double effect would be the commander of a submarine in wartime who torpedoes an armed merchant vessel of the enemy, although he foresees that several innocent children on board will be killed. All four required conditions are fulfilled:

  he intends merely to lessen the power of the enemy by destroying an armed merchant ship. He does not wish to kill the innocent children;
  his action of torpedoing the ship is not evil in itself;
  the evil effect (the death of the children) is not the cause of the good
  effect (the lessening of the enemy's strength);
  there is sufficient
  reason for permitting the evil effect to follow, and this reason is
  administering a damaging blow to those who are unjustly attacking his
  country.

See Summa Theologica II-II q. 64 a. 7 or §2.5 "Moral Norms Especially Relevant to Health Care" of Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy, neither the death of the child nor of the mother is intended. Curing the ailment may have the unintended side-effect of the death of the child, though, but this does not make curing her morally forbidden.

See:

Fr. T. Lincoln Bouscaren, Ethics of Ectopic Operations, (Milwaukee, Wis.: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1944).
Gerald Kelly, Medico-Moral Problems, 1958.ch. 14 The Morality of Ectopic Operations, p. 105


In your question you seem to have overlooked two very important points

1st Samuel 18:1  KJV

  And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and *Jonathan loved him as his own soul. *

In the "soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David" the important point here is the word knit That word in the original was:

קָשַׁר

  qashar (kaw-shar') v.
  1. bind (up), (make a) conspire(-acy, -ator), join together, knit, stronger, work (treason)

In today's vernacular that would be said " that they had become Soul mates".

There are no connotations of any physical relationship the word used for such a union is:

שָׁכַב

  shakab (shaw-kab') v.
  1. to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)
  [a primitive root]
  KJV: X at all, cast down, ((lover-))lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay.

So in answer to your question is no it was not erotic.

For the record how can a person have an erotic encounter with his soul?


How would Jesus have addressed St. Joseph?

Answer

Jesus by being humble and meek of heart and grew-up in an atmosphere of love and prayer would certainly be a loving child. Joseph and Mary since Jesus emptied himself will have to learn the ways of man thru his parents guidance. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, whatever the child in his time accustom to call their father & mother, Jesus would also call their parents the same way logically to embraced the Jewish customs of respect.

  The Aramaic term for father is אבא (abba).

Here is a good article relating the aramaic, hebrew and arabic of Father & Mother.

  immah
  Interesting etymology. Something similar happened in Hebrew and some of the other Semitic languages. The Hebrew word for mother is emm, the Aramaic word is immah, and the Arabic word is umm. The liturgical word amen, which at its core means “confirmation, support”, is derived from the words for “mother”.

  "Av is Hebrew for father. Abba is Aramaic for father. Ab is Arabic for father. I know that P and B are considered pretty much the same in historical linguistics, so we’re not too far here from papa, pappas, and the like. [The only difference between [p] and [b] is that we vibrate our vocal cords when pronouncing the latter. –RB] The noun abbot, referring to the Christian religious authority, comes from Aramaic abba."

  Mothers and Fathers in European and Semitic Languages

Jesus no doubt even without the Catholic Church officially entered in Catechism how He called Joseph and Mary certainly by virtue of the fourth commandment, Jesus would call them "Abba & Imma" lovingly and tenderly with the highest respect.

Others

You've mentioned this example;

At Luke 2:48 we read of St. Mary's complaint to Jesus for giving them a scare, by `getting lost'at the Temple:

"His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

Others or perhaps most Christians interpreted this as Joseph and Mary is at fault, but let us not forget that Mary is "full of grace" already and still growing in virtues while in the mystery of "Finding Jesus in the Temple", the gospel describes Jesus still need to grow in "wisdom and stature" meaning not yet "full of wisdom". That's why Jesus eagerness to do His mission troubled the heart of Mary and Joseph because he was too young to start His redemptive mission.

Lastly, you also stated this example:

We see Jesus addressing Mary as `woman' on two occasions viz. At the wedding of Cana and on the Cross (Jn 2:4 and Jn 19:27).

St. John gospel mentioned Jesus calling Mary as the Woman instead of the aramaic word for mother "immah" is not really hard to comprehend as the mystery in the "Wedding at Cana" marked the start of Jesus Redemptive Mission and He pointed out the role of Mary in the Divine Plan of God by calling Her "Woman" in relation to God's Holy Decree in Genesis 3:15.

  And I will put enmity
      between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring[a] and hers;
  he will crush[b] your head,
      and you will strike his heel.”

The Wedding at Cana signifies by the word of Jesus to Mary calling Her "Woman", means the battle had begun.And the other instance is At the Foot of the Cross were Jesus gave us His greatest gift to humanity, the means of salvation of mankind that encompasses the Wisdom of God after He finished the work of redemption. The Salvation of all the Redeemed will be "entrusted" to the Woman just like the Abba Father "entrusted" Jesus His only begotten Son to Mary the Woman in John 19:27 to form & accompany all the redeemed to become the perfect image of Jesus Christ by embracing the "Way of the Cross".

  "Woman behold your son, Son behold your Mother"


Why is the Canticle of Zachariah is part of the daily morning prayer?

There is no one sure answer to this question.  But it seems probably due to the first part of the canticle, as a song of thanksgiving for the coming of the Redeemer, that it finds an appropriate place in the office of the Church every morning at Lauds.

  The Benedictus, given in Luke 1:68-79, is one of the three great canticles in the opening chapters of this Gospel, the other two being the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis. The Benedictus was the song of thanksgiving uttered by Zachary on the occasion of the birth of his son, St. John the Baptist. It is Jewish in form, but Christian in sentiment. The local colouring and nationalistic character of the first half are so noticeable that Loisy has conjectured that it existed previously as a simple psalm, which Zachary adapted, his additions being, he contends, easily discernible. (Revue d'hist. et de lit. relig., May-June, 1903, p. 289). There are, however, grave objections to this view, and an opposite theory has been put forth that the Benedictus was composed with special reference to the names of Elizabeth, Zachary, and John, for Elizabeth, Jusjurandum quod juravit; Zachary, Memorari (testamenti sui sancti); and John, Ad faciendam misericordiam.

  The whole canticle naturally falls into two parts. The first (verses 68-75) is a song of thanksgiving for the realization of the Messianic hopes of the Jewish nation; but to such realization is given a characteristically Christian tone. As of old, in the family of David, there was power to defend the nation against their enemies, now again that of which they had been so long deprived, and for which they had been yearning, was to be restored to them, but in a higher and spiritual sense. The horn is a sign of power, and the "horn of salvation" signified the power of delivering or "a mighty deliverance". While the Jews had impatiently borne the yoke of the Romans, they had continually sighed for the time when the House of David was to be their deliverer. The deliverance was now at hand, and was pointed to by Zachary as the fulfilment of God's oath to Abraham; but the fulfilment is described as a deliverance not for the sake of worldly power, but that "we may serve him without fear, in holiness and justice all our days".

  The second part of the canticle is an address by Zachary to his own son, who was to take so important a part in the scheme of the Redemption; for he was to be a prophet, and to preach the remission of sins before the coming or the Orient, or Dawn, from on high. The prophecy that he was to "go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways" (v. 76) was of course an allusion to the well-known words of Isaias (40:3) which St. John himself afterwards applied to his own mission (John 1:23); and which all the three Synoptics adopt (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:2; Luke 3:4). It is probably due to the first part of the canticle, as a song of thanksgiving for the coming of the Redeemer, that it finds an appropriate place in the office of the Church every morning at Lauds. It is believed to have been first introduced by St. Benedict (Beaume, I, 253). According to Durandus, the allusion to Christ's coming under the figure of the rising sun had also some influence on its adoption. It is also used in various other liturgical offices, notably at a funeral, at the moment of interment, when words of thanksgiving for the Redemption are specially in place as an expression of Christian hope. - The Benedictus (Canticle of Zachary)


According to Catholicism, why did God create men as men rather than as angels?

Although not a magisterial teaching, Padre Pio said:

  The angels envy us for one thing only: they cannot suffer for God.

cited in Padre Pio: A Catholic Priest Who Worked Miracles and Bore the Wounds of Jesus on His Body p. 31, from in Fr. Alessio Parente, Send Me Your Guardian Angel, National Centre for Padre Pio, Barto, PA. p. 65.

Thus, it seems God created man a body+soul composite and not a pure angelic spirit in order that we may love and suffer for Him in a way that angels cannot.


In the Anglican Church, how is the Archbishop appointed?

Just in case you were wondering, the Archbishop of Sydney is not the chief clergyman of the Anglican Church of Australia. That is Dr Phillip Aspinall, Archbishop of Brisbane. Also, methods of appointing bishops differ very much within the Anglican church. Typically they are elected by a synod. In the Church of England they are nominally appointed by the monarch, although the monarch acts only on the advice of the church.

The new Archbishop of Sydney will be elected by a special "election synod" (a parliament of representitives of the church, generally both clergy and laity) over the 5th-9th August.

  The election of the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney is a robust, competitive and energetic internal church process, where candidates' personal lives, doctrinal views and pastoral actions are scrutinised closely, openly assessed and lobbied over. The election synod can be both unsettling and tense for Sydney Anglicans as they seek to identify the successful candidate.

I don't know what the minimum qualifications are, although I assume you would have to be a member of the Church of Australia. You do not have to already be a bishop, and there have been recent appointments of non-bishops.


What is the biblical basis/justification for requiring a pastor be educated?

1 Timothy 3 spells out some requirements for being bishops (and deacons). For example, verse 6:

  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

So it's evident that a bishop (or pastor, from episcopos, meaning "overseer") should be trained or experienced such that he is not "a novice" (from the Greek neophyton, referring to one who is newly converted).

Paul lists similar and other requirements to Titus, in Titus 1:5-9. Interestingly, most of the requirements described by Paul are related to worthiness, not intelligence or education.

There are several instances of scripture where the seemingly less-qualified men were chosen as leaders. Old Testament prophets such as David and Amos were called by God in their simplicity. (See 1 Sam. 16:1-13 and Amos 7:14-15.)

Not all prophets, pastors/bishops, and leaders have been poor or simple, however. Moses was raised by Pharoah's daughter and almost certainly had access to the royal libraries. (This is one reason I've heard for explaining how Moses knew he would be the one to deliver Israel, as mentioned in Acts 7:25. He was educated and knew the prophecies of Joseph.)

In the verses in Titus I mentioned, Paul tells Titus to "set in order ... and ordain elders." Paul also recalls that He was "ordained" in 1 Tim. 2:7 to be a teacher, preacher, and in his case, an apostle. (Jeremiah was also, see Jer. 1:5.)

We will recall that Christ found fishermen and other common laborers, invited them to follow Him, and He and ordained them to be leaders, as in John 15:16:

  Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Church leaders continued to call local leaders in a similar manner, as mentioned in Acts 14:23. Similar ordinations to positions of leadership, seemingly regardless of educational level, happened in the Old Testament from Samuel, Moses, and Isaac.

After having done a little bit of research now, I can't seem to find any real consistency in the Biblical text about the need for pastors to be educated. It's apparent that they ought to be experienced, have a sure testimony of the gospel, and meet standards for worthiness, but in ancient texts it's not easy to find any need for formal, or even informal, education: something uniquely common in our era. The Lord prepares whom He will to serve in those capacities: with or without formal education. (Though I'm sure He encourages learning and studying!)

I suppose there's an emphasis on it today because our society demands that those who instruct us be scholars and have a degree.


Is there a way to know for sure that a given practice is true Catholic Tradition?

A bit of background: traditions and Tradition

Sacred Tradition

When the Church refers to Sacred Tradition, she is referring, not to practices, but to a body of doctrines that are not explicitly found in the Sacred Scriptures.

A few examples of such doctrines (some of which rise even to the level of dogma, or solemnly defined doctrines that are subject to divine and Catholic faith):

The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Although the Scriptures refer to Mary as kecharitomene (one who has been definitively filled with grace), it does not affirm in black and white that she was born without the effects of Original Sin.
The doctrine of Original Sin is itself an inference not found explicitly in the Scriptures.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This event occurred, presumably, after most of the the New Testament was written, and so could not have been recorded in it (unless Revelation 12 is a veiled reference).
The canon of Scripture. The Bible does not itself contain a “table of contents;” which books actually belong to the Bible is a doctrine transmitted by Tradition.
The number of the Apostles. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the office of Apostle is limited to the Twelve, or to the Twelve and St. Paul, or that the office would cease after the Apostolic Age. This is only known thanks to Tradition.

All of these are doctrines that have been taught, with differing degrees of explicitness, from the earliest moments of Church history. We can be sure that they are true, because of the infallibility that Christ endowed to his Church, and it is the task of the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) to be stewards and interpreters of these truths. In this capacity, they exercise the Church’s Magisterium, or teaching authority.

Ecclesial traditions

Sacred Tradition is to be distinguished from so-called ecclesial traditions (written with a lowercase T), which are various kinds of practices and popular beliefs that have developed over the ages.

Some of these practices are explicitly sanctioned by the Church (such as the various forms of the Sacred Liturgy), and others (such as novenas, rosaries, processions, and so on) are forms of popular piety, practices that people have found helpful for expressing their faith over the years.

Among ecclesial traditions are also certain popular beliefs that are not the subject of faith (many of which are probably historically spurious).

For example, the story of Veronica wiping the face of Christ, which is common in the Way of the Cross, has no basis either in the Scripture or in Sacred Tradition. There is nothing wrong with thinking that such a person really existed, but neither does the Church require such belief. Similarly, most depictions of the crêche show three Wise Men, but in fact the Scriptures do not specify their number.

No ecclesial tradition is completely set in stone (in contrast to Sacred Tradition), although, of course, ancient and venerable practices are generally to be respected. For example, even with the reforms of the Mass after Vatican II, the Roman Canon—now the First Eucharistic Prayer—was left essentially unchanged from the pre-Vatican-II Mass.

See the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) numbers 80-90 for a full treatment of this topic.

How to judge if a practice is good and holy

There are objective ways to judge if a given practice is good and holy, or if, instead, it tends toward superstition.

It should be in complete conformity with Church teaching (including, evidently, what is contained in Sacred Tradition).
It should lead people to greater love and devotion to Jesus Christ.
It should lead people to the Sacraments and to the reading of the Sacred Scriptures.
It should foster obedience, humility, and the other virtues proper to Christian discipleship.

(These criteria are derived from the way that the Church judges Marian apparitions, which fall under the category of popular piety.)

Ultimately, it is for the Church’s Magisterium to decide whether a given practice, or even a popular belief, is helpful or not.

Regarding the specific concerns of the O.P.

It seems to me that a novena to Mary’s tears of blood is not a cause for concern. It is simply an example of popular piety.

No one is requiring Catholics either to believe that Mary shed tears of blood, or to take part in the novena. Both the popular belief and the popular practice are entirely optional. On the other hand, neither do they contradict any truth of the faith. If someone finds such a practice helpful, then he should feel free to participate. If not, then he is free not to do so.


What passages support that God once walked the earth as a man?

I'm not familiar with Mormon doctrine, so I'm not sure where you're going with your line of questioning, but I'll try to answer the two questions you posed.

Is God Eternal?

The following scriptures describe God as eternal.

  Deuteronomy 33:27 The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are
  the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before
  thee; and shall say, Destroy them.

  I Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the
  only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Did God Walk on the Earth?

In the book of Genesis, God came and walked with Adam in the cool of the day.

  Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the
  garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves
  from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

In Exodus God revealed Himself to Moses as a man.

  Exodus 33:22-23 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by,
  that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with
  my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou
  shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.


What is the Calvinist perspective on John 5:28–29 in regard to earning salvation?

The note for John 5:29 in the John MacArthur NASB Study Bible (MacArthur is Calvinist) says:

  Jesus was not teaching for justification by works (see 6:29). In the context, the "good" is believing on the Son so as to receive a new nature that produces good works (3:21; Jas 2:14-20), while the "evil" done is to reject the Son (the unsaved) and hate the light, which is the result of evil deeds (3:18,19). In essence, works merely evidence one's nature as "saved" or unsaved (see notes on Ro 2:5-10), but human works never determine one's salvation.

There is no note specifically for John 5:28.


If "God" is a Trinity, where in the Bible does the word "God" refer to the Trinity?

The short answer is: nowhere.  But your question is misguided.

You cannot disprove the nature of God as Trinity by looking at how the NT authors use the word "God" (Θεός or Κύριος) because within a few decades after the revelation that Jesus was the 2nd member of the Trinity (as God the Son), the NT authors were still transitioning their terminology from Θεός and Κύριος ("God") to "Father".  The word "God" / "Lord" used to refer to Israel's God in the OT for at least 1,000 years.  It's understandable that for the sake of continuity, the NT authors were still using the same word "God" to mean God the Father who sent His Son when the sentence context needed it, while gradually reassigning "Lord" for Jesus, which is yet another sign of Trinitarian understanding driving the terminology change.  It was also logical to use new words for Jesus (such as Χριστός) and the Holy Ghost because both were newly revealed, bringing what was vaguely latent in the OT to be more explicit in the NT.

Thus the apostles were still in the very early stages of the Trinitarian formula development although they already understood God as Trinity shown by how they talked about worship, baptism, salvation, and eschatology because the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct in each of those areas.  Please don't confuse formula development (which has to do with words and definitions, like what your question implies) with apostolic understanding of the nature of God.  It's like Newton already understood the laws of mechanics before Einstein refined the formula.

For an example of an apostolic understanding of the Trinity and a sign of the transition, simply look at one of the earliest record of the baptism formula in Matthew 28:19: "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", which in Greek is εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος.  Where is the word Θεός or Κύριος in that formula?  Nowhere!  But surely God has to do with baptism, don't you think?

Consider @curiousdannii pointing out 1 Cor 2:10-16.  This was an even earlier sign of apostolic understanding of the Trinity, since this letter was commonly dated to early 50s rather than Matthew's early 60s.  In this passage, the word "God" in verse 10 clearly shows how St. Paul had the Trinity in his mind, since within the same section he explained the how it was possible for humans to comprehend the mysterious nature of God as Trinity by exploring the relationship between God, the Spirit of God, and the mind of Christ.

Other examples of apostolic understanding of God as Trinity can be seen in @Geremia's answer.  I understand that these verses don't answer your question, but it's a good list showing how the apostles already conceived God as Trinity within a mere 20-30 years after Jesus returned to heaven from where He came.  Recent research has also validated how NT authors's understanding of God came exclusively from Jewish perspective of God's fulfilling His promises rather than too much influenced by Hellenistic ideas (as Philo was).  (Example: see this paper comparing John and Philo).  (As an aside, the Jewish philosopher Philo was also marginalized by their own people within the Rabbinic Tradition).  Therefore we can safely say that the apostolic Trinitarian understanding of God wasn't due to some pagan influence as your other question tried to establish.


Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to win atheists for Christ who are very strong in philosophy, logic and skepticism?

As Ken Graham says, you are probably going to find much more in specific ministries than official church programs.
Within Catholicism, the Word on Fire ministry has focused to a significant degree on intellectual atheists. You can see here
https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/browse/topic/atheism/
for some resources from them on this topic.
However, when you say "I see no possible way of evangelizing them through purely intellectual/argumentative means." I think this is right. Very rarely, an atheist might change to belief in God through entirely abstract argumentation, but at that point, they still lack the experiential reference points that, IMHO, are more important. You're not really fighting the intellectual beliefs. Yet, I think removing intellectual obstacles to an ongoing relationship with God is usually going to be important, either way.


What ethical considerations, if any, should Catholics have about cryptocurrencies?

What ethical considerations, if any, should Catholic have about cryptocurrencies?
An article published on 19 July 2017 suggested that the Vatican may launch a “blessed” cryptocurrency, taxed in favour of the world’s poor.  One fear is that nefarious traders would continue their schemes, now under the blessing palms of the Pope.  Part of the article said:

It is the “taxation void” of crypto currencies that attracts this initiative. This void is especially attractive given the fact that all crypto transactions are exposed on a general ledger, making transaction taxes so readily enforceable. And what’s more: traders can be taxed without having their identities exposed. The Vatican angle will replace the ugly word of taxation with the uplifting word of charitable contribution.

Some analysts expressed concern that this idea might be preemptively taken up by nimble Muslim clerics, cajoling more than a billion Muslims to trade with a “caliphate cryptocurrency” and pour money to terrorists. It is the very fact that Bitcoin ‘backed-by-nothing’ currency is steadily gaining in value that sends more and more people towards creative imitations, with some hard to foresee consequences.

Source: A Catholic Bitcoin? Vatican may launch a “blessed” cryptocurrency, taxed in favor of world poor
Another article, published 6 June 2018, reprinted from the Institute of Economic Affairs, said this:

The most famous cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, tries to mimic a gold mine. People beaver away using computing algorithms to solve puzzles that earn them a Bitcoin. The supply of Bitcoin is limited and, just like gold, it becomes harder to mine as time goes on. It is because it is limited in supply that its proponents hope it will keep its value and not be subject to inflation.

Unlike gold, however, Bitcoins have no intrinsic value...  Because of this, the value of Bitcoin fluctuates wildly as people speculate on it.  There is a long history of Catholic teaching on speculation – much of it sceptical. Most economists, though, would argue strongly against any prohibition of speculation, because without speculation prices can deviate from their fair value for long periods, causing significant disruption. Nevertheless, if cryptocurrencies were simply vehicles for speculation, we would have to question their social value.

However, the decentralised systems and encrypted record-keeping used by cryptocurrencies have made them attractive to money launderers, drug dealers, and fraudsters. Certainly, the Church should condemn this activity and any involvement with it, but this is no reason to oppose cryptocurrencies themselves.

The article concluded that because different systems have their own ethical and economic challenges, Catholic social teaching should address these rather than condemning new forms of money out of hand.
Source: A Catholic take on cryptocurrencies
Apart from ethical issues surrounding speculation and possible financial crashes, there is also the question of criminal activity, using Cryptocurrencies to launder money.  However, one of the more shocking issues concerns the amount of electricity consumed by such activities and the resulting C02 emissions into our environment.  "Mining" for the cryptocurrency is power-hungry, involving heavy computer calculations to verify transactions.  Here is an extract from a BBC News article:

Bitcoin uses more energy than Argentina.  If Bitcoin was a country, it would be in the top 30 country energy users worldwide.  In order to "mine" Bitcoin, computers - often specialised ones - are connected to the cryptocurrency network.  They have the job of verifying transactions made by people who send or receive Bitcoin.  This process involves solving puzzles, which, while not integral to verifying movements of the currency, provide a hurdle to ensure no-one fraudulently edits the global record of all transactions.  As a reward, miners occasionally receive small amounts of Bitcoin in what is often likened to a lottery.  To increase profits, people often connect large numbers of miners to the network - even entire warehouses full of them.  That uses lots of electricity because the computers are more or less constantly working to complete the puzzles.

Source: Bitcoin consumes 'more electricity than Argentina
Read the article and weep.
P.S. I have no idea if the Vatican has entered into any scheme involving cryptocurrencies, but I believe that the ethical issues surrounding cryptocurrencies should be carefully considered by ALL Christians.
P.P.S. Revelation 13:16-17 came to mind, that "no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name".


If a woman does not reach the climax at the time when the husband does, is it morally permissible for her to be stimulated until she achieves it?

Yes.

St. Alphonsus addresses this question in Theologia Moralis vol. 1, l. 6, n. 919 (pp. 675-6):

  An autem, si vir se retrahat post seminationem, sed ante seminationem mulieris, possit ipsa statim tactibus se excitare, ut seminet?Whether, if the man pulls out after insemination, but before the insemination of the woman, she can still excite herself with touches, that she inseminate?

(In this context, "inseminate" means "ejaculate" for a male or "be wet" for a female; it could, perhaps, also be translated as "orgasm.")

The moralists who thought she couldn't didn't realize the "semen mulieris" ["female seed" or mucus] "est necessarium ad generationem" ["is necessary for conception"]. But most moral theologians agree it is permissible.

St. Alphonsus concludes that, because the female is generally not as warm (aroused) as the male, the female can arouse herself by touching herself even after the male's insemination:

  Ratio, tum quia seminatio mulieris pertinet ad complendum actum coniugalem, qui consistit in seminatione utriusque coniugis, unde sicut potest uxor tactibus se præparare ad copulam, ita etiam potest actum copulae perficere; […] Omnes autem concedunt uxoribus quae frigidioris sunt naturae, posse tactibus se excitare ante copulam, ut seminent in congressu maritali statim habendo.The reason is that the woman's insemination pertains to the completion of the conjugal act, which consists in the insemination of both spouses; thus, as the woman can touch herself in preparation for copulation, so also can she to perfect/complete the act of copulation: […] All [moral theologians] concede that women, who are naturally more frigid, can excite themselves with touches before copulation so that they inseminate while having marital intercourse.

(adapted from this comment)

The act is complete/perfected not when the male inseminates, but when both spouses inseminate.

Also, even if a new act immediately follows a completed act, the spouses can, without mortally sinning, mutually decide to cease, provided there is no danger of ejaculation.

ibid. n. 918 (p. 674):

  Quaer. 3. An peccent mortaliter coniuges, si incœpta copula cohibeant seminationem. Respondetur: si coniuges ambo in hoc consentiunt, nec adsit periculum seminandi extra vas, id per se loquendo non est mortale, illa enim penetratio vasis fœminei tunc reputatur instar tactus verendorum, qui inter coniuges permittitur, vel saltem non est mortalis, secluso periculo pollutionis, ita communiterQuestion. 3. Whether spouses sin mortally if, copulation having begun, they hold back from insemination. Answer: If they both consent to this, there being no danger of insemination outside the vas (vagina), this is not per se mortal, for such penetration of the female vas is likened to venereal touches that are permitted between spouses, or it is at least not mortal, provided there is no danger of pollution (ejaculation outside of intercourse); this is the common opinion


What is the mental representation of God during prayer?

"Should" is going to be contingent upon your faith. I don't pray to an all powerful mystical being that is ready to cast me in to the pit of brimstone and fire... I pray to a loving Heavenly Father, on my knees and with a bowed head, and in the name of Jesus Christ.

To me, prayer is an act of the the will of the Father and the will of the child converging. I do not pray to bend the will of God, but to understand His will for me.

However you actually do pray and what ever the differences in Faiths are, I think it is important to pray often and develop a relationship with your Heavenly Father.

The Bible teaches how to pray, but I think the O.T. teachings and with animal sacrifices has been replaced by the N.T. teachings after Christ's life.

John 13:14 teachings to Pray in Christ's name, "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

John 16:23-24 also teaches to pray to the Father and in Christ's name, "23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 24 Hither to have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full"

Luke 18:1 states that we should pray often and that we will be strengthened by it, " 1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;"

Philip 4:6 teaches that we should give thanks, "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God."

Fist Thessalonians 5:17 teaches to pray very often, "Pray without ceasing."

Mathew 6:5-6 teaches to pray in private and condemn the Pharisees the pray in public for the merit of man, "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Mathew 6:7 teaches that we should pray from our heart at that moment, not a pre-rehearsed or memorized prayer, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."


The four living creatures and twenty-four elders in Revelation?

Traditionally:

The twenty-four elders represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles.
The four living creatures represent universal creation; on some accounts, the four evangelists.

From the Navarre commentary on RSVCE page 54:

Christian tradition going back as far as St Irenaeus has interpreted these four creatures as standing for the four evangelists because they "carry" Jesus Christ to men. The one with the face of a man is St Matthew, who starts his book with the human genealogy of Christ; the lion stands for St Mark: his Gospel begins with the voice crying in the wilderness (which is where the lion's roar can be heard); the ox is a reference to the sacrifices in the temple of Jerusalem, which is where St Luke begins his account of Christ's life, and the eagle represents St John, who soars to the heights to contemplate the divinity of the Word.

Saint Irenaeus lived 130-202. However, the notes on Revelation 4 in NABRE seem to clarify this, and they read:

Universal creation is represented by the four living creatures (Rev 4:6–7) [...]
Lion…calf…human being…eagle: these symbolize, respectively, what is noblest, strongest, wisest, and swiftest in creation. Calf: traditionally translated “ox,” the Greek word refers to a heifer or young bull. Since the second century, these four creatures have been used as symbols of the evangelists Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, respectively.
Twenty-four elders: these represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles; cf. Rev 21:12–14.

Revelation 21:12-14 reads:

12 It had a massive, high wall, with twelve gates where twelve angels were stationed and on which names were inscribed, [the names] of the twelve tribes of the Israelites.
13 There were three gates facing east, three north, three south, and three west.
14 The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.


Has the gospel been "preached to all nations"?

No.

The word translated 'nations' is ἔθνος (ethnos), from which we derive the word 'ethnic'. It is talking about ethnic communities, which we might call people groups today, not political states.

The Joshua Project estimates that there are 16,825 people groups in the word. Of those, 7,287 are unreached, by which they mean "less than 2% Evangelical Christian and less than 5% Christian Adherents". Because there are so few Christians in an unreached people group they will struggle to evangelise their own group with the gospel, which means many Christians believe they need outside missionary help. This represents 2.91 billion people.

The International Mission Board estimates there are 2,945 unengaged people groups. An unengaged people group is one where there are no Christian in the group, and no plan for anyone to take the gospel to them. They estimate there are over 190 million people in unengaged people groups.


I'm new here. I see that this post has no answer by an actual LDS member, and those answers that are given are not really representative of our beliefs (due mostly to lack of familiarity with the beliefs in question). So even though this is late, I’m going to try to answer it.

First of all, we absolutely believe that God’s existence is eternal—as is the existence of all of us, and indeed just about everything that exists. Doctrine and Covenants 93:29 says “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” (emphasis added)

This reflects the LDS concept that there is a core part of us, called the intelligence, that God did not create and whose existence is eternal. See Abraham 3:22-25 (as well as a source I am about to quote) for more information on this concept.

Where you are confused is when we get to statements made by Joseph Smith that God the Father was not always God the Father. These ideas, as far as I know, were first presented in coherent form by Joseph in the King Follett Discourse, which he gave a few months before he died (the date is April 7, 1844). If you want to know what JS actually said about this, you can find the original text here (all right, it's not the original text, but we don't have the original text in its entirety):

First half

Second half

In your question, you're probably thinking about the following:

  "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another."

You can take this to imply that God has a beginning, but on the whole what Joseph Smith has to say refutes that idea. The following is a quote from the sermon that is sufficient for my purposes:

  “I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven…. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.

  The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.”

Here’s a summary to tie this all together. Yes, we believe that God is eternal. No, we do not believe that He was God in the sense that we know Him now during the first phase of His (eternal) existence.

A few notes at the end here. One is that President Joseph Fielding Smith explains this issue somewhat differently than I just did in Doctrines of Salvation, which is not official Church canon per se (and I don’t agree with all of it!), but it is a monumental work which touches almost every aspect of our doctrine. He argues that for us, God’s existence might as well be eternal, since this time when God was not God falls outside of our experience, and it is in that sense that the word “eternal” is used in our scriptures when referring to God. (Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1, Chapter 1, pp 9-12)

Another thing that should be noted is that Joseph Smith never had time to really expound on and clarify these ideas very well. As I already noted, he was dead within a few months of giving that sermon. So most of the commentary that you may hear on what he actually meant is probably wrong. It is LDS doctrine that men may become “gods” after being saved, but exactly what that entails (aside from the same personal perfection that the Father and the Son possess) is not really defined. And most authoritative statements by LDS leaders have tended to shy away (perhaps deliberately?) from clearly defining it. As John says, “Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2, KJV, emphasis added)

My very last note is that the question asks "When did the LDS church start teaching that God the Father had a beginning?" with the apparent connotation that, since there was a time when the LDS church did not teach this, that we're revising our doctrine. This is true, but not in the way that (it seems to me) it's implied. We believe that although Joseph Smith restored many important ideas about our relationship with God, as well as the authority to legitimately perform actions like baptism, our understanding of true doctrine is still necessarily incomplete, and is therefore undergoing a continuous process of revision. This was even more true in Joseph Smith's time than it is now. Articles of Faith 9 states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (emphasis added)


What are Lutheran teachings on salutary effects of communion?

You should check into the Book of Concord as there are several sections (of which the Small/Large Catechism is a part) that address this specifically (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php - The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord).
"Did" is also implied to a degree, because without Christ having done his work, the sacrament wouldn't exist.
I'll extract some sections that pertain to your question:

[61] There is, therefore, a two-fold eating of the flesh of Christ, one spiritual, of which Christ treats especially John 6:54, which occurs in no other way than with the Spirit and faith, in the preaching and meditation of the Gospel, as well as in the Lord's Supper, and by itself is useful and salutary, and necessary at all times for salvation to all Christians; without which spiritual participation also the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not salutary, but even injurious and damning [a cause of condemnation].
[62] But this spiritual eating is nothing else than faith, namely, to hear God's Word (wherein Christ, true God and man, is presented to us, together with all benefits which He has purchased for us by His flesh given into death for us, and by His blood shed for us, namely, God's grace, the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life), to receive it with faith and appropriate it to ourselves, and in all troubles and temptations firmly to rely, with sure confidence and trust, and to abide in the consolation that we have a gracious God, and eternal salvation on account of the Lord Jesus Christ. [He who hears these things related from the Word of God, and in faith receives and applies; them to himself, and relies entirely upon this consolation (that we have God reconciled and life eternal on account of the Mediator, Jesus Christ),-he, I say, who with true confidence rests in the Word of the Gospel in all troubles and temptations, spiritually eats the body of Christ and drinks His blood.]
[63] The other eating of the body of Christ is oral or sacramental, when the true, essential body and blood of Christ are also orally received and partaken of in the Holy Supper, by all who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine in the Supper-by the believing as a certain pledge and assurance that their sins are surely forgiven them, and Christ dwells and is efficacious in them, but by the unbelieving for their judgment and condemnation, [64] as the words of the institution by Christ expressly declare, when at the table and during the Supper He offers His disciples natural bread and natural wine, which He calls His true body and true blood, at the same time saying: Eat and drink. For in view of the circumstances this command evidently cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way; [65] to which afterwards the other command adds still another and spiritual eating, when the Lord Christ says further: This do in remembrance of Me, where He requires faith [which is the spiritual partaking of Christ's body).

Then also Sections 73 and 74

[73] Since a misunderstanding and dissension among some teachers of the Augsburg Confession also has occurred concerning consecration and the common rule, that nothing is a sacrament without the appointed use [or divinely instituted act], we have made a fraternal and unanimous declaration to one another also concerning this matter to the following purport, [74] namely, that not the word or work of any man produces the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, whether it be the merit or recitation of the minister, or the eating and drinking or faith of the communicants; but all this should be ascribed alone to the power of Almighty God and the word, institution, and ordination of our Lord Jesus Christ.


In Catholicism, does baptism against the will of a dying, unaware person result in baptismal regeneration?

The baptism would not be valid.

Also the priest would be reprimanded if it was discovered.

Canon law lays down the conditions for adult baptism.

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

  §2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some
  knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has
  manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and
  promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

Also, thanks to Ken Graham:

  Baptism can not be forced on someone. One must not baptize a person
  who has lost his or her mind, if this person didn't show their
  intention to be baptized while they were still mentally competent.
  [Summa Theologica, III, q. 68. a. 7, a. 10, a. 12].


During the Mass, may the Priest skip the Act of Penitence and the Kyrie Eleison?

By what Church permission or instruction is the priest allowed to skip the Act of Penitence and the Kyrie Eleison

On some occasions, for example, when the Mass is joined to another rite such as the celebration of a sacrament or the Divine Office penitential rite can be omitted (GILH 94-95). Other than this the Act of Penitence cannot be skipped. Regarding The Kyrie...

  After the Act of Penitence, the Kyrie is always begun, unless it has already been included as part of the Act of Penitence. (GIRM 52)

what effect has that on the entire Mass?

Assuming the priest is skipping The Act of Penitence and The Kyrie without valid reason, the mass becomes illicit. Assuming that everything else at the Mass is as per the rubics, skipping these parts does NOT invalidate the Mass.

See Also:

Efficacy of the Penitential Rite Section: Follow-up: Penitential Rite [07-12-2005].
Is Your Mass Valid? Section 4: Serious Abuses - Those which Invalidate the Mass


What original text is the King James Version (KJV) translation of the Old Testament based on?

Following up on the "comment from depperm," it seems I get to answer my own question; I hope that's not frowned upon because there were some things of interest on Wikipedia, and I was hoping that my summary of these facts (?) could be confirmed?

  From Wikipedia:
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Old_Testament –

[Note: This is my summary, my understanding of what I found on Wikipedia, so I've not put it in quotes, but only summarized what I found there, hoping that someone will either confirm that, both, the information is correct, and, that I've understood it correctly? ]

The Masoretic Text was used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, such as the King James Version (KJV), and American Standard Version, and for some versions of Catholic Bibles (after 1943). However, the text is sometimes adjusted to conform to the Greek LXX in passages where clarification or Christological interpretation was felt necessary. For example, the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Psalm 22:16 “They pierced my hands and my feet” was used instead of the Masoretes’ reading of “like lions my hands and feet.”  The Masoretic Text (MT) has many differences, of both greater and lesser significance when compared to the manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation (about 1000 years older than the MT) of the Hebrew Scriptures. The LXX was used in the quotations in the New Testament, especially those by the Apostle Paul.

The Masoretic Text (MT or M) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Tanakh. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries Common Era (CE). The ben Asher family was largely responsible for the preservation and production of the Masoretic Text, although an alternate Masoretic text of the ben Naphtali Masoretes, which has around 875 differences. The ben Asher family and majority of the Masoretes were Karaites, a Jewish religious movement characterized by the recognition of the Tanakh alone as its supreme authority in the Halakha (the collective body of religious laws derived from the Written and Oral Torah). When interpreting the Tanakh, Karaites strive to adhere to the plain or most obvious meaning or Peshat (not necessarily the literal meaning, but rather the meaning that would have been naturally understood by the ancient Israelites when the books of the Tanakh were first written. By contrast, Rabbinic Judaism relies on the legal rulings of the Sanhedrin as they are codified in the Midrash, Talmud or Oral Torah, and other sources to indicate the authentic meaning of the Torah. Karaites maintain that all of the commandments handed down to Moses were recorded in the written Torah without additional Oral Law or explanation. As a result, Karaite Jews do not accept as binding the written collections of the oral tradition in the Midrash or Talmud.

Bottom line, the answer to my question is ... Yes ...The KJV Old Testament is based on the Hebrew wording found in the TANAKH, rather than that of the Greek wording of the Septuagint (LXX). Please, if I've come to the wrong conclusions, someone, please, respond with the better answer.

So now, with that established, I'd like move on from this basis, and ask another related question (to be posted).

Addendum: Although the question initially concerned "only" the KJV, it was also intended to simply find out more about the LXX and Masoretic Text background. And so, I though it helpful to include this informative summary from the NIV.

The Introduction provided in the 2011 New International Version states:

For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout. The Masoretic Text tradition contains marginal notations that offer variant readings. These have sometimes been followed instead of the text itself. Because such instances involve variants within the Masoretic tradition, they have not been indicated in the textual notes. In a few cases, words in the basic consonantal text [the original Hebrew used no vowels] have been divided differently than in the Masoretic Text. Such cases are usually indicated in the textual footnotes. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain biblical texts that represent an earlier stage of the transmission of the Hebrew text. They have been consulted, as have been the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions concerning deliberate textual changes. The translators also consulted the more important early versions—the Greek Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms, the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the scribal traditions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. In rare cases, the committee has emended the Hebrew text where it appears to have become corrupted at an even earlier stage of its transmission. These departures from the Masoretic Text are also indicated in the textual footnotes. Sometimes the vowel indicators (which are later additions to the basic consonantal text) found in the Masoretic Text did not, in the judgment of the committee, represent the correct vowels for the original text. Accordingly, some words have been read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated in the footnotes.


According to Lutherans, under what conditions (or at what moment) do the consecrated species cease to be the blood and body of Christ?

As a former Lutheran, I was taught that the belief is that the sacramental union only persists through the liturgy, although the elements are still treated with respect afterwards.

Wikipedia's description of Lutheran Eucharistic beliefs seems to confirm this:

  In most Lutheran congregations, the administration of private communion of the sick and "shut-in" (those too feeble to attend services) involves a completely separate service of the Eucharist for which the sacramental elements are consecrated by the celebrant.[14]

Contrast this with Catholics, who bring the consecrated Host to the shut-ins without the need to celebrate Mass in their homes, and who have communion services when priests are unavailable and receive the consecrated Hosts which remain in the Tabernacle.

A comparison of Good Friday services also reveals important differences. Catholics do not have Mass on Good Friday, but still have communion using the Hosts in the Tabernacle. That is, Catholics do not celebrate the Eucharist, but still consume the Body and Blood of Christ. On the other hand, Lutherans have a service without communion at all. They do not celebrate the Eucharist and, thus, have no Host to consume.

Also from Wikipedia:

  Lutheran Eucharistic adoration is not commonly practiced, but when it occurs it is done only from the moment of consecration to reception.


What is seen to actually occur if a female were to be the subject of laying on of the hands in ordination?

What is seen to actually occur if a female were to be the subject of laying on of the hands in ordinations, according to the Catholic Church?

The short answer is nothing.

The woman in question is not ordained, even after going through the motions of an ordination.

Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is very clear on the matter.

  Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.

  Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

  Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

  Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Thus we see that the ordination of women to the priesthood is not a question or mere Church discipline, but rather that the Church has no true authority (power) from Christ to admit women to Sacred Orders.

In the Catholic Church, a bishop is latae sententiae excommunicated if he  attempts to confer Holy Orders on a woman, alongside the woman who attempted to receive the consecration.

  The "ordination" of a woman to the Sacrament of Holy Orders is prohibited by the Catholic Church. An ordination like this carries automatic excommunication for the person who performs the "ordination" as well as the person who is "ordained."

  "It is important for Catholics to understand that they cannot receive a valid Sacrament such as Baptism, Confession or Eucharist from an excommunicated person. Catholics should never attend a so-called Mass in which an excommunicated person is presiding.

Canon Law states that only baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly (Canon 1024).


How do Bible scholars reconcile the differences between Greek and Aramaic in John 21:15-17?

There are several explanations for this, but no consensus. These include: 1) He often spoke Greek; 2) He did on this occasion; 3)  agape and phileo are synonymous anyway : 4) the conversation was in Aramaic and two different Aramaic words for love (chav and racham) were used; and 5) the conversation was allegorical  and represented Peter's dawning comprehension of his role.

Jesus and His disciples may, contrary to majority opinion,  often have spoken in Greek.This article propounds that view, arguing that there are other examples of wordplay in the gospels which make sense only in Greek, and  not in Aramaic.   Most though, think Aramaic was the usual language Jesus spoke in.
Even if Aramaic was Jesus's usual language, this particular conversation shows evidence of extraordinary formality. Peter is addressed, not as Peter, but as Simon son of Jonas, and Jesus uses this "full" name not once but three times. This is very formal.   Greek was a more official, or formal, language than Aramaic,  so Jesus may have initiated the conversation in Greek to further emphasise its formality.
Many scholars no longer think there is, in fact, any significance in the difference between agape and phileo. It is not unusual to use synonyms for purely stylistic reasons. This article explores this question and includes the statement:

  More evidence is also deduced from the silence of the Greek speaking Fathers of the Church who do not make mention of this distinction in the verbs for love when they comment on this passage. One would think that had the subtle distinctions been significant they would surely have dwelt upon it.

Neither the King James Version nor the Douay version pick up on the difference. The NIV previously translated agape as "truly love" and phileo  simply as "love",  but the 2011 edition loses the distinction, translating both identically. This reflects a trend in scholarship towards the earlier view that the words agape and phileo are virtually synonymous and interchangeable.

A more detailed exegesis arguing for this view, and briefly describing the rise and decline of the belief  the difference is significant  is here.

If the conversation was in Aramaic then the two  different Aramaic words for love and friendship may have been used. These are Chav (also transliterated in English as hooba) and Racham (or raham). Here are more details on these Aramaic words for love, in St John's Gospel,  though not in this particular context. If the evangelist knew of the conversation in Aramaic, and wished to convey it in Greek, he may have translated chav as agape and racham as phileo. In this way he represented the difference in Aramaic, by using different words in Greek.  The exact nuances of agape versus phileo, and of chav versus racham, may not exactly correspond, and there is no real consensus on the nuances of any of them.
The conversation may never really have happened. That is the view of some who reject the Resurrection as a literal event.   Bishop John Shelby Spong,  in his book Resurrection, Myth or Reality (not free on the web, alas)  supposes it could have been an hallucination brought on by Peter's guilt over the fact that, despite promising that whatever anybody else did,  he would never abandon Jesus; had then done exactly that. Perhaps,  Peter reflected, he had not, when it came down to it, demonstrated his love for Jesus any more than the others had. Perhaps he had not truly loved Him at all; but at any rate he was definitely His friend who cared passionately about Him, and there was great work for him still to do  for Jesus. Peter had to look to the future. Jesus needed Peter,  now more than ever, to shepherd his flock.  On this view the question of what language the imaginary conversation took place in is not relevant.


To a certain extent you answer your own question.
Saul (in his own testimony) claims an unassailable Jewish lineage(Eph 3:4-6).  His devotion to the Jewish faith motivated him to repress what he perceived to be the ultimate heresy.  The Bible records that he was present at the stoning of Stephen; this would have been sometime after the formation of the early Church.  He would also have been a contemporary of the disciples themselves,  therefore it is reasonable to assume that a teacher of Judaism would be careful to not respond to hearsay about Jesus's message and teachings.

He, in all probability, did hear Jesus firsthand, but as the Bible does not specifically state this, it remains a hypothetical question with the only answer being: unknown.


Did the Gospel Standard Baptists and the (original) Plymouth Brethren comment on unity between themselves?

Introduction: The Gospel Standard is a Strict Baptist magazine first published in 1835 by William Gadsby.  Churches which align themselves with the magazine are known as "Gospel Standard Baptists" or "Gospel Standard Strict Baptists".  https://www.gospelstandard.org.uk/Magazines/Overview

Here is an extract from an article about the ‘English Strict Baptists’ which discusses the desire of The National Strict Baptist Federation (formed in 1946) to achieve unity.  The article concedes that the Federation has not brought the desired unity, even though efforts were renewed between 1962 and 1965 to obtain such unity.  The following conclusion is reached on page 35:

  If these Churches are to give the world a valid reason for their separate existence outside the Baptist Union, and to halt the decline of congregations and closure of chapels, something very drastic needs to happen. The prayer of those of all generations who are genuinely concerned about this sad state of affairs is that there will be a wholesome return to the doctrines which were held dear by the Particular Baptists who formulated the 1677 and 1689 Confessions of Faith.  It is believed that by a return to such doctrine there will come reform, renewal and unity amongst the Churches.  Source: https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bq/21-1_030.pdf

So far, the drastic does not appear to have happened.

A different source of information https://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Preface.html  comes from a book written in 1860 by J. C. Philpot of the Baptist movement entitled 'The True, Proper and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ':

  Today, some appear to be Exclusive Brethren and are headed by an Australian man, (and administered from Australia) calling themselves 'Plymouth Brethren' but their teaching contradicts the Leader of that, original, movement (J N Darby) who is quoted as saying: “If I hold the Son only as son from incarnation - I lose everything.”

From what I have discovered, the Brethren movement split in 1890.  One section led by F. E. Raven (the cause of the split) was succeeded by James Taylor Senior, who held at least some of Raven's views.  Raven and Taylor taught that the expression 'son of God' refers only to the One who came in flesh after his incarnation and not before.  Those who disagreed with this view, holding to the ‘eternal son-ship of Jesus Christ’, departed.

Conclusion: I have not found any evidence to suggest that the Strict Baptists and the early Plymouth Brethren attempted to reconcile their differences in order to achieve unity.  Of course, that does not mean no attempt was made.  However, the sad fact is that both groups have gone their separate ways, resulting in isolationism.


Can a mentally ill person who takes medication regularly be a Catholic priest?

The short answer is possibly.

While Canon Law seems to indicate that it is not possible, it also allows for dispensations in this matter.

Please remember that mental health issues come in a large variety of forms. Anxiety and depression are not the same thing as being insane. Being insane is not a grave as being criminally insane.

  Irregularities and other Impediments

  Can. 1040 Those affected by any impediment, whether perpetual, which is called an irregularity, or simple, are prevented from receiving orders. The only impediments incurred, however, are those contained in the following canons.

  Can. 1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:

  1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;

  2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;

  3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;

  4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;

  5/ a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide;

  6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty.

Thus we might conclude that a person with some form of mental illness may be barred from by ordained, Rome will allow one to petition the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities for a dispensation. Thus even Rome recognizes the the vast variations in mental health issues. In any case it is always most prudent to talk these matter over with competent authorities, rather than common strangers over the internet.

True that an individual suffering from some from of mental health issue must be examined carefully to see if the underlined conditions make him a suitable candidate for ordination or not. This is ultimately a question that this response can not truely answer on behalf of the Catholic hierarchy because each case must be examined on its own merits and such decisions would not be publicly announced. Exemptions could be made by Rome.

For dispensations, here is what Canon Law has to say:

  Can. 1047 §1. Dispensation from all irregularities is reserved to the Apostolic See alone if the fact on which they are based has been brought to the judicial forum.

  §2. Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to receive orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See:

  1/ irregularities from the public delicts mentioned in can. 1041, nn. 2 and 3;

  2/ the irregularity from the delict mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4, whether public or occult;

  3/ the impediment mentioned in can. 1042, n. 1.

  §3. Dispensation in public cases from the irregularities from exercising an order received mentioned in can. 1041, n. 3, and even in occult cases from the irregularities mentioned in can. 1041, n. 4 is also reserved to the Apostolic See.

  §4. An ordinary is able to dispense from irregularities and impediments not reserved to the Holy See.

Although Canon 1047 does  not implicitly mention a direct petition for a dispensation is allowed for these cases of mental heath issues that are not listed in Canon 1041; it does so in dealing with issues other than “amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly”. Then yes, an dispensation is quite possible.


Is my view of the Trinity accurate, and what is exactly the role of the Holy Spirit

The Trinity declares that there is only the One Being of God.  A Divine Being is not to be confused with a human being.  Also, God is Spirit.  Before Jesus came to earth to born as a human, he existed in heaven alongside God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit.  John chapter 1 verses 1 to 3 and 14 explain it this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.  We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Before Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, by the Holy Spirit, he was the eternal and uncreated Word of God.  The Word became flesh and dwelt with us.  That’s Jesus.  So the first thing to understand about the Trinity is that Jesus was no mere mortal, born of a woman, but came from heaven to earth to do the will of his Father, who sent him.  His humanity (physical body and nature) came from Mary but his divinity came from his pre-human being.  He was fully human and also fully divine.
Genesis chapter 1 describes how, at the creation of the heavens and the earth, God said “Let us make man in our image.”  God was not speaking to the angels (who already existed) because humans are not made in the image of created angels.  God (the Father) was speaking to the Word (the pre-mortal Son) and to the Holy Spirit.  Here is a brief extract from an article that explains it:

On the last day of creation, God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Thus, He finished His work with a “personal touch.” God formed Adam from the dust and gave him life by sharing His own breath (Genesis 2:7). Accordingly, humanity is unique among all God’s creations, having both a material body and an immaterial soul/spirit.
The image of God (Latin: imago dei) refers to the immaterial part of humanity. It sets human beings apart from the animal world, fits them for the dominion God intended them to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables them to commune with their Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

Within the One Being of God subsist the three persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Not three Gods.  Here is a brief description of the roles each play within the Godhead:

The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.
The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.
The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

To get a better understanding of how Christians view the Holy Spirit, please read this: https://www.gotquestions.org/is-the-Holy-Spirit-God.html
The reason Jesus never sinned was because he was not merely a human born of a man and a woman.  He was the eternal and uncreated Word of God who agreed to come to earth to save humanity from sin.  His death and resurrection mean that our sins can be forgiven and we can look forward to spending eternity with the Lord God.  No human could atone for the sins of the world.  But Jesus did – because he was God incarnate, God with us in human form.  It’s a big subject, but this article explains it well: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sinless.html
The Muslim view of Jesus does not agree with the Biblical view of Jesus.  That’s perhaps the reason why your view of the Trinity is not right.  Good question, and I hope you get some good answers.


How can Wisdom be Jesus if Wisdom was created?

I actually read an article recently that mentions in passing this concept (that Wisdom is Jesus.)

The article first speaks of the Greek Concept of Logos and mentions,

  “Beginning at least as early as the apologist Justin Martyr (A.D. 125), Christians, almost without exception, identified Sophia (the Greek equivalent of Heb. ḥoḵmâ) in Proverbs 8 with Jesus Christ.”[17]

...

  In these verses the quality of wisdom is personified. As the gender of wisdom [in Hebrew: ח֗כְמַה: ḥoḵmah] is feminine, some claim that the agent I question is a feminine being. However, it should be remembered that there is a difference between sex and gender. This is also the case in other Semitic languages that Hebrew. For instance, the Arabic word for Caliph (خليفة: ḵalīfe) is a word in the feminine gender although it always refers to a male.[16]

https://antiochene.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/logos-and-memra/

Question
According to Christians who believe a) Christ was not created and b) is the Wisdom spoken of in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament, why is this Wisdom described in the Old Testament as having been created by God?

There are a number of different potential reasons for this:

1) Theological Development.   The bible is a work of revelation and theological development.   If you look in the Bible certain concepts like God's omnipresence, the afterlife are not understood in ancient times the way we understand them.   So I would contend that the same is true in regards to Nicene concepts of the persons of the Trinity etc.

2) The Limited Vocabulary of Hebrew.   Ancient Hebrew is a language with a very limited vocabulary.   I have to look up some official stats, but I recall that it has only a few thousand words compared to simple European languages that have 10,000 word Lexicons which in turn are only a fraction of the Lexican of modern English.   What this means practically speaking is that words are going to have to serve double duty, have multiple meanings and be less definite than a language like Greek.    But overall, I really believe the theological development reason is the best explanation.

But I will add a third one from the aforementioned article.

  The parallel to logos the Aramaic speaking Jews after the captivity in Babylon used the word memra. This concept was at times personified and used on a sort of representative of God. As we have seen above, “In Psalms 110 Jehovah addresses the first verse to the Memra.”[43]

  Consequently, when John uses the word logos on Jesus, it is either to say that this person, who was active at the creation the world, visible as well as invisible, is the embodiment of earlier prophecies and promises, or, even more likely, that he was called logos because he was the spokesman or representative of God.

  It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if second and third century Christians had based their interpretation of John 1:1, not on the connotations of the Word in Greek philosophy, but on those of the Word in Jewish Aramaic tradition.


In what sense was Jesus's death a sacrifice?

The sacrifice of Jesus was many things.

It was a personal atonement for our sins, bringing salvation. But it is much, much more than only that.

It was a propitiation. God's wrath was/is hot upon the human race, his sacrifice was a shedding of innocent blood to put away that wrath. It was for us, but it was directed toward God. God required innocent blood, Jesus paid the debt...which allowed God legal right (his own standard) to forgive any who would turn to him.

In addition, the term sacrifice, points back to all the OT stuff which required a sacrifice to put away sin. He was the Lamb of God which took on the sin of the world. Notice, he is God's Lamb, not ours. God set his Lamb aside for death, he was accursed (set aside for judgment without hope of redemption) and sacrificed (blood shed for God to see...he was "put forth") in order for God to make his own way to interact with his sinful creation.

Also, the blood which was shed, not only allowed salvation to occur, but it is the same blood that God continues to view us through. Jesus is our high priest interceding for us even now and pointing to the blood, "your just requirements have been fulfilled...I paid if for them."

The sacrifice was indeed a sacrifice however. Not only in the pain and suffering of it all, but by virtue of the fact that he was GOD in the flesh...Immanuel. He had been surrounded and bathed in a pool of glory from eternity past, but in his coming here to die in our place, he left all of that, and became a high priest so he could understand what we go through (he became a perfect high priest). But the coming alone was a sacrifice. To be in a body of sinful flesh was a sacrifice. To live a life among sinners was a sacrifice. To be surrounded by people who didn't even care about him was a sacrifice. For the creator of heaven and earth, Jehovah God to be lonely, misunderstood, called a bastard, mocked, spit on, argued with, rejected, and crucified was truly a sacrifice. He was tempted in all points, just like we are. He sacrificed more than we will ever know. One drop of his blood was worth more than all of our blood put together. It was perfect blood, sinless blood.

To reduce the sacrifice to hell or heaven is reducing his will to nothing. True he did not end up in hell for eternity, but his entire existence on this planet was a sacrifice and it was his will to suffer for us.


We don't have all the information to be sure what is going on, but here are some likely scenarios.

The Catholic Church has no objection to baptism by immersion. It's a completely valid means of baptism, and Catholics do understand it. However pouring and sprinkling are considered equally valid. Moreover most Catholic churches are not equipped for immersion baptism. If your friend specifically requested baptism by immersion then the priest may have declined out of practicality.

Additionally the Catholic church considers baptism a one time thing.  If your friend was previously validly baptized then the priest will have declined to baptize again. Doing so would be a sign that the first baptism was invalid, which would go against fundamental beliefs.

The issue therefore was likely not being baptized by immersion, but deciding to get a major events in their Christian Life done in a church other than the Catholic one. This is not really consistent with a full commitment to the Catholic church, or a belief that it is the best church. Getting baptized in another church will have been taken as a decision to join that church , and by implication leave the Catholic church. The other church will have taken it that way. Joining another church makes you ineligible to take communion in the Catholic church.

If this immersion baptism happened a long time ago and your friend now wants to join the Catholic church, that should not be a problem. She will have to go through formal acceptance into the Catholic church, but that will likely not involve another baptism.

If your friend truly did not understand the implications of what they were doing then they should talk to their priest to sort it out. However that is very unlikely. The other church will likely have insisted on some instruction before baptism, and that will have included implications for membership. They will also have assured themselves that your friend follows Evangelical  beliefs, which would be different from Catholic beliefs. The Catholic priest would certainly have explained the implications if the question had come up.


According to Canon 925 of the Code of Canon Law, Communion may be given under the form of bread only, wine only "in the case of necessity", or under both species "according to the norm of the liturgical laws". I don't have a copy of the Missale Romanum, which would contain the appropriate liturgical rubrics, but everywhere I've gone in the United States and Ireland it's been typical to offer both species.
EDIT: I've found this copy of an older translation of the 1566 catechism, which was the one in force up until the current 1983 catechism was published. That catechism has this to say:

Why The Celebrant Alone Receives Under Both Species
It is clear that the Church was influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to confirm by authority of its decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid spilling the blood of the Lord on the ground, a thing that seemed not easily to be avoided, if the chalice were administered in a large assemblage of the people.
In the next place, whereas the Holy Eucharist ought to be in readiness for the sick, it was very much to be apprehended, were the species of wine to remain long unconsumed, that it might turn acid.
Besides, there are many who cannot at all bear the taste or even the smell of wine. Lest, therefore, what is intended for the spiritual health should prove hurtful to the health of the body, it has been most prudently provided by the Church that it should be administered to the people under the species of bread only.
We may also further observe that in many countries wine is extremely scarce; nor can it, moreover, be brought from elsewhere without incurring very heavy expenses and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys.
Finally, a most important reason was the necessity of opposing the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. In order, therefore, to place more clearly before the eyes of all the truth of the Catholic faith, Communion under one kind, that is, under the species of bread, was most wisely introduced.
There are also other reasons, collected by those who have treated on this subject, and which, if it shall appear necessary, can be brought forward by pastors.

On the other hand, there's this from Aquinas' Summa Theologica (Third part, Question 80, Article 12 - "Is it lawful to receive the body without the blood?")

I answer that, Two points should be observed regarding the use of this sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the part of the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for both the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no account to receive Christ's body without the blood.
But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone.

(emphasis added)
Compare the current catechism, para. 1390:

1390    Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

It appears, therefore, that there was not a Biblical basis for the older practice of Communion under only one species, but largely a group of closely related practical and theological considerations.
Sorry for the lengthy answer, but I wanted to get everything I could find on the question.


Why isn't the Book of 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch considered canon for the LDS Church?

According to Doctrine and Covenants Section 91

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

This is referencing Joseph Smith's work in "translating" the bible. The work that lead to the Book of Moses and the JST version of the bible.
The takeaway here is that in the view of the LDS church, there is some truth in the Apocryphal texts, there is also some falsehood. Therefor it is easier to stick with the texts generally accepted as good by most followers of the Christian tradition.


Are the gospels comparable(equal) to contemporary works of historians?

Ultimately, everybody has an agenda.

Remember that "history" in the modern almost journalistic sense of the word was not really even a concept at this time.  The point was not to convince "scholars" but regular people.

So, who then are the contenders as "historians?"

Tactitus gave us the first mention of the Christians, and provides external evidence of Pontius Pilate as the procurator of Palestine who had Jesus executed.  His agenda in writing, however, was mostly to vilify Nero, blaming him for the destruction of Rome in 64 AD.  Nero, of course, had alrady blamed the Christians - so Tactitus' agenda would be to exculpate the original scapegoats.  By being non-Christian himself, however, he answers modern charges of being too interested a party.
Flavius Josephus also mentioned the Christians, but again, really only in the course of his agenda.  Josephus was a nothing more than a traitor to his own Jewish cause.  Although he fought with the Jews, when he was caught, he turned traitor. Eventually becoming a Roman citizen, he wrote a story about the war that modern historians find to be questionable in some places - but again, because of his agenda.  In passing, however, he too mentions the Christians, but his agenda isn't really focused on them.
The Gospel writers were all eyewitnesses to Jesus.  Did they have an agenda? Sure!  The saw a dead man become not a dead man.  They heard his message, and their lives were transformed by it.  Of course they are biased!  But, and this is a big but, they had the most most information about Jesus.  Their agenda is to make Jesus known, and they all died really horrible deaths to do that.  By modern standards of 'history,' their primary accounts would be discounted because they are too close to it.

Mark (who studied Peter) had probably written down his Gospel by 68 AD (before the Temple was destroyed), Luke (who studied under Paul) by the early 70s, and Matthew, who was an eyewitness and disciple by the mid 70s.  John's Gospel may have been the last - written at the latest, by around 95 AD.  Each of these was an eyewitness.
Later Christian "historians" like Papias, Iraneus, and Tertullian were all Christian bishops who based their histories on the Gospels' record.  Papias is the earliest of the three, writing in the early 100s.  Tertullian lived from about 160 - 225, and Iraneus (Bishop of Lyon) lived about the same time, dying in 202.  Each of these men (and Eusbeius, who should also be in the category as well) lived well after the events of the New Testament.  These men saw the Gospels as primary accounts, and wrote their own works as secondary ones.

Later historians, using many sources - not just the Gospels - compiled their accounts in later centuries.  They never claimed to be eyewitnesses.  But, they also never claimed the four canonical Gospels were fundamentally more "accurate" than any of the other sources.  Canonization wasn't even really discussed until Iranaeus - and Iraneus was the one saying that these four canonical Gospels were the best sources he found.

Even today, a primary account of an event that transforms a person is going to be biased.  Ask a New Yorker about 9/11, and there will be a bias.  Ask a Palestinian, or a member of Al Qaeda, and it will be equally biased.  Indeed, I would argue that every account will be told from a certain perspective.  Was Mohammed Atta a terrorist? a common criminal? or a martyr for Muslim cause?  There is no way to be neutral, nor is there any need to be.

The point, then, is not to ask "who to trust," since none of these accounts directly conflict.  The only difference is in the fullness of the information (hint: the Gospel writers tell you a heck of a lot more about Jesus), and the agenda.  To ask, "Are Tacitus and Josephus more 'unbiased'?" is thus still a flawed question, because in the end, every account has a bias.  The question is, are the biases explicit, and do they interfere?  Neither Tacitus nor Josephus really have much bearing at all on this.

And the Gospel writers? Of course they are biased.  That's the point. They were transformed! They had a story to tell.  The only question is, do you believe their stories?  I know that my life has been transformed in the same way by the same man who died and then came back.  Personally that is the kind of evidence I need.


When were the "three times a year" when one was supposed to receive communion?

At the end of the Holy Communion service in the Church of England Book of Common Prayer are 9 rubrics (i.e. rules or notes) the seventh of which begins:

  And note, that every Parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter to be one.

Prior to the Reformation, constitution 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215,  required communion to be received at least once a year, at Easter. This applied to the whole Roman Catholic church, of which the Church of England was then part. Receiving Communion meant eating the bread. It did not refer to simply hearing mass, attending the service, which was expected much more frequently.

Although the Prayer Book rule requires that people communicate three times a year it only specifies Easter as one of them, the other two are not stated.

You slightly misquote from your reference when you refer to "triannual celebration of the Eucharist" - it in fact says triannual reception. It is not a reference to the number of times Holy Communion was celebrated (i.e. occurred) but to the number of times per year each person was required to receive (eat and drink) the bread and wine. In Cathedrals and colleges Communion was held at least weekly but, particularly in Georgian times, only a few times a year in rural parishes.

A fairly common practice in the Church of England was for people to attend and receive communion at Christmas and Whitsun as the other two occasions apart from Easter, and generally in Georgian times these festivals had communion services. The Synod of Dort, in Holland in 1619, in Rule 63 said Holy Communion services should be held every two months and also at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost (a traditional name for Whitsun). This was not in any way binding in England, but illustrates a popular understanding of the three. The Church of Scotland, by contrast, celebrated Communion usually once or twice a year, but did not associate it with  Christmas, Easter, Whitsun, or any other festival.

In the early 20th century most Church of England churches had communion weekly but these services were not, except on special occasions,  well attended in comparison to Matins and Evensong. The three times a year rule could not be enforced and its observance would be by a specific strata on the scale of commitment between those who received more frequently and those who received only at Easter or (the majority of the population) not every year at all. The character Durham, or rather his mother, fell into this strata, at least as regarding minimum expectations of her son.  An additional consideration is that  Christmas is at the end of the year. A person who got to December having communicated only twice in the year, and who  wished to respect the rule, or whose mother wished him to respect it, would have to communicate by the end of the year to make up the three. This is an additional reason for Christmas Communion, which may have applied to the character Durham.

Receiving at Christmas and Whitsun, especially Christmas, was  merely the  customary way of fulfilling the three times a year. Only Easter was, and is, mandated.

Since that time communion has become the main (best attended) service in most Church of England churches, and in many is the only regular service. This change has coincided with a fall in the number of regular churchgoers, but the extent, if any,  to which this may be cause and effect is unclear.


Protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) translational differences

Some manuscripts have female pronouns and some have male. Some Catholic translations are based upon the ones with the female pronouns and thus see a foreshadowing of Mary (while still acknowledging Christ's roles).
Protestant translations generally favor reading the male pronoun there and focus on Christ's role.