Bob's answer about the intended meaning of 'not yet going' is on the right track but it leaves out a couple of important details.

There are more than one set of Greek manuscripts and there are actually quite a number of one and two character type differences between them. Usually, these involve punctuation or spelling differences and have no affect on the text; but sometimes a snippet can be a little bit different and it's unclear which set of manuscripts to go by.

It is important to note that NONE of these differences in the manuscripts used to produce our translations touch on ANY doctrinal issue so there is no need to fret about that. Even when a word is dropped, the meaning can be matched with the same doctrine in other places in the text. However, sometimes odd linguistic issues like the one in this question do come up. There are at least a dozen or so that I've read about and probably more that I haven't.

First of all, the real trouble is not actually in verse 6 which was [originally] quoted by the OP. In verse 6 Jesus is talking his final hour and time to go to the cross. That is is what he means when he said his time has not fully come, but the disciples completely misunderstand this. Not just this time either: he often references his death and they don't really get the picture. In verse 6 there is no particular problem with the translation, 'not yet' is appropriate, but the subject matter is not understood.

The real issue comes in verse 8 where Jesus actually IS talking about physically walking to the feast. This is the verse that Bob quotes and contains the word issue.  In quite a number of the older manuscripts, the word in question is 'oupō' as quoted and is correctly translated 'not yet', but this word is found in other manuscripts as 'ouk' meaning simply 'not'.

So which is it? The answer is it doesn't matter.

In English, the use of present continuous tense "I am not going" can and often does apply to a events in the future. That would mean the same thing as "I am not going to go at all" However the verb tense used in Greek here simply meant "I am not now going" ... as in he wasn't going to budge that moment and go like they wanted. It wasn't an indication that he didn't maybe plan on going.

Thus, whichever set of manuscripts you choose to go by, whether you use 'not' or 'not yet' in verse 8 is a matter of discretion of the translators. It is not necessarily a mistake in the NIV or any other translation to use simply 'not' because the best manuscripts have it written that way in Greek, however because of the verb tense we also know that whether the alternate 'not yet' Greek version is original or not, that sense is indeed intended by the original author of the text. You will find many translations that use 'not yet' because it gives us a clue about what is being said that is lost in our English verb tense.

And no -- any way you add it up, Jesus was not lying. He did not jump up and do what the disciples wanted him to do (verse 8) nor had his final time come (verse 6).


What translation does the Catholic Breviary of England use for Psalms?

Yep, I just looked on amazon.co.uk to find the Divine Office published by Harper Collins for the use in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, etc...  Didn't have a preview or anything, but I did find this which says:

  Psalms are from the 1963 version of the Grail Psalter.


Brief Historical Introduction

The Nicene Creed originally did not include the words "and the Son" (called the Filioque clause) because it was based on the words of Scripture in John 15:26 (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον). It was added later, and not by an ecumenical council (it was originally inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo). Not to mention, even previous Roman popes resisted its addition to the Creed (e.g. Leo III). It adds nothing to the Creed that isn't already said elsewhere in it. Writing in the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus wrote concerning the Holy Spirit:

  The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth from the Father indeed,
  but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not by Generation but
  by Procession (since I must coin a word for the sake of clearness);
  for neither did the Father cease to be Unbegotten because of His
  begetting something, nor the Son to be begotten because He is of the
  Unbegotten (how could that be?), nor is the Spirit changed into Father
  or Son because He proceeds, or because He is God— though the ungodly
  do not believe it (Oration 39:12).

The Greek Church Fathers were careful not to use the verb ἐκπορεύομαι to describe the relation of the Holy Spirit from the Son, this term was exclusively for how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and is directly from the mouth of Jesus as recorded in John's Gospel).1

In contrast, Western Christians had begun using the Latin verb procedere to translate ἐκπορεύομαι and to describe the Holy Spirit's relationship to both the Father and the Son. History shows that some Christians were indifferent to this and others took issue with it. Controversies ensued that I won't go into as you can read the history in more detail elsewhere. The Roman Catholic Church has even officially admitted that the Holy Spirit does not proceed (ἐκπορεύομαι) from the Son, but rather from the Father through the Son, however it maintains the current verbiage of the creed with caveats to explain this distinction (with the exception of Eastern Catholic churches, which it encourages to omit the Filioque).

Does the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and Son infringe on the co-equality of the Trinity?

Yes. John 15:26 says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται / who from the Father proceeds). That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father is straight from Jesus' mouth as recorded in Scripture. Jesus didn't say, "and from me." The Filioque makes the Holy Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. The procession of the Holy Spirit is now no longer unique to only one Person of the Trinity nor shared by all Persons, thus compromising the co-equality of the Persons of the Trinity.

1 This is evidenced by the Alexandrian fathers' use of προϊέναι and προχεῖσθαι rather than ἐκπορεύεσθαι, as an example.


According to Catholic teaching that is biblically supported, who are "the enemies of Christians?"

Regarding the promise to Abraham:

Christians consider themselves to be the (spiritual) descendants of Abraham, certainly as it applies to inheriting the promises of God to Abraham. This is based on passages such as Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8, Romans 9, and Galations 3:7. Therefore the passage you quote is taken to mean that God promises to protect Christians from their enemies.

Regarding Enemies

As for the interpretation of the word 'enemies', there appears to be no reason not to take this word in its straightforward meaning - i.e. those who are opposed to you and would do you harm. That's almost certainly how it was intended in the original. There is nothing inconsistent with Christians having enemies - how could we be commanded to 'love your enemies' if we didn't have them? Note that the prayer does not ask for evil or punishment to be done to those enemies, but only that Christians are protected from them.


What does Catholic teaching/theology say about familial relations in hell?

According to the Catholic Church:

  This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
  - (CCC 1033)

So hell is not really a physical location but more of a state of being. Thus, although you and your family might all end up in hell, you cannot "meet" them there. It would be like asking if you could meet each other in a state of panic.

While you are dead (ie. before the Last Judgment):

  Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. - (CCC 1035)

On the other hand, you could meet up with your family on the Day of Judgment.

  The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the unjust," will precede the Last Judgment. This will be "the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment."
  - (CCC 1038)

So, for a short time (ie. after hearing His voice, but before the "resurrection of judgment"), you could theoretically meet up with your brothers and sisters. This is what Catholics mean when they say "I believe in [...] the resurrection of the body." This is a physical resurrection, not a spiritual one. So if it's physical, it must happen at a location (unlike "where" your soul goes when you die) and thus meeting up should be possible.

I doubt at that point you would find much comfort in each other's company, but nothing precludes it. You are not prevented from being happy, but by that point you (in theory) understand that you will now spend eternity separated from God and you know what that means (unlike while you were alive).


Does taking communion break the fast? Is there a Scriptural or Traditional case to be made either way?

Per @awe and @Jamess, there are really two sides of this.  It can go either way.

Are you breaking your fast?  Yes.  You truly are.  But you have to question: Why am I fasting?

If you are fasting in order to grow closer to God and find reliance only on him, then taking communion would not necessarily be bad.  Since communion is meant to draw us to God, then the two acts (fasting and communion) are moving towards the same purpose: moving us closer to God.

If you are fasting, however, in prayer over a specific thing (such as the salvation of a person or deliverance from a trial), then you should avoid the fast.  The purposes of the two acts (fasting and communion) are at odds.

Having said all of this, I believe this verse is appropriate to the subject:

1 cor. 10:31

  31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to
  the glory of God.

If you chose to break fast for communion, make sure you do it for God's glory.  If you chose to skip communion for the fast, make sure it's for God's glory.  If you follow that advice, you won't go wrong.


In what order were the books in the New Testament written?

Briefly:

Paul's letters were probably first, beginning with 1 Timothy and Galatians. Romans was a middling book, 2 Timothy was probably his last. They range from 52 ad to 62 or 68, depending on what you think about deutero-Pauline scholarship
Of the Gospels, Mark is usually considered to be first, although some have proposed Matthew. Luke is usually dated after Mark and Q, John is usually considered to be last.
The Revelation of John is usually considered to be the latest of the books, and is typically dated to the 80s or 90s.

All of the books of the NT were at one time considered to have some apostolic authorship, although Hebrews is no longer considered to be Pauline.

According the Holman Handbook of the Bible, probable dates for each of the books of the NT is as follows:

I combed through the Holman Handbook of the Bible to pull out a possible chronology. These are more or less in an order, though dates can differ based on when one assumes certain events to have occurred.  Some of Paul's letters, for example, seem to indicate he left Rome and travelled westward to Spain in a "later" career - other sources say, no, he was beheaded in 62AD. Revelation could have been penned under Nero (68) or Domition (95).  The point is, none of this is an exact science.  Still, here would be my summary for when the books of the New Testament were written.

[Author]Book    - notes on the time frame

[Jame]James     - 'early' James doesn't have much church hierarchy, could be one of the earliest

[Paul]Galatians - probably Paul's 1st epistle, 48-52

[Paul]1 Thessal - 51

[Paul]Romans    - 56 or 57AD

[Paul]1 Corinthi- 55AD

[Paul]2 Corinthi- a short time afterwards - 55 to 57 AD, at least one theory says that the later part is actually "3rd Corinthians"

[Petr]Mark     - late 50s (Note: Marcan v.s Mattean priority is a big question.  I tend to go with Mark being first)

[Paul]Ephesians - could be 57-59 or 60-62, depending on the chronology of Paul's imprisonment

[Paul]Colossians - 60 or 61, about the same time as Philemon

[Paul]Philemon   - 60 or 61

[Luke]Luke-Acts - 62AD  (near the end of Paul's ministry)

[Paul]Phillippi - 62AD (Paul is in prison)

[Paul]2 Timothy - sounds very much like a farewell letter from Paul

--- Sources differ as to whether Paul was executed in 62, 65, or 68AD ---

[Paul]2 Thessal - (disputed authorship), later in "Paul's" career

[Paul]1 Timothy - 64 to 67 AD

[Petr]1 Peter   - early 60s

[Paul]Titus    - (disputed authorship) 65 - 68 AD

[????]Hebrews  - mid to late 60s

[Petr]2 Peter   - mid to late 60s.  Shares much in common with Jude

--- The late 60s included a revolt by the Jews, a diaspora, and finally, the destruction of the Temple ---

[Matt]Matthew   - early 70s, if you assume Marcan priority. An emphasis on Jewish tradition could be a reaction to the Temple

[Jude]Jude     - difficult to date, could be from 65 AD to 80AD

[JOHN]John     - sometime between late 60s and 90 AD. John was the youngest of the disciples, and lived to be the oldest

[John]1 John    - early 90s (?)

[John]2 John    - there is very little to go on, but the early to mid 90s is not out of the question

[John]3 John    - there is very little to go on, but the early to mid 90s is not out of the question. Was being quoted by 95 AD.

[John]Revelation- 68AD(possible), 95AD(more likely)


Your question contains a small irony. Each component in your quartet (viz., soul, spirit, and heart) is invisible, and you are asking for a diagrammatic representation! (My observation is just an aside.)

If, however, I were to diagram your three highly abstract words, I'd probably draw a heart; you know, the typical Valentine's Day heart, which is probably recognized universally (at least in literate cultures) as a symbol for heart. I'd then draw a straight line down the middle of the heart, from the indented part at the top, to the rounded part, below. I'll explain the diagram later in my answer.

HEART

Let's start with the word heart. The word heart, of course, can be defined both literally and figuratively, with a good deal of overlap between the two, since with virtually all metaphors, separating the figurative from the literal is very tricky indeed! Allow me to ensconce the word heart in a sentence, which I'll use as a springboard for this section of my answer. If I am correct, the word, as ensconced, will have, potentially, great heuristic value.

  "I can just tell that Jim's heart isn't in the project."

So let's say Jim works in the R & D Department of the ACME Mousetrap Company. His department has been charged with "building a better mousetrap," and Jim is heading up the project. Jim has an assistant working with him as liaison between him and all the department heads within the company. The above quotation came from Jim's assistant.

How and why, do you think, Jim's assistant arrived at the conclusion which I've summarized in the words, "I can just tell that Jim's heart isn't in the project"?

If you suggest that the assistant says that Jim

  complains to his assistant how stupid he thinks the project is,
  fails to meet the various deadlines associated with each stage in the project,
  starts delegating too much responsibility to his assistant,
  comes in late to work, takes extra-long lunch breaks, and
  is in the process of revising his resume,

then you'd be spot on regarding the why of my question. The assistant is saying:

  "Jim shows a lack of enthusiasm for the project. Period."

In other words, when someone does not put his or heart into a project, he or she will evince a lack of enthusiasm in attitude. Nonverbal clues alone will clue everyone in that Jim is not a happy camper!

In summary up to this point, then, HEART is revealed in at least some of the following:

  single-minded commitment
  keen interest and focus
  evident enthusiasm and passion

Put differently, your heart involves your entire person--intellect, emotion, and will (or spirit, soul, and body).

A song I heard when I was a kid had a simple title: "Heart," by Van Buren. It's from the Broadway musical, "Damn Yankees!" Its lyrics are as follows:

  HEART (by Van Buren)

  You've gotta have heart

  All you really need is heart

  When the odds are sayin' you'll never win

  That's when the grin should start

  You've gotta have hope

  Mustn't sit around and mope

  Nothin's half as bad as it may appear

  Wait'll next year and hope

  When your luck is battin' zero

  Get your chin up off the floor

  Mister you can be a hero

  You can open any door, there's nothin' to it but to do it

  You've gotta have heart

  Miles 'n miles n' miles of heart

  Oh, it's fine to be a genius of course

  But keep that old horse

  Before the cart

  First you've gotta have heart

The apostle Paul referred to the heart in the following way:

  "and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us (Romans 5:5 NAS).

No wonder the world (in the Johannine sense, as in 1 John chapter 2) links the romantic aspect of heart with the word love!  And rightly it should, minus the worldly aspects of course!

The Scripture, on the other hand, while not unaware of the importance and significance of romantic matters of the heart, emphasizes the function of the heart as the seat of emotions, generally. Paul admonishes us in his letter to the Colossian Christians,

  "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth" (Colossians 3:2 KJV).

Again, to set one's affection on "things above" requires a commitment of the entire person: intellect, emotion, and will.

SPIRIT

Spirit can frequently substitute for heart, as in

  "I can just tell that Jim is dis-spirited about having to head up the project."

In biblical terms, however, when we think of spirit, we need to think of the God-awareness in each of us, particularly Christians.

Upon being born again, the Christian's spirit became united and indissolubly linked to God's Spirit in an eternal bond. This linkage or union does not automatically result in God-focused, God-honoring, God-pleasing behavior on our part, however. Otherwise, Paul would not have had to say to the Romans,

  "For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot  please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit . . ." (8:6-9a NASB).

I suggest that in these verses Paul equates spirit with mind, even though he does not use the word spirit with a lowercase S. Christians relate to the Spirit--with an uppercase S--with our spirit--with a lowercase S. Furthermore, mind and spirit are two words which frequently denote the same thing; namely, the symbol-mediated (i.e., language-mediated) thought process which fills virtually every waking (and perhaps sleeping) moment of our lives.

That process can be both inner-directed and outer-directed, as we relate to ourselves intra-personally, and to others interpersonally, whether in the silence of our word-mediated thoughts or in verbal and/or nonverbal (including sign language) exchanges with others. When that thought process is directed heavenward, as it were, and toward God, we engage our spirits in communication with the Almighty, through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Helping that process "stay on track," so to speak, is God's word, which is living and active in our lives,

  ". . . sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12 NASB, my emphasis).

SOUL

Interestingly, the writer to the Hebrews tells us God's word targets the division between soul and spirit. Why?

I suggest that soul is that part of the inward process I described above which starts as primarily self-directed and self-motivated thought or ideation, and then is externalized and primarily conscious behavior: I think, therefore I am, therefore I act.

God needs to separate soul from spirit in us because our soul is by nature--the "old nature," that is--self-centered and selfish. True, there is no way for us not to be self-centered in the sense that it is not possible to cease beings ourselves and start living as someone else. Even if we could, we would still be living a self-centered life, but as that other person. As the preacher once said, God doesn't create duplicates, only originals. Even as we begin to grasp the meaning of Paul's words in Galatians 2:20,

  "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me,"

we realize Christ does not desire to take over our identity, personality, and temperament; rather, he wants these things to take on the character of Jesus, and to do so in His strength, not ours.

So the Bible condemns a selfish life and selfish behavior. It labels them as "the flesh" (not "the flesh" as Paul used it in Galatians 2:20, above, where he means "my body").  The Bible enumerates the  "works of the flesh" in Galatians chapter 5:

  "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,  fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders,  drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (vv.19-21).

Jesus gave us a similar list in Matthew chapter 15 and Mark 7, which I've conflated as follows:

  "'But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, murders, adultery, greed, theft, malice, false testimony, slander, lewdness, envy, deceit, arrogance, and folly'" (v.19 and vv.21-22, respectively, NIV).

Neither Jesus nor anyone else in the Scripture condemned the human body as being somehow evil. Obviously, the body can be a vehicle for "flesh," but it need not be. Just as a married couple can use their bodies within the marriage covenant to give one another sexual pleasure, so also can that same couple experience sexual pleasure in adulterous affairs. The former use is sanctioned and encouraged by God; the latter is proscribed and condemned. Hebrews tells us,

  "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (13:4 NAS).

Come up with the "opposites" of each item in the lists I've quoted above, and you'll get an idea of how God wants us to think and behave in God-honoring ways. Using only Jesus' list in this way, we can turn

  evil thoughts into thoughts about what is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of a good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy (Philippians 4:8 KJV)
  sexual immorality, adultery, and lewdness are into sexual morality, fidelity, purity, and modesty
  murderous thoughts and actions into life-giving, life-honoring, life nurturing, and life-empowering thoughts and actions
  envy into generosity
  deceit and false testimony into honesty
  slander into only "good reports" and edifying comments to and about other people
  arrogance into humility, and
  folly into wisdom

By doing all the above (and the list is only partial), as the Spirit takes God's word and applies it to the soul-ish, self-conscious part of us, we are sanctified progressively as our minds and behavior patterns are transformed (see Romans 12:2). The result is an increased conformity to the image of Christ (see Romans 8:29).

CONCLUSION

Back to my diagram. If I were more computer savvy, I'd cut and paste something as a visual aid for you. Unfortunately, however, I'm not that computer savvy.

In lieu of a visual aid, then, picture a typical, stylized heart, which represents the invisible aspect of personhood, which for our purposes consists of an admixture of spirit and soul. The physical body is, as it were, the agent of, or vehicle for, the spirit and/or soul. In a biblical hierarchy of values, however, the spirit as a sanctified mind must always trump the soul, particularly when the soul wants to use the body, via the mind/body nexus, as a vehicle for gratifying the desires of the flesh.

I suggest that the heart will always be divided. However, as we mature as Christians, becoming increasingly sanctified (or set apart) by God as vessels of honor, our spirits and our souls will increasingly cooperate with each other, so that our self-conscious self becomes increasingly our God-conscious self. As we increasingly submit, yield, and cooperate with God in His plan for our lives, we experience progression and spiritual maturity. Accordingly, the Spirit of God empowers us in the spiritual discipline of

  "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ . . ." (2 Corinthians 10:5 KJV, my emphasis).


According to Catholicism, are we deserving or worthy of God's love in any way?

God, in his simplicity, has various perfections.

We know that God possesses various perfections, goodness, wisdom, love, etc.; and not only in the sense that He can create them, but that He Himself, really has them (they really exist in Him), and, they are in Him in the most eminent way (God is infinite). God does not only possess goodness, wisdom, love, etc., but He is Goodness, Wisdom, Love, etc.

However, God is simple (not in the sense that it is easy to understand Him, but in the sense that He is not composed of parts; there is no distinction between His essence and existence). Yet, these various and really distinct perfections (in created order) are not synonymous in God (hence we can not say that God pardons by His justice). In God, these perfections really converge in the most eminent way to one all-encompassing idea of Deity which is God Himself.

Creation is a sharing of the treasure of perfections found in God.

God manifests His infinite plentitude of perfections, His Glory, trough an act of creation. Since no created being can be absolutely simple and capture all that God has in his infinite perfection, God creates many beings to manifest His Glory (of course, no matter how many created things there are, they can not exhaust God's Glory).

Christ's death is concentrated manifestation of His infinite Goodness and mercy toward human beings.

Christ came to the world to save us, He suffered for our sake. Out of his goodness and mercy, He came to redeem us by His salvific love. God offered salvation to mankind (and this is His completely freely given gift to us, which He did not have to offer to us) out of his sheer mercy. There is nothing in us that "deserves" to be loved, we are from ourselves nothing, but by God's mercy, we are able to see His very essence. Why did God choose to manifest his Goodness in this extraordinarily high measure? Because he freely chose so, it is his simple will (which is sufficient reason to itself).


How universal are the "color" masses in the Catholic Church?

How universal are the “colour” Masses in the Catholic Church?

It would seem that that the so called "Colour Masses" are not universally commemorated, but are somewhat popular in some countries and/or amongst those who are connected within certain spheres of employment that are subject to these Masses. The colours employed at Mass do not always correspond with the title in question. The liturgical colour of the Blue Mass is always white. Blue is the colour that often associated with police officers and that is why it is called the Blue Mass. The liturgical colours of these Votive Masses remain true to liturgical decorum.

An honor guard made up of emergency personnel process out of Ss. Simon and Jude Cathedral during the annual Blue Mass Nov. 5,2015

Many of these so called designated Masses are associated with certain saints, even when the Votive Mass is that of the Holy Spirit (red).

At present I have permission from my Local ordinary to publish a document entitled A Journey through the Year with the Church which is a collection of Catholic traditions at either a local and/or universal level. In chapter 15, on subject of Moveable Feasts, Practices and Traditions, I listed a number of votive Masses that could be celebrated on no fixed date within the liturgical year. Some of them concern these various Masses.

The Red Mass

The liturgical colour of the Votive Mass of the Holy Sprit is red

The first recorded Red Mass was held in Paris in 1245. In modern times each country has its own date in which to host the Red Mass if they choose to do so. Nevertheless each diocese or parish may hold its own Red Mass Day on any particular date that is liturgically free to do so. This is especially true if the parish church dedicated to St. Thomas More, patron saint of lawyers.

One of the better-known Red Masses in the USA is celebrated at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington D.C. Since the Supreme Court convenes on the first Monday of October, the Red Mass is celebrated on the Sunday before the first Monday of October. It is normally presided over by a cardinal.
In Ireland, the Red Mass is celebrated on the first Monday of October, which is the opening day of the Michaelmas Law Term.

The Red Mass is often associated wit St. Thomas More the patron saint of all statement, politicians, lawyers and people in public life. Even though it it the votive Mass of the Holy Spirit, it is precisely for invoking the guidance of the Holy Ghost on those in public office that this tradition has started.

Holy Spirit, guide us in all our ways.

St. Thomas More, pray for us.

The Gold Mass

The liturgical colour or the Gold Mass is white.

The Gold Mass is relatively new and is not yet very popular, but as time moves on it may increase in popular devotion.

The Gold Mass may celebrated annually in the Catholic Church since 2016 for Catholic scientists. The first "Gold Mass"  for Catholic scientists was held on November 15, 2016, in the chapel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  The sponsor is the Society of Catholic Scientists, which was incorporated in the summer of 2016 in the territory of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The color gold was chosen because it represents the alchemy of science and it is the color that is worn at graduation ceremonies (on the hood of those who are being awarded bachelors, masters, or doctoral degrees in the academic discipline of science). The date of November 15 was chosen because it is the feast day of St. Albert the Great, a Dominican Doctor of the Church who is the patron of scientists.

Although on the Votive Mass in honour of St. Albert white vestments are to be used, one is free to use gold coloured vestments on this occasion. “Cloths of gold” can replace can replace the liturgical colours of white, green and red. This is permitted so due to its’ intrinsic value as a rare metal.

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science of idolatry and false absolutes.” - Pope St. John Paul II

  A Gold Mass is easy to arrange. One needs: (a) a church or chapel, (b) a celebrant and homilist, (c) a nearby hall to hold the reception, and (d) permission of the local bishop.  Such masses should be advertised several weeks in advance through local Catholic media and on local college campuses.  Information about upcoming Gold Masses will be posted on the SCS website.   Though the above elements are the only things required for a Gold Mass, it is also possible to make the Gold Mass a more eleborate event, with a public lecture afterwards. An example of this was the Gold Mass held at the University of Notre Dame in 2017. - Gold Masses

St. Albert the Great, pray for us.

The Blue Mass

The liturgical colour of the Blue Mass is white.

The Blue Mass is a Mass offered for the intentions of all first responders (police, fire fighters and paramedics). It gets it term of the Blue Mass from the fact that most first responder’s uniforms are blue. This Mass can be said any day of the year. In the USA, President John F. Kennedy, in 1962, declared May 15 as Peace officers Memorial Day and the week in which May 15 falls as Police Week. As a result, many places in the USA hold their annual Blue Mass sometime in early May. A more natural choice for other countries would be a votive Mass of St. Michael the Archangel, who is the patron saint of first responders. September 29 is the feast day of St. Michael the Archangel and seeing that the month of September has been traditionally dedicated to the Holy Angels a date within this month would be most appropriate.

St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

St. Florian, patron saint of firefighters, pray for us.

The White Mass and /or Rose Mass

The liturgical colour of the White or Rose Mass is white if the votive Mass is in honour of St. Raphael and it is the same colour if a Mass is said in St. Luke's honour.

The White or Rose Mass is a Mass said for the intentions of both doctors and nurses. The term the White Mass comes from the colour of both doctor’s and nurse’s uniforms. When a Mass is said for the intentions of nurses only, it is called a Rose Mass. Once again, this sort Mass may be celebrated on any day of the year which is liturgically free to do so. St Raphael the Archangel is the patron saint of both doctors and nurses. What has been said about St Michael the Archangel can apply to St Raphael the Archangel also! Some parishes celebrate this Mass on or around the Feast of St. Luke the Evangelist, who is also the patron saint of doctors.

  Since 1992 the John Carroll Society has sponsored a Rose Mass in the Archdiocese of Washington, to acknowledge medical, dental, nursing, and allied workers and volunteers and the many health care institutions in the Archdiocese of Washington. It takes place annually on the fourth Sunday of Lent (“Laetare Sunday”), a Sunday when the vestments worn by the celebrant are rose-colored. The color rose was chosen as the rose has come to symbolize “life,”[70] The Lansing Guild of the Catholic Medical Association hosts a Rose Mass in Ann Arbor, Michigan. - Rose Mass

St. Raphael, pray for us.

St. Luke, pray for us.

The Green Mass

The liturgical colour of the Green Mass is white.

The Green Mass is the newest arrival in the so called Coloured Masses that exist today and of yet not very well known at all. It is celebrated in connection with St. Francis of Assisi and inspired no doubt by Pope Francis' encyclical letter Laudato Si

  The Archdiocese of Atlanta will celebrate its third annual Green Mass for all who volunteer or work in “green jobs” or environmental sustainability, and for all those who love planet earth, on Thursday, October 4, the Feast of St. Francis, at 12:10 p.m.

  This Mass will be held at The Catholic Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, 48 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Bishop Ned Shlesinger will be the celebrant.

  We invite you to join us for this special Mass, on the feast day of St. Francis, as we share in the beauty of God’s creation and pray for those who work diligently to protect our planet. You are also invited to join us for a luncheon following the Mass featuring Georgia grown produce.

St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

2018 Green Mass Invitation


Why is there a modern misconception about Christianity and Science?

The essence of any answer to your question must emphasize that the misconception about Christianity and science is very modern. It is modern secularists that desire to rewrite history by making claims that Christianity's job, as it were, is to hinder scientific advancement. For every example they cite, like the church vs. Galileo (his observations proved the earth was not the center of the universe), there are thousands more that prove otherwise. Many of these can be found in secular shows on the History channel. In a recent example about the Dark Ages (sorry can't remember the shows name) they concluded that, without the church keeping reading and writing alive, the Dark Ages could easily have lasted much longer. So any arguments that assert some general obstruction by Christians of scientific advances pre-Darwin are weak. I could go on: the USA exists because of good Christian men; the country's oldest university, Harvard, was founded to train clergy...

After Darwin, it became much easier to inflate the conflict between the Christian and secular worldviews since the secularists could "explain" away life without relying on God. Christians in those times felt just as threatened as those who convicted Galileo of heresay. Look at any modern astronomy text to see this taken to its ultimate absurdity - that the Big Bang started itself. They have to overlook a big contradiction born of the laws of physics (an external force is required to change a system in equilibrium). Fortunately, the archaeological evidence of the past hundred years and the biological evidence since DNA was discovered has disproved macro-evolution (that one species can evolve into another). This has finally begun to turn the tide against evolution but it is still taught in classrooms and promoted by secularists as fact. After the Garden of Eden fiasco, truly evolution has to be Satan's biggest win.

Which brings me to the bottom line answer to the question of "Why?". The problem is not that the secularists are stupid or are ignoring the compatibility of the Bible, Christianity, and science. The problem is that they are blind. The Bible points this out many, many times. Man's soul was corrupted by sin because he wanted to do things his way and not God's way. Until that is fixed, there will always be misconceptions about Christianity by those who oppose it.

Your question is not simple and so my answer is not short. I hope it added something positive to the discussion.


Why is the date of the 2016 Passover a month late when compared to Easter?

Jehovah's Witnesses time their Memorial  based on the current apparent movements of the actual physical moon and sun, as observable from Jerusalem. This, they say, is what happened in first century Judaism.  The rule is not exactly the first full moon following the equinox, but the result is very close to this.
Jews and Christians base Passover and Easter, respectively, on mathematical models of how the moon and sun move. These idealised models were calculated in the 4th century AD. They are somewhat out of step with the real moon and sun, used by JWs.
The result is that the assumed date of the Vernal Equinox has drifted later than the actual date. The earliest date  Passover can now fall is March 26th. The Full Moon on March 23rd, 2016 is too early for this, and so Passover is based on the following Full Moon, in April. This drift is continuing, but very slowly. Passover was on March 26th in 2013, and will again be on March 26th in 2089, and then never again. After that March 27th is the earliest. The last ever March Passover, based on current arrangements, will be March 31st 3248. In 3411, Passover will fall in May for the first time.
In Christianity the situation is complicated by the fact that Western Christians have made adjustments to correct the drift of sun and moon dates, so that the idealised sun and moon correspond more accurately to the real ones. Eastern Orthodox Christians have not. The drift is such that the earliest the Paschal Full Moon can fall, according to the Eastern Church, is April 3rd. Just as for Jews, the March 23rd full moon this year is too early to be counted, and so it is the April Full Moon is regarded as the Paschal one.
Western Christians have made adjustments so that the earliest date the Paschal Full Moon can fall is March 21st, close to the real vernal equinox. Therefore the March 23rd Full Moon does count and so Easter Day is the following Sunday, March 27th.
Apart from the month, the actual  assumed dates of full moons can vary by a day or two from the real ones for both  Jews and Western  Christians.  For Eastern Christians the ideal  full moon occurs 4 or 5 days later than for Western Christians.
So for 2016 there are full moons on March 23rd and April 22nd. The Jehovah's Witnesses Memorial is on March 23rd. Western Easter is the following Sunday, March 27th. Passover is the following full moon, April 22. The Eastern Orthodox model full moon is four days later than this, April 26th, and so Orthodox Easter is the Sunday after this, May 1st.
Fort the whole of this century if we divide the year AD by 19, and the remainder is 2, 10 or 13, then Passover will be about a month later than Western Easter.   If the remainder is 2, 7, 10, 13 or 18 then the Eastern Easter will be 4 or 5 weeks later than the Western one. In other years, if the Full Moon is early in the week, Eastern and Western Easters coincide, but if later in the week the Eastern Easter is one week after the Western, as the 4 or 5 day discrepancy pushes the assumed full moon into the following week.


Is there any Ethiopian ancient source about the eunuch who was evangelized by Philip?

Around 180 CE, Irenaeus summarises the account in Acts 8, then writes:

  Against Heresies III.12.8: This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed...

The account in Against Heresies does not prove the existence of an earlier Ethiopian record, given that, while he was familiar with Acts of the Apostles, Irenaeus did not visit Ethiopia. It is even possible the account by Irenaeus may be the earliest reference to the Ethiopian eunuch preaching in Ethiopia.

So many doubtful Christian and Jewish traditions are held in Ethiopia, that caution is required when accepting any Ethiopian Christian tradition unless verified by ancient records of known provenance. According to one story, Ethiopian Queen Makeda travelled to Jerusalem in the tenth century BCE, to learn from King Solomon how to be a good ruler; she was so impressed with Solomon that she converted to Judaism. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church also claims to house the Biblical Ark of the Covenant, given to Mekeda's son by King Solomon.

Christianity became the state religion of Ethiopia in 330 CE. There may have been Christians in the region even before this date, but Wikipedia says that pinpointing a date as to when Christianity emerged in Ethiopia is uncertain. In order to eliminate any risk of contamination by Ethiopian nationalism, the earliest Ethiopian accounts of the eunuch ought to be supported by extant physical records that can be dated before the fourth century.

The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Acts-Philemon, Volume 2 (page 65) says there is no record of the influence of Christianity in that regions before the fourth century, from which we can infer that there is no early Ethiopian record of the eunuch, dating from before the fourth century. The most reliable information about the eunuch preaching in Ethiopia comes from Irenaeus, followed by the fourth-century Christian historian, Eusebius.


Pre-flood Rock Monsters? Modern Noah Mythology?

As the producer of the movie said when asked about inaccuracies in the movie "It is entertainment and not a documentary."

Biblical movies, down through their history, have injected some parts for entertainment into their story line. Even the best made Biblical movies, such Charlton Heston's great movie about Moses, included a love triangle involving Joshua that is not a part of the Bible.

It appears that whether wittingly or unwittingly, Hollywood has deviated from known Scripture in increasingly greater ways, that the Stories from the Bible have been altered in the mind of the public.

Whether intentional or not this process has slowly had a negative impact on the public's perception of the veracity of the Bible.

Many devout Christians have attributed this process to Satan, and there may be more truth to that than meets the eye. However, it must be assumed that it was not a conscious effort on the part of the movie makers to distort the perceptions of the Bible but to satisfy the hunger of the public for increasingly exciting entertainment.

That process is not just reserved for Biblical interpretation in movies, but extends to all movies. Beginning back in the 70's with movies, such as where the girl's head spun around on her body, to as you remarked, the depiction of fallen Angels as Rock monsters. Christianity has been rapidly denigrated by Hollywood.

Sadly the depiction of fallen Angels helping Noah, (I have to take your word for that, since I have not seen this movie and never will because I am blind); will give some the idea that Fallen Angels can be good, which is contradictory to the Bible, since the fallen Angels are Satan's demons, and are evil.

One of the first Bible epics, which I still occasionally watch, deviated from the Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion in that in the Bible Roman soldiers cast lots for Jesus' garments, but in the movie that was not shown.

You can make your own determination as to whether or not this is the work of Satan or not, for myself I can only say that it has had a negative effect on Christianity.


Is there biblical reference to Michael, the archangel’s role and being?

Well, Jude 9 says:

  But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

From that verse, it would seem to be hard to equate Michael and Jesus.

The only other reference to "archangel" I know of is in 1 Thessalonians 4:16:

  For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

That verse seems to indicate the "voice of the archangel" will announce Christ's (
the Lord Himself) return - again listed as a separate being.


What is the easy and less complicated definition of predestination [Calvinism]?

Reformed churches are confessional bodies so the best place to start would probably be with those confessions. There are generally two camps:

The English tradition uses the Westminster Confession of Faith: http://www.pcaac.org/resources/wcf/

The Continental tradition uses the 3 forms of unity - The Belgic Confession, The Canons of Dort and the Heidelberg Catechism: https://www.urcna.org/1651/custom/24288

I would recommend starting with the Heidelberg Catechism because its easier to understand. (It also has quite beautiful prose)
I will try to answer your specific questions using specific phrases from these confessions. The confessions are not authoritative and all of them contain bible references for what they teach.
(1) On the matter of Limited Atonement, Canons of Dort, article 9 states:

It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves, some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the Word of life; others, though they receive it, suffer it not to make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their joy, arising only from a temporary faith, soon vanishes, and they fall away; while others choke the seed of the Word by perplexing cares and the pleasures of this world, and produce no fruit. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).

And article 10 states:

But that others who are called by the gospel obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will, whereby one distinguishes himself above others equally furnished with grace sufficient for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains); but it must be wholly ascribed to God, who, as He has chosen His own from eternity in Christ, so He calls them effectually in time, confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of His own Son

So yes, only a chosen people will attain salvation. For those that do, it is the work of God through his effectual grace. For those that do not, it is their choice to reject the gospel and the fault lies in themselves.
(2) Will they all be Christians? Yes. Heidelberg Catechism, question 20:

Q. ARE ALL MEN SAVED THROUGH CHRIST JUST AS ALL WERE LOST THROUGH ADAM?
A. No. Only those are saved who by true faith are grafted into Christ and accept all his blessings.
Matt. 7:14; John 3:16, 18, 36; Rom. 11:16-21

And 21:

Q. WHAT IS TRUE FAITH?
A. True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in his Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation.
John 17:3, 17; Heb. 11:1-3; James 2:19; Rom. 4:18-21; 5:1; 10:10; Heb. 4:14-16; Matt. 16:15-17; John 3:5; Acts 16:14; Rom. 1:16; 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 3:21-26; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-10; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:10

(3) How do you know you are among the elect?
Romans 10:9:

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Salvation is a work of God. Faith is believing in that work. If you believe, you will be saved.
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 18 says:

Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvationa (which hope of theirs shall perish) yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.
[...]
This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto
[...]
True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.

Assurance is possible but sometimes hard. The ordinary means of grace being referred to here are things like regularly attending church. Much of what we do every Sunday is simply reminding us the promises of God because we are a forgetful people.
(4) If everything is predestined, then why preaching the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary?
God ordains the means as well as the ends and he has chosen the church as his vehicle of Salvation. Heidelberg Catechism, question 65:

Q. IT IS BY FAITH ALONE THAT WE SHARE IN CHRIST AND ALL HIS BLESSINGS: WHERE THEN DOES THAT FAITH COME FROM?
A. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it through our use of the holy sacraments.

Romans 10 again: (w/emphasis from me)

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

The preaching of the Gospel is necessary for anyone to come to faith, but God ordains that as well!


Are spiritual pleasures > carnal pleasures, according to Catholicism?

Spiritual pleasures ⋙ carnal pleasures.
Yes, intellectual and especially spiritual pleasures are greater than carnal/sexual/bodily/sense pleasures, St. Thomas shows in Ia IIae, q.31, a.5. This explains what attracts the religious to leave the world by taking vows of poverty and chastity/celibacy.
Spiritual pleasures more enduring
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Life Everlasting (pt. 1, §3 "Soul Immensity and Beatific Vision"):

Following St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas writes: Temporal goods appear desirable when we do not have them; but when we do have them, we see their poverty, which cannot meet our desire and which therefore produces disillusion, lassitude, and often repugnance. In spiritual goods the inverse is true. They do not seem desirable to those who do not have them and who desire especially sensible good. But the more we possess them the more we know their value and the more we love them.⁴ For the same reason, material goods, the same house, the same field, cannot belong simultaneously and integrally to many persons. Spiritual goods, on the contrary, one and the same truth, one and the same virtue, can belong simultaneously and completely to all. And the more perfectly we possess these goods, the better we can communicate them to others.⁵ This is especially true of the sovereign good.

Ia IIae, q.31, a.5; q.32, a.2; q.33, a.2.
Ia IIae, q. 28, a.4 ad 2; IIIa, q. 23, a. 1 ad 3.

Only God can make us truly happy.
See also SCG III qq. 26-44, where he addresses questions like "That human felicity does not consist in pleasures of the flesh," "That ultimate felicity does not lie in the act of prudence," "That felicity does not consist in the operation of art," ending with (q. 37) "That the ultimate felicity of man consists in the contemplation of God." But he goes further, arguing "That human felicity does not consist in the knowledge of God gained through demonstration" and even that "Human felicity does not consist in the knowledge of God which is through faith"!


Converting from Russian Orthodox to Roman Catholic in 1820

Since the Orthodox Church has the same seven valid sacraments as the Catholic Church, the only requirement for a baptized Russian Orthodox to enter into full communion with Rome would be to make an abjuration or a profession of faith.

  Reception of Converts and Profession of Faith

  According to the form approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, July 20, 1859.

  In the case of a convert, careful inquiry should first of all be made concerning the validity of their former Baptism. If it be found that there is no Baptism or that the Baptism received was invaid, they must now be baptized unconditionally. If, however, after diligent inquiry reasonable doubt remains concerning the validity of their former Baptism, they are now to be baptized conditionally. If, thirdly, the former Baptism be judged to have been valid, only Abjuration or Profession of Faith should be required. In accordance, therefore, with their condition there are three methods of receiving converts:

  I. If never baptized or if the previous Baptism was invalid -- The convert is unconditionally baptized, and neither Abjuration nor absolution follows, since the Sacrament of Regeneration washes away all.

  II. If the previous Baptism was doubtful -- The convert is conditionally baptized, the following procedure being observed: 1. Abjuration or Profession of Faith and conditional absolution from censures. 2. Conditional Baptism. 3. Sacramental Confession with conditional absolution.

  III. If the previous Baptism was valid -- 1. Abjuration or Profession of Faith. 2. Absolution from censures. 3. Supplying of Ceremonies of Baptism (see form for adults [or of children, according to more recent decrees]) if desired.

  The priest vested in surplice and violet sits in front before the middle of the altar or, if the Blessed Sacrament is present, on the Epistle side. The convert kneels before him and with his right hand on the book of the Gospels (or the missal) reads the following: (If the convert cannot read the Priest reads it to him slowly and distinctly, so he may understand and repeat the words.)

                            **PROFESSION OF FAITH**

  I, N.N., ______ years of age, born outside the Catholic Church, have held and believed errors contrary to her teaching. Now, enlightened by divine grace, I kneel before you, Reverend Father _____________, having before my eyes and touching with my hand the holy Gospels. And with firm faith I believe and profess each and all the articles contained in the Apostles' Creed, that is: I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; He descended into hell, the third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty, from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

  I admit and embrace most firmly the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions ...

For the remainder of the Profession of Faith on can read it here: Reception of Converts and Profession of Faith.

For those who wish to read it from the Roman Ritual (page 10) of the 1952 edition, but noting that the Reception of Converts is dated July 20, 1859. This should suffice for placing the Profession of Faith within the Jur Novissimum.

  The canonical period known as the Ius Novissimum ran from the Council of Trent (1545-1563) to the promulgation of the Pio-Benedictine Code (1917).

Update

The original Rituale Romanum was promulgated by Pope Paul V on June 17, 1614 and has undergone several later editions, but has essentially remained the same.

  Numerous new editions of the Ritual of 1614 were published, introducing changes of various sorts, generally enriching the part dedicated to blessings, and organizing the material better and with different titles. These were issued by Popes Benedict XIV in 1742, Bl. Pius IX in 1862), Leo XIII in 1884, Pius XI in 1925, and Pius XII in 1952.

  Despite the various editions, the text which has come down to us remains essentially the same, and the use of it remains authorized and protected by the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007, as we celebrate the 400th anniversary of its promulgation. - The Fourth Centenary of the Rituale Romanum of Pope Paul V : June 17, 1614


The short answer: three separate and distinct beings.

In the Doctrine and Covenants (LDS canon), it states:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Additionally, in Joseph Smith -- History he recounts

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

David's link also has good information.


What common apologetic arguments support the view that it is more likely that Jesus was resurrected than his body was stolen?

I'm going to preface this by reminding the community that whether or not a theory is true is off-topic.  What is taught is what's at hand, and also what's asked. The following is only addressing what is asked: "What reasons are given".  Refrain from debates over what is more "plausible", please.

Unlike skeptics, Christians are willing to believe in the miraculous, so the idea that an idea sounds "miraculous" or "supernatural" does not automatically, in our minds, disqualify it from being reasonable.  Therefore, we accept the possibility of a single supernatural event as possible, and turn to the remaining evidence.

With that out of the way, the standard Apologetic answer is that the stolen body hypothesis does  not make sense in light of the evidence.

Excerpts from ChristianAnsers.net:

  Neither the Jewish nor the Roman leaders, who guarded the tomb
  (Matthew 27:62f) would have taken the body. Rather, both had every
  motive to produce the body publicly in order to humiliate the
  disciples and nip their movement in the bud.

  Likewise, is highly unlikely that Jesus' followers could have removed
  the body with a Roman guard protecting the tomb, plus a large stone
  door. And it won't work to charge them with inventing the account of
  the sleeping guards in Matthew. 28:11f. That story would only have
  served as apologetic propaganda had the guards stayed awake.

  Why would the disciples (or anyone else) want to risk their lives to
  steal Christ's body? The biblical record shows the disciples were
  scared, discouraged and disheartened. Their only motive could have
  been to deceive. But everything we read about these men indicates they
  were good and honest. How could they have gone out the rest of their
  lives and daily preached that Christ had risen from the dead when they
  knew all along it was a lie? Would they have sacrificed and suffered
  so greatly for something that they know was an outright deception?

  It would have been foolish to hide the corpse and fake a resurrection.
  The consequences of their loyalty to Jesus included beatings,
  imprisonments, and even death. No sane person chooses these for what
  they know is false. Under such pressures, liars confess their
  deceptions and betray their cohorts.

Beyond that, Jesus appeared to large groups of people after his death.  From about.com:

  A large crowd of more than 500 eyewitnesses saw the risen Jesus Christ
  at the same time. The Apostle Paul records this event in 1 Corinthians
  15:6. He states that most of these men and women were still alive when
  he wrote this letter, about 55 A.D. Undoubtedly they told others about
  this miracle. Today, psychologists say it would be impossible for a
  large crowd of people to have had the same hallucination at once.
  Smaller groups also saw the risen Christ, such as the apostles, and
  Cleopas and his companion. They all saw the same thing, and in the
  case of the apostles, they touched Jesus and watched him eat food. The
  hallucination theory is further debunked because after the ascension
  of Jesus into heaven, sightings of him stopped.

We can also point to the sudden emergence of courage of the Apostles.  After being a bunch of cowards that scattered to the wind at the crucifixion, they suddenly became brave, and willing to die as martyrs after seeing the resurrected Christ.

Also noted is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who went from persecuting Christians to being one of the most prolific authors of the new Testament, and who went through all sorts of hardships in the name of Christ after his encounter with the resurrected Christ.

(These are also documented in the links I gave.)

Note that searching for "Stolen body hypothesis" will give the same basic answer over and over.  Even Wikipedia covers it.


Under what conditions does the Bible support divorce?

I think Jonathon started with a great passage for this question, but stopped short of an interpretation that carries the full weight of the passage.

The passage has two different parts. One part addresses marriages between believers, the other mixed marriages.

First, let's take the part between believers:

  1st Corinthians 7:10-11 (ESV)
  To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

This is a clear mandate that believers should NOT divorce. There are no conditions given, no ifs, ands or buts. Now if we move on in the passage the group being addressed changes:

  1st Corinthians 7:12-15 (ESV)
  To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

Here relationships between a believer and a non-believer are address. Still the charge is to stay together. If there is a divorce it is ONLY to be allowed at the insistence of the non-believer, the believer does not have the option of requesting a divorce, but neither does he have the authority to forbid the other party from leaving. The most peaceful thing to do if you can't convince them to stay is let them have their way.

This should also be balanced with the warning in the next book about not marrying an unbeliever in the first place. It's a situation that should NEVER be entered into:

  2nd Corinthians 6:14-15 (ESV)
  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?

This leaves the passage in 1st Corinthians making an allowance for marriages where one partner came to faith after the marriage AND the non-believing party is insisting on a divorce.

Lastly I would like to point out that as a God ordained sacrament, all marriage is involves a covenant and God hates covenant breakers. I started out pointing out how the 1st Corinthians passage forbid divorce between believers, but one could also clearly show from Scripture that God hates ALL divorce. For example see Malachi 2:10-16.

TL;DR Based on these and other passages I would say that the literal answer to your question is that the Bible does not support divorce under ANY circumstances.


How do Cessationists view "being filled with the Holy Spirit"

A Cessationists can believe that a person is ‘filled with the Spirit’ in the sense and way described, but generally they do not.  An example of a Cessationist that believed in being filled with the Spirit would be Jonathan Edwards but not exactly as Tozer would explain it.  However, at the time of Tozer, the idea of being filled became viewed as a more of a ‘one time’ experience, after conversion, according to the influence of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement.  Later on people like Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones argued that a person can be filled ‘many times’ and this was nothing more than a kind of personal Revival that can happen whenever God in his sovereign will allows it, typically in response to praying for revival.

To confuse the issue, various views and distinction of words cropped up, where people distinguished between ‘being filled’ versus having a revival, etc., as ‘a filling’ could be thought more along the lines of general, slow and steady ‘sanctification’, but an ‘outpouring of the Spirit’ was something else. In this confusing time when every theologian had there favorite terms, I thought it was pretty clever of Billy Graham to say ‘I don’t care how you get it, just get.’ (regarding the filling of the Holy Spirit)

For a very insightful view of how a Cessationist describes special fillings or outpourings of the Spirit and how it really happens, I would read this Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls, In Northampton and the Neighbouring Towns and Villages in New Hampshire, In New England, by Jonathan Edwards. He also has a very acute sense between real and counterfeit experiences during a revival in the book, Religious Affections.


How Christians explain that Isaiah 7:14 refers to a virgin?

Regardless of later usage, exegesis should look at the original language and the likely original meaning of a text. In the original Hebrew, Isaiah 7:14 uses the word 'almah, which means 'young woman' and is used only in this sense in nine other references in the Old Testament.  The Hebrew word for 'virgin' is betulah and is used exclusively in that sense more than fifty times in the Hebrew Bible. Ian Wilson says in Jesus, page 46, that while 'almah carries a general connotation of eligibility for marriage, this does not necessarily mean virginity. Nevertheless, nearly all English-language Christian Bibles say 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14.

In chapter 7, in the reign of Ahaz, Jerusalem has survived a threat from Assyria and now the Aramaeans and Israelites (Ephraim) are the next threat (*). However, in 7:7-9, the Lord tells Isaiah that they will not succeed, and that Israel will be destroyed within just sixty five years (... within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.). He offers to provide Ahaz with a sign from God, to dissuade him from forming an alliance with Assyria, but Ahaz refuses. Isaiah presses the point, saying that a son shall be born, called Immanuel, and that he will be holy and there will be peace and prosperity.  In other words, I propose that Isaiah believed that this good news would help him persuade the king that God favoured Isaiah’s advice (**).

In spite of Christian tradition, this oracle could probably be linked to the birth of a royal baby in Isaiah 9:5-6:

  For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion [kingship] rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. His dominion is vast and forever peaceful, From David's throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains By judgment and justice, both now and forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this!

(*) At this stage, we must distinguish Israel (Ephraim) from Judah. They were separate nations and occasionally at war, as in this case. In later centuries, Judah glossed over these differences and adopted the name ‘Israelite’ for themselves, perhaps with a view to justifying  a claim on the rich northern lands of what was later known as Samaria, in line with its chief city and capital, Samaria.

(**)  I used to think that 7:14 refers to the prophet's wife and her baby (Isaiah 8:3), simply because of the proximity to 7:14, but I admit I was being lazy - a son born to a sometimes irritating prophet is not a sign that would make a king feel blessed by God . As I understood Isaiah better, I realised that the reference was to the royal baby mentioned in 9:5-6. In particular, only the expectation of a son would make the king feel blessed by God and willing to heed the words of his prophet. Isaiah 9:5-6 describes the king's son in raptuous terms, followed in the remainder of chapter 9 by news of the defeat of Israel, which had so recently threatened Judah.


What is the biblical basis for Historical Premillennialism?

I believe in Historical Premillennialism(mouthful) (Edit: Now I stand with Dispensation Premillennialism.) and I will use bullet points and passages after it to give the bases.

Evil will increase

  Luke 17, [20] Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed,

  Luke 17, [28] “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. [32] Remember Lot’s wife!

What was it like in the days of Lot? The passage, "Remember Lot's wife!" suggests that it is when Lot was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

  Genesis 13, [12] Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of  the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. [13] Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

  Genesis 18, [20] Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous [21] that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

  Genesis 19, [26] But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

It is pretty obvious here that the end of times are linked with sin. This is further reinforced with another verse in Book of Luke:

  Luke 17, [26] “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. [27] People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

  Genesis 6, [5] The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. [6] The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. [7] So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” [8] But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Great Tribulation

Tribulation refers to the hard times for the believers of Christ. There are disagreements on whether now is the time of tribulation or not. However, in America, the forces of Christianity are slowly decreasing. People are getting more wicked, to the point where they begin to arrest people when reciting bible publicly; to the point where in UK they began to teach health on Human Reproduction by showing physical sexual intercourse video (aka pornography, Google it if you don't believe me.)

  Luke 17 [30] “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. [31] On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. [32] Remember Lot’s wife! [33] Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. [34] I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. [35] Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

  Matthew 24 [3] As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” [4] Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. [5] For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. [6] You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. [7] Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. [8] All these are the beginning of birth pains. [9] “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. [10] At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, [11] and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. [12] Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, [13] but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. [14] And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. [15] “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— [16] then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. [17] Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. [18] Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. [19] How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! [20] Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. [21] For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

Matt 24: 3 to 6: I don't know about you, but I think the state of today reflects this verse.

Matt 24: 7: You remember the tsunami hitting on Japan, with Reactors exploding, etc, right? many people in Japan are migrating because the island is slowly sinking, according to the geologists. They say another one is coming.

Matt 24: 14: There is no nation which the Gospel of God and missionaries weren't sent to according to the experts. We sent them all. The only problem is to give every person the chance to repent.

Return of Christ

  Matt 24: [26] “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. [27] For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [28] Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. [29] “Immediately after the distress of those days

  “‘the sun will be darkened,
     and the moon will not give its light;
  the stars will fall from the sky,
     and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

  [30] “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. [31] And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

1000 year Reign

  Revelation 20: [1] And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. [2] He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. [3] He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
  [4] I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [5] (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. [6] Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Edit: As Caleb have said, my answer may not have any defense that holds this over all other views of the End. However, this question was asking for the biblical bases of this particular view, and besides, Jesus prophesies these events in SAME order on every other Gospels, least, I think so..

Edit: Yes. Matthew 24: 1 ~ 31, Mark 13: 1 ~ 26, Luke 17: 20 ~ 30. All of them list the things to come, in this particular order:

The Power of Satan Arising over the Churches and Followers of Christ --> Great Hardship for the followers of Christ --> Coming of Christ in Great Glory and Power.

Edit: (Again, as I said above, I stand with Dispensational Premillennialism. The Power of Satan Arising over the Churches and Followers of Christ --> The Rapture --> Great Hardship for the people of the world --> Coming of Christ in Great Glory and Power.

  Luke 17 [30] “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. [31] On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. [32] Remember Lot’s wife! [33] Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. [34] I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. [35] Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

Due to that fact that Jesus said that some will be taken, and some will be left behind, it suggests that Rapture will take place first and then Tribulation will take place.)


Like @curiousdannii pointed out in his comment, Arian influences do not equal an Arian viewpoint or verbatim parroting. In Qur'anic teaching, worship or veneration of anything besides God is strictly forbidden, or haram. This helps define what a Muslim (or a Christian or Jew or Sabean for that matter) can be and cannot be.

"Say: 'O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah.' And if they turn away, then say, 'bear witness that we are they who have surrendered unto him [Muslims].'"
— Surat al-Imran 3:64

Here the authors sought to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of who is and is not submissive to God's will; they understood that a polytheist couldn't care less about their al'Ilah, and they also knew that Catholics venerated saints (take others for lords)and placed Jesus at the right hand of God (ascribing a partner to God). Such a practice was unacceptable to them, and it was here that the line was drawn in the sand.
According to Arian schools of thought, worship of the Logos/the only-begotten Son was not rejected in favor of a strictly monotheistic faith. Arius' initial issue was not with worship of Jesus, but with semantics over what exactly the terms 'only-begotten' and 'one substance' implied. One faction believed that Christ was of one-substance, and that the Logos had not been created by the Father. Arius' followers instead posited that in eternity past, the Father created a lesser divinity through whom the creation would arise and would act as our reflection of the deity, meaning that the Logos was technically a created being.

"But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and ages as perfect as God, only-begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not."
— Arius of Alexandria's Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (circa AD 300)

Here you can see that Islamic perspectives on God are very much distinct from Arianism, perhaps more compatible with the Adoptionism that was popular in early Christianity or Paul Samosatene's theology.


How to reconcile the original creation of every soul (Creationism) by God with original sin?

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice [sic]. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ... III Original Sin ... Paragraph 404
The catechism here makes clear that sin is a matter of the transmissible human nature. Sin is a matter of humanity, of flesh and blood. And the flesh and blood, the humanity, that is inherited by natural generation, is that in which sin is transmitted.


What was Paul referring to by the "thorn in the flesh"?

There are many theories, including:

a demon, since Paul says it was a "messenger of Satan"
a physical affliction: "incessant temptation, dogged opponents, chronic maladies (such as eye problems, malaria, migraine headaches, and epilepsy), to a speech disability"
false teachers

(My personal theory is that it was his eyesight; but the majority of experts do not agree!)

We simply don't know for sure.

As for why, that's in the verse you quoted, to keep Paul "from becoming conceited".

We're all subject to pride and Paul, as a great leader in a new movement and chosen by Jesus Himself had reason (in man's eyes) to be conceited (he even said so himself). This "thorn" was apparently to prevent that, so that his work could continue without anyone being able to find fault with him.


How possible is it that the Septuagint / LXX wasn't specifically quoted in the NT?

It is highly unlikely. I will address the OP's commentary/questions in turn:

  The reason why I ask this is because I can't really seem to find much proof of the age of the Septuagint.

I offer the following pedantic quibble only because it is directly relevant to OP's concern: when considering the historical creation of the Greek Jewish scriptures, it is unhelpful to think of "the Septuagint" as a monolithic piece of literature. (This amusingly titled lecture makes the point well.) The "Old Greek" scriptures were translated over a period of 2-3 centuries, in various locations (Jobes) Still, it's a good question as to how we know when these translations were made.

  The two arguments for the authenticity ....

I'm not sure what is meant but "authenticity" here. For the sake of this answer, I'm going to assume OP means "creation prior to the turn of the era".

  The two arguments for the authenticity of the Septuagint[1] seem to be "the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint"....

(Here this almost sounds like "authenticity" has some theological weight, but I'm going to proceed by assuming this is purely a historical question about the date of the LXX.)

Right, they certainly did. The OP further suggests that the NT writers actually quoted from the Hebrew and either:

[the NT] was later changed to match the LXX;

This requires a very low view of the manuscript tradition by which we receive the Greek New Testament. Given the strength of NT manuscript evidence beginning in the 2nd C. and the absence of any evidence of a systematic scribal effort to change the manuscripts in this way, this is highly unlikely.2 The fact that the NT authors frequently draw on aspects of the LXX quotes that are unique to the Greek text in their arguments makes this all the more implausible.

Take Luke's account of Peter's application of Psalm 16 to the resurrection in Acts 2:26: "... my flesh will also dwell in hope..." (ep’ elpidi). The hope theme is characteristic of the Greek Psalms , but the Hebrew reads "my flesh dwells securely" (lābeṭaḥ) (see Aejmelaeus). In order to project (retroject) the choice of ep’ elpidi into the LXX, we would have to believe that Luke made this odd translation choice in one verse, and someone subsequently mined the Greek Psalter for words translating forms of bṭḥ ("to be secure") and changed most but not all of them to forms of elpizo ("to hope"). It is much more plausible that this represents a special proclivity (or whatever -- see Aejmelaeus) of the Psalms translator, and Luke was dependent on the form of the Greek Psalm 15  (Heb/EVV 16) that was passed down to him.

or
the LXX was written to match the NT.

Again, this would involve fabricating arguments in the NT out of thin air when they depend on readings not found in the Hebrew. More concretely, there is ample evidence that the Greek versions were created earlier. The OP cites Aristobulus who mentions the Greek law having been written during the reign of Ptolemy.  More famous (and probably earlier) is the entertaining and pseudonymous "Letter of Aristeas", dated by scholars to the 2nd C. BCE. It presents an elaborate story of the creation of the Greek "Law". The tale is widely considered to be a fabrication, possibly written to defend a particular form of the Greek text. Nonetheless, it attests to the existence of an established Greek text by the end of the 2nd C. BCE, i.e considerably prior to the NT. Other sources prior to the turn of the era which assume the existence of Greek translations include:

Eupolemos, a Jewish historian who wrote in the middle of the 2nd C. BCE and seems to have used a Greek version of Chronicles
the Greek text of Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira (a.k.a Sirach), dated ~132 BCE, which contains a prologue that makes reference to a translation of "the law, the prophets, and the rest of the books".

Additionally, linguistic studies show that the Greek translations comprising the "Septuagint" most closely approximate a phase of Koine Greek attested spanning from the beginning of the third to the end of the second centuries BCE. See Dines (pp. 50ff.) for details. She draws on Lee, 1983.

Most concretely, we have manuscript evidence of the Old Greek translations pre-dating the NT.  Please see this answer on Hermeneutics.SE for the details. A handful of manuscripts are dated prior to the turn of the era, and those dated to the 1st C. CE can also not reasonably be expected to have been altered to conform to a NT canon that did not  yet exist as such.

We can see, then, that it is unlikely that the Old Greek translations were substantially dependent on the New Testament. On the other hand, there may well be isolated instances of textual "problems" in the LXX that were introduced as "corrections" to agree with New Testament quotations. I'm aware of an argument by Karen Jobes (a respected LXX scholar) that the variation between the Greek and Hebrew of Psalm 40:7-9 were introduced by Christian scribes to conform to the text of Hebrews 10:5-7, which (she argues) was creatively adapted from a version of the Greek text (which is no longer extant) that looked more like the MT.3 This is an unusual scenario, though, and it is only possible in a text like the Psalter where there is no manuscript evidence in the pre-Christian era (in contrast to the Pentateuch, minor prophets). Some would also argue that Romans 3:13ff influenced the Greek text of Psalm 14:3 (LXX 13:3).

While I would be interested in learning about more instances like those described above, I think the evidence is sufficient (and certainly most Septuagint scholars think the evidence is sufficient) that the original Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures pre-dated the New Testament. The New Testament authors were dependent on (quoted, referenced, and drew insight and inspiration from) these texts.

 Notes, references:

1. In the strictest sense, "Septuagint"  refers only to the Pentateuch. I take it that the OP's interest is wider.

2. One would expect to see various stages of this, incomplete changes, more variants around these (hundreds) of verses that would need to be changed, etc. There was not a single, authoritative NT manuscript (or an authoritative manuscript of any book) available that could be changed definitively and then reproduced perfectly, thereby avoiding any traces of the emendation. I encourage you to read a book about NT textual criticism to frame your thinking on the plausibility of this.

3. This is a somewhat complicated but (IMO) elegant argument. For other, I think more standard, explanations of this discrepancy, see How is the Septuagint interpretation of Psalms 40:6 reconciled with the Hebrew text? on Hermeneutics.SE.

The information in this answer is attested in the following introductory texts. While Jobes/Silva is my personal favorite, Dines has more material specifically bearing on the OP's questions/concerns:

Karen Jobes and Moises Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint Baker Academic, 2nd Ed., 2015.

Jennifer M. Dines The Septuagint (T&T Clark, 2004).

I have also cited, in addition to linked material:

Anneli Aejmelaeus, Faith, Hope, and Interpretation: A Lexical and Syntactical Study of the Semantic Field of Hope in the Greek Psalter in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint presented to Eugene Ulrich Ed. Peter W. Flint et al. Brill, 2006.


If Joseph was Jesus's adoptive father then did Jesus really have David's blood?

These are two lineages in the Gospels.  One - which you have cited - in Matthew, which traces Jesus' ancestry through Joseph, and another in Luke which traces His ancestry through Mary.  Joseph's genealogy, however, also applies to Mary in that she, like he, was of the house and lineage of David (Luke 2:4).

John Chrysostom addresses your question directly in a 4th century homily on Matthew:

  “But whence is it manifest that He is of David?” one may say. For if
  He was not sprung of a man, but from a woman only, and the Virgin hath
  not her genealogy traced, how shall we know that He was of David’s
  race? Thus, there are two things inquired; both why His mother’s
  genealogy is not recited, and wherefore it can be that Joseph is
  mentioned by them, who hath no part in the birth: since the latter
  seems to be superfluous, and the former a defect.

  Of which then is it necessary to speak first? How the Virgin is of
  David. How then shall we know that she is of David? Hearken unto God,
  telling Gabriel to go unto “a virgin betrothed to a man (whose name
  was Joseph), of the house and lineage of David.” What now wouldest
  thou have plainer than this, when thou hast heard that the Virgin was
  of the house and lineage of David?

  Hence it is evident that Joseph also was of the same. Yes, for there
  was a law, which bade that it should not be lawful to take a wife from
  any other stock, but from the same tribe. And the patriarch Jacob also
  foretold that He should arise out of the tribe of Judah, saying on
  this wise: there shall not fail a ruler out of Judah, nor a governor
  out of his loins, until He come for whom it is appointed, and He is
  the expectation of the Gentiles.” [Genesis 49:10 LXX]

  Homily II on Matthew


'Āḏām comes from the Hebrew 'āḏām, meaning "human being, mankind collectively, cognate with Phoenician 'dm (probably adam), Arabic 'adam human being; further etymology uncertain: perhaps related to 'aḏamāh earth, ground (compare the juxtaposition of 'āḏām and 'aḏamāh in Genesis 2:7, where God forms man out of earth) or to 'aḏom red, ruddy" (OED).


How is Matthew 24:36 explained by trinitarians?

I think in order to understand things like this it is necessary to come to terms with how Jesus operated in his earthly ministry.

According to Phillipans 2:5 ff:

  Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Traditional, orthodox Christian teaching is that Jesus, when on earth, was fully God and fully man at the same time.  In order to attain our salvation, the Godhead determined that the act of disobedience in the garden of Eden would be countered by an equal act of obedience.  To that end, by his own divine fiat Jesus, God the Son, chose to limit himself to an exercise of power equal to that which an obedient human could exercise.  That is, he emptied himself of his equality with God and for a time operated out of a limited human power.

All that he knew while in this humbled state he knew because the Father revealed it to him through the Holy Spirit.  That is why we can do "these things and greater", because he operated in the same power and revelation that the Holy Spirit grants the church. As he himself said:

  So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise (John 5:19).

In theory at any time, Jesus could have shrugged off the mantel of humanity and resumed his Godly state; but had he done so our salvation would have been lost, perfect obedience would have been broken and the unity of the Trinity would have been shattered.  That last is why I say, in theory, because the area of understanding the dual natures of the Son is a deep mystery that the church can only explore and probe, but never fully understand until we see him in glory in the next life.  Then the great mysteries of God will be revealed to us.

So when Jesus said that he, the Son, did not know the day or the hour of his second coming, he meant only that as the Son of Man (i.e. Jesus in his limited state during his earthly ministry) the Father had not revealed to him the time of his return, only that he would return.


Does the Bible indicate whether Solomon is in heaven?

In God's promise to David, Solomon's father, He says,

  The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’ ”

  2 Samuel 7:11-16, emphasis added

You could debate what 'saved' means...  But, according to the promise to David, I would say God never turned his face from Solomon.

In that regard, in terms of salvation in the New Testament, as those in the old looked forward in faith to an event they did not know, and those in the New look back in faith to one they do know, I have held and continue to hold that, in this regard, you could say Solomon was 'saved'.

Pertaining to interpretation, while portions of this also point to Christ, I don't see how this part could, since it talks about "doing wrong".  In that regard, it seems this portion refers to Solomon literally.