Was the near-stoning of the adulterous woman something to be considered common practice, or was it strictly to trick Jesus?

In short, the argument you heard is sound. In John 18:31, the Jewish leaders make it clear they are unable to execute anyone by Roman law:

  So Pilate said to them, "Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law." The Jews said to him, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death," —John 18:31 NASB

The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopaedia and Scriptural Dictionary, Fully Defining Explaining All Religious Terms, Including Biographical, Geographical, Historical, and Archaeological Doctrinal Themes, Volume 2 by Herbert Lockwood Willett confirms this on page 951:

  But the Sanhedrin could only pass, not execute, the death sentence.

Here is a similar sentiment from Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

  The Jews themselves say that the power of inflicting capital punishment was taken away about 40 years before the destruction of the temple

And the same from Bengel's Gnomen:

  Jewish history accordingly tells us that on that very year, the fortieth before the overthrow of the city, the power was taken from them.

A list of arguments is provided by the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

  On the one hand we have (1) this verse; (2) the statement of the Talmud that 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews lost this power; (3) the evidence of Josephus (Ant. xx. ix. 1; comp. xviii. i. 1; xvi. ii. 4, and vi.) that the high priest could not summon a judicial court of the Sanhedrin without the Procurator’s leave; (4) the analogy of Roman law.

Matthew Poole's Commentary provides another argument:

  We are assured by such as are exercised in the Jewish writings, that the power of putting any to death was taken away from the Jews forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Some say it was not taken away by the Romans, but by their own court. They thought it so horrid a thing to put an Israelite to death, that wickedness of all sorts grew to such a height amongst them, through the impunity, or too light punishment, of criminals, that their courts durst not execute their just authority.

The Pharisees may have risked the execution of the woman in question because it was not anything the Roman government would take notice of. They could not stone Jesus outright because he was a figure the Romans were aware of. As for the woman accused of committing adultery, this website has a fairly thorough, straightforward explanation:

  Under Roman rule, the power to impose capital punishment, including by stoning, had been taken away from all Jewish authorities. Only a Roman tribunal could impose the death penalty. That is why even after Jesus was eventually arrested and condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, they didn’t stone him immediately themselves; he had to be taken before the Roman governor, Pilate, to actually impose the death penalty. And when it was imposed he was killed using the Roman method — crucifixion– not stoning. The Jewish leaders had no legal authority to put him to death.

The rest of the article appears to be the writer's personal opinions on the state of the Church today, but the logic in the above paragraph is sound.

To specifically address the commonality of illegal lynchings at the time, it is reasonable to assume they were a rare occurrence. On the contrary, it was seen as an abhorrent thing. Poole's Commentary above summarizes the Jewish people's attitudes towards the execution of Israelites. In addition, it is common knowledge that the Romans actively oppressed the Israelites. They would not risk the wrath of Rome to perform an action that they already hated.

This is completely unrelated to the question, but I found it while researching.
 It's pretty interesting. Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary by John J. Rousseau provides a description of how extralegal stonings such as this one occurred in Jesus' time. Here is an excerpt from page 264:

  In the time of Jesus, the [Jewish] legal procedure was probably closer to that of the Mishnah. It allowed for new evidence in favor of the offender until the last minute and for confession before death. According to this text the condemned was first stripped of his garments and thrown down from a platform nine feet high by the first witness. If he survived the fall, the second witness cast a heavy stone on his chest and, if death did not occur at this point, all those present stoned him. After stoning, the body was hanged on a tree.


If one divorces is it considered adultery to marry again no matter what the circumstances were for this decision?

An important consideration is the audience to which each of these statements was made.  Jesus was speaking to Jewish people living under the Law of Moses prior to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.  Paul, however, was speaking to believers in Jesus Christ, who may have been Jewish, but had a spouse who was not a believer.

From a purely biblical perspective and very strict adherence to biblical standards, a Christian is bound to the marriage vows until they are dissolved, either by death or marital unfaithfulness--whether before or after divorce.

A key thing to note is that once a couple is divorced, the departing spouse commits marital unfaithfulness upon either remarriage or a sexual relationship with a new partner.  At that point, the requirement of marital faithfulness has been met, and the other partner would then be free to remarry.

So, a believing spouse whose partner departs is freed after a divorce when the departing spouse engages in marital unfaithfulness with another partner.

Paul adds the exemption of a departing unbelieving spouse as well.  This condition would not have existed at the time of Jesus' word.  The New Covenant went into effect upon the resurrection of Jesus, which then gave rise to divisions between believing and unbelieving partners.


No, you cannot be baptized twice.  The sacrament is unique and irremovable, and there is therefore no need for a second baptism.  According to the Code of Canon Law only unbaptized individuals are eligible for baptism:

  Can. 864 Every unbaptised person, and only such a person, can be baptised.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also quotes this canon directly:

  1246 "Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized."46

If it is uncertain whether someone was baptized the Church may perform what is called a "conditional baptism," but this is very different from a second baptism such as you desire.


Why are there no longer large-scale miracles from God?

All the miracles haven't gone, rather The Miracle has come.

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

All your questions come down to this. The incarnation of Christ changed the tangible state of our relationship to God. The primary job of the prophets was to inform the people about God and his ways and point them towards the salvation found only in Him. When Christ finally came, there was left nothing more that needed revealing.

  Colossians 1:19 (ESV)
  19  For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

The job that remains is not the job of revelation that the prophets had but  one of declaration. We proclaim that which has already been revealed.

  Acts 4:20 (ESV)
  20  for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

The miracles of the Old Testament were given as signs to validate the truth of the prophets message and that it was indeed from God. Then God himself came and gave the greatest sign of all.

  Acts 2:32 (ESV)
  32  This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

If you do not believe in the resurrection based on the evidence you have been provided, no miracle will help you.

  My struggle would be a lot easier if I watched the Red Sea split in two. You see?

No, actually, according to the Bible it would not be. Do you seriously think that you are somehow superior to the Israelites? Do you think the nature of man has evolved to be more rational, more pure? Those that watched the Red Sea part and walked across on dry land quickly fell into dis-belief. They promptly doubted God's good intentions and ability to save. You are no different and your faith would not be any easier for having watched it in your lifetime.

  Psalm 78:32 (ESV)
  32  In spite of all this, they still sinned;
         despite his wonders, they did not believe.

The people of Jesus time made the same demand that you are trying to make. You would do well to head Jesus' answer.

  Matthew 12:38-40 (ESV)
  38  Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39  But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40  For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

If the resurrection of Christ from the grave is not enough to convince you, no supernatural intervention into your space and time will help. Those who were in a position to know best if the resurrection was a fraud were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming that it was legitimate. You have their testimony.

  John 20:31 (ESV)
  31  but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

According to the Bible, you do not need a miracle. You have what you need to believe, you lack only faith and that is something you cannot conjure up on your own.

  Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV)
  8  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9  not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

So pray — not that God would show you a miracle for he has done that in spades — but that he would grant you faith.

Endnotes:

This answer glosses over a number of issues that are bound to come up. The apostles also did miracles that were used to validate their witness and the authority with which they spoke (which is part of why their words are added to the Old Testament to make the canon of Scripture we have today). It also avoids the issue of New Testament gifts and whether it's possible that some gifts continued to be used as miraculous signs after the incarnation. While those issues surely deserve examination, they must be secondary to the realization that the main miracle happened and that we are have been given enough evidence to believe without a miracle. After we come to grips with the fact that our unbelief is sin whether we've seen a miracle with our own eyes or not, then the other issues can be discussed. I focused the body of this answer on the main story line. Get that straight and the other pieces will be easier to fit in the puzzle. Miss the main plot and they will only serve to confuse and confound.


Does the church have any teachings on whether the Assumption of Mary occurred indoors?

Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have their own particular aspects or traditions on the Assumption of Mary.

They both, more or less, share the tradition that at the time the Virgin Mary died (or fell asleep), she was placed in a tomb. However, St Thomas was not present when the time came for Mary to pass on from this life to the next. So he asked the other Apostles to see the body of the Mother of Jesus who had been laid to rest in the tomb for a number of days. When the tomb was opened the body was no longer there.

This tradition is quite common in both Churches. They differ primarily as to where these events took place. The Orthodox Church believes The Assumption of Mary occurred at Jerusalem, while the Catholic Church favors the option that it occurred at Ephesus.

  St. John Damascene (d. 749) also recorded an interesting story concerning the Assumption: "St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven." In all, the Patristic Fathers defended the Assumption on two counts: Since Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin, she could not suffer bodily deterioration, the result of Original Sin, after her death. Also, if Mary bore Christ and played an intimate role as His mother in the redemption of man, then she must likewise share body and soul in His resurrection and glorification. - The Assumption of Mary

The Assumption of Mary into heaven is not a resurrection. In fact we do not even know if the Virgin Mary truly died. Both Churches have traditions on this issue also, but nothing has been defined.

Being assumed indoors should not pose a problem here. St Thomas Aquinas on his  Seven Properties of the Glorified Body tells us that a glorified body would possess the characteristic of subtlety and thus be able to pass through material objects like doors:

  5.Subtlety: On Easter Sunday night, Jesus appeared to His Apostles, who were hiding out in the upper room in Jerusalem. In Chapter 20 of his Gospel, St. John notes that the door behind which the Apostles were hiding was locked. Then Jesus appears before them in His glorified body. He is not a ghost! Because of the property known as subtlety, Jesus was able to pass through the door of the upper room. Earlier that same day, He had passed through the sealed tomb in His risen, glorified body. Our glorified bodies, while physical and tangible, will be completely under the direction of our souls, free from restraint or impediment. This is Subtlety indeed!


The believe in the existence of Spirit is accepted by many, theist and atheist alike. The Bible also has many verses related to spirits. In spite of all kinds of theories, like the one you mentioned, I will stick to Biblical teaching only.

According to New Testament, the destination/fate of the soul lies solely on the Faith of that person, not his deeds, of course, Faith should be incorporated with deeds. The rich or poor status of the person also does not define the progression of the Spirit as mentioned in the Fundamental Principles of Spiritism.

  John 3:16 (NIV) For God so loved the
  world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him
  shall not perish but have eternal life.

There is no concept of Progression or Rebirth of spirit in the Bible.

  Hebrews 9:27 (NIV) Just as people are destined to die once, and after
  that to face judgment

In the parablea of The Rich Man and Lazarus, there are things we should know.

Being rich does not make you a sinner. But worldly wealth will steal your heart away from God.

  Mark 4:19 (NIV) but the worries of this
  life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things
  come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.

Being poor does not make you a Saint either. Lazarus did not go to Heaven just because he was poor. The poor man Lazarus listened to the words of the prophets but the rich man did not.

  Luke 16:29 (NIV) “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

Therefore, your suffering in this life will not define what will happen to your soul, but, your faith in God will decide.

 a whether this is a parable or real incident is not the scope of this answer


On what basis do Catholics continue doctrinal development after the Bible canon was closed?

The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that general revelation ended with the Apostles (cf. condemned proposition no. 21 in Pope St. Pius X's Lamentabili Sane). This general revelation forms the Deposit of the Faith, which is taught and explained by the Church.
We see through history that Church fathers, saints, and theologians have explained the Deposit of the Faith in new ways. Per Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 66,

Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

Obviously, new explanations must be judged prudently by the Church, lest contradiction or novelty be introduced. St. John Henry Newman, in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, shows a set of principles by which genuine development may be judged. Summarily, these are:

Preservation of Type
Continuity of Principles
Power of Assimilation
Logical Sequence
Anticipation of Its Future
Conservative Action upon Its Past
Chronic Vigor


Short Answer: When we say "God is omnipotent" we mean "He has the power to do whatever He pleases".  There are other definitions, such as "capable of doing anything man can think up", but by such definitions He would not be considered "omnipotent".

Semantics

As indicated in the wikipedia post you linked, there are many definitions for the word omnipotent.  As with many of the heavily debated topics in Christianity today, the controversy arises when we begin to mix two different definitions during a debate.  (Other examples: "evolution", "knowledge", "free-will", "love", "life", "evil", and so on.)  The word omnipotent literally translates as "all-powerful", but as usual, the meaning of the word is determined by the person using it, and is clarified by the context of their usage.

So here's the story behind this controversy: Christian theologians have studied the Bible and noticed some things about God (such as His great power), and have summarized those things using simple terms (such as omnipotence).  For a Christian, the word omnipotent is simply a term used to refer to the teachings of Scripture about God's great power - nothing more, nothing less.  Heathens (in their blindness and ignorance) have noticed Christians attributing "omnipotence" to God, have used a different definition of the word which is based on a misunderstanding of the Christian usage, and have then used this heathen definition to attack and accuse Christians.  Modern Christians (in their laziness) often accept the heathen definitions, neglect to study the topic in Scripture, but have faith that God must be omnipotent, and then try to reconcile their view of God with the heathen definition.

The solution to all of this confusion is for Christians to study the Scriptures and understand what was originally meant by the term omnipotence in Christian theology, and stop trying to train "unreasoning animals" to understand things which are impossible for them to understand, and which they are unwilling to accept.  With that said, let's take a quick look at the definition commonly used by heathens.

The Heathen Definition

Heathens often use the word omnipotent to mean "capable of doing anything."  Modern (naturalistic) heathens have a field day in debates using this definition, because it opens up all sorts of nonsensical attacks, such as "can God create a rock so big He cannot move it?", which is essentially the same as asking, "does God have the power to create a situation in which He is powerless?", or even more plainly, "does God have the power to not be God?"  As C. S. Lewis pointed out, this is nothing more than shrewd, nonsensical wordplay.

A Scriptural Definition

Let's look at what the Bible says and see what sort of picture is actually painted in Scripture.

  “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “ who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” -Revelation 1:8

Passages such as this one teach us that God is "almighty".  It is most accurate to think of this word as meaning "God has unlimited might, which enables Him to do anything He wants to do", rather than interpreting this to mean "it is possible for God to do anything we can think up."  The following passage describes this more clearly:

  our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. -Psalm 115:3

In other words, once God desires to do something, He has the power to do it, and He does it.  This does not mean that God has the capacity to do whatever we can think up.  It means God has the power to do whatever He wants to do.  Of course "what He wants to do" is going to be consistent with His nature.  As we learn more about the nature of God, we can better understand what sorts of things He would do, and can better understand how He works, how we should pray, etc.  For example, God is love, God is good, God is just, and so on.

The Difference

Thus, by the Christian definition, there are things God cannot do, because He cannot contradict His nature.  For example, He is faithful, so He cannot be faithless;

  If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. -2 Timothy 2:13

Another example is that since God is truth, He cannot lie:

  God, who cannot lie, promised... -Titus 1:2

So by the Christian definition, God's actions are limited by His nature, while the heathen definition requires that God be capable of anything -- even things contrary to His "nature."

How to debate with heathens

Heathen: "Christians say God is omnipotent, but that's impossible.  Let me illustrate with a question: Can God create a rock so big He cannot move it?  If you say yes then He can't be omnipotent because He can't move it, and if you say no then He can't be omnipotent because He can't make a rock that big."

Christian: "That question doesn't really make sense.  The rock you described is a nonsensical object.  The size of a rock doesn't change God's ability to move it.  That's like asking if God can make a ball so green that He can't roll it; the color of a ball doesn't impact God's ability to roll it anymore than the size of a rock impacts God's ability to move it."

Heathen: "My point is, if God is omnipotent then He should have the power to do anything, but does He have the power to make a contradiction?  Can He create a square circle?  Does He have the power to limit His power?"

Christian: "You are confused about the meaning of the word omnipotent when it is used by Christians.  We use that word to refer to God's ability to do whatever He wants to do.  Your example is equivalent to asking if God has the power to not be God.  Not only is that nonsensical, but it would require God to act contrary to His nature, which He cannot do."

Heathen: "So God isn't really omnipotent?"

Christian: "God is almighty and does whatever He pleases.  There are things He cannot do, such as lie, so if your definition of "omnipotent" includes the capacity and ability to do anything man can think up, then He would not be "omnipotent" according to your definition."

Heathen: "So God isn't really omnipotent.  In that case He can't be God."

Christian: "You are using heathen definitions and heathen criteria for classifying a being as 'God' to show that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist.  Not only is this arrogant and insane (since the human brain is far too small to draw such a conclusion), but your method presupposes your conclusion that there is no God.  If God were real, He would be the only one qualified to explain His attributes and nature, and it would be our job to learn from Him.  Christians believe He has done this in Scripture.  If you wanted to see if the Christian view were internally consistent, you would have to look at Scripture, and according to Scripture, you would need to know Him in order to understand His ways.  So if you are interested in knowing the truth, start by seeking God in prayer and reading Scripture.  Once He begins to open up your eyes to the truth, these things will begin to make more sense to you.  If you are not interested in knowing the truth, feel free to continue scoffing at God, but these arguments only 'disprove the possibility of God's existence' from a perspective which presupposes His non-existence.  This is what the Bible refers to when it says 'the wisdom of this world is foolish to God'."


Can a Catholic ask for protection from a priest in case his/her spouse has filed a no-fault divorce?

First, I think I should point out that priests have no say in who gets a secular divorce. (Depending on circumstances, it might actually even be the right thing to do.) A tribunal, on the other hand, does have the authority to grant an annulment.

My experience is that the no-fault annulment is possible, but very difficult. It becomes incumbent upon the person who wants the annulment to prove that the marriage is not valid. Sometimes this is easy (one spouse says, "I was piss drunk for our wedding, I slept with her maid of honor (or best man), and I am a schizophrenic who had skipped a month of medication before the ceremony"), other times it becomes almost impossible.

But, that's still "almost". I did have a friend who got an annulment, and her then husband was not too fond of it (though there was clear grounds). He dragged his heals in the process and even managed to delay it for at least a year (the process took three altogether), but eventually she was able to get the Church to hear her out, and the Church agreed with her.


Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies

The basic rules and assumptions are as follows:

That we are defending the notion that the Bible is, indeed, inspired, and therefore inerrant and infallible.  It cannot contain errors, and if a true contradiction is found, it is, by definition, an error.  Either one is correct and the other is wrong, or they are both wrong.  Either way, the Bible is no longer infallible and inerrant.
That God does not change His word. It is Eternal.  (Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20.)
The default position is that the Bible is inerrant.  We are answering the claim of someone that is challenging that position.  Therefore, the burden of proof is upon that person, not on the person defending the claim of inerrancy.
If a reasonable, plausible explanation can be given for the discrepancy, then the person challenging the inerrancy of Scripture has failed to provide proof.  This does not mean that the plausible answer is necessarily truth, but it means that the "discrepancy" does have a plausible, logical resolution, so the skeptic has not proved that a contradiction, in fact, exists.
The definition of Biblical Inerrancy is important.  As described in the link in the first bullet point, inerrancy does not apply to the current translations of Scripture to the point that copyist errors count as "errors".  Inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts, and we completely accept that copyist errors can and likely do exist in today's manuscripts.

Using those five basic rules, the vast majority of "contradictions" can be attributed to one of two possible causes.

Copyist errors
A misunderstanding of the context.  (Historical context, cultural context, taking a verse out of context with related passages of Scripture, different meanings for words used at the time a translation was written compared to the meaning of the words today, etc.)

Some examples:

  2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting men in Judah, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1
  Chronicles 21:5. (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

  Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not
  complete the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of the tribe
  of Benjamin, nor that of Levi's either, due to the fact that David
  came under conviction about completing the census at all. Thus the
  different numbers indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular
  unspecified groups in the nation. We find another reference to this in
  1 Chronicles 27:23-24 where it states that David did not include those
  twenty years old and younger, and that since Joab did not finish the
  census the number was not recorded in King David's Chronicle.

  The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the
  trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northern
  most tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7). The
  numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin
  would not be included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah,
  either. In the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the
  already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the
  total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent.

  Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the North
  and the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC, most of the
  Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted
  (along with Simeon to the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was
  reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the sub-total
  figure of 500,000, even though Joab may not have itemized it in the
  first report he gave to David (1 Chronicles 21:5). Therefore the
  completed grand total of fighting forces available to David for
  military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of
  Judah-Simeon, and 30,000 of Benjamin).

  (Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189)

  Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)?

  (Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

  This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements
  are true. It was towards the end of David's reign, and David was
  looking back over his brilliant conquests, which had brought the
  Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage
  and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and
  self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms
  of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of God.

  The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be brought to
  his knees, where he would once again be cast back onto the mercy of
  God. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just
  how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would
  accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab's
  warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon
  as the numbering was completed, God intended to chasten the nation
  with a disastrous plague which would bring about an enormous loss of
  life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel
  24:15).

  What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair
  (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already prompted David to
  commit the folly he had in mind? It seems his reasons were entirely
  malicious, knowing that a census would displease the Lord (1
  Chronicles 21:7-8), and so he also incited David to carry it through.

  Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences
  in the Bible where both the Lord and Satan were involved in
  soul-searching testings and trials:

  In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. God's
  purpose was to purify Job's faith, and to strengthen his character by
  means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan's purpose was
  purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he
  would recant his faith in his God.
  Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's purpose
  is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the
  sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in
  the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan's
  purpose is to 'devour' them (1 Peter 5:8), or rather to draw them into
  self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level.
  Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations during his ministry on earth. God's purpose for these temptations was for him to
  triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam
  to his fall, whereas Satan's purpose was to deflect the saviour from
  his messianic mission.
  In the case of Peter's three denials of Jesus in the court of the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of both
  parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon,
  Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon,
  that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back,
  strengthen your brothers."
  And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when
  he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27),
  causing him to betray Jesus. The Lord's reasoning behind the
  crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the Lamb slain from the
  foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so
  that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at
  the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a
  relationship which is now eternal.

  Thus we have five other examples where both the Lord and Satan were involved together though with entirely different motives. Satan's
  motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven
  by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an
  entirely different motive. His was a benevolent motive with a view to
  eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of
  the person tested. In every case Satan's success was limited and
  transient; while in the end God's purpose was well served furthering
  His cause substantially.

  (Archer 1982:186-188)

Rules taken from various sources, including:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/101contradictions.html
http://www.booksofthebible.com/p4992.html
http://carm.org/introduction-bible-difficulties-and-bible-contradictions
Finally, an amazing resource for finding the resolution to a vast array of  the alleged discrepancies, see http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx


The symbolism actually comes almost entirely from Brigham Young's fascination with one simple verse in the Book of Mormon.

  Ether 2:3

  And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.

When Brigham Young worked to establish Mormon colonies throughout the Inter-Mountain West region, the colony eventually petitioned the US government for statehood.  Brigham Young decided that the territory should be called "Deseret," because he saw the honeybee's industriousness and self-sufficiency as admirable and worthy of emulation.  The proposed State of Deseret was enormous, covering almost all of modern-day Utah and Nevada, and smaller portions of the surrounding states, and Congress ended up denying the petition, and instead allowing statehood to smaller regions.  However, to this day, a beehive icon titled INDUSTRY figures prominently in the official seal of the state of Utah, also known as "the beehive state."

The term Deseret is used in many parts of Mormon culture, particularly in Utah. (See the Wikipedia disambiguation page for several prominent examples.)

It's worth noting that 20th century scholarship and research into ancient Egyptian language and culture has discovered that honeybees were held in extremely high regard by the Pharaohs, and the word DSR.T (vowels removed, as they were not part of the written language) was associated with them. (Nibley, "The Deseret Connection", Abraham In Egypt)

Within the church, the beehive symbol is easily recognizable, but is not particularly common.  For example, the pulpit at the Conference Center is decorated with a beehive icon, as noted in the question, but in most local chapels it is not present on the pulpit.


Are there any conflicts between how Jesus is described in the Book of Mormon vs how He is described in the Bible?

By simply limiting this answer to the similarities of the Book of Mormon and the Bible here is what I've put together (note this is in no way a complete compilation of the similarities but rather a starting point):

|   Doctrine                |      Book of Mormon   |      Bible (KJV)      |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                           |                       |                       |
|1. Jesus was born of Virgin|       Alma 7:9-10     |       Matthew 1:16    |
|   Mary                    |                       |                       |
|                           |                       |                       |
|2. He institued the        |     3 Nephi 18        |       Matthew 26      |
|   Sacrament for His       |                       |                       |
|   followers               |                       |                       |
|                           |                       |                       |
|3. The resurected Christ   |    3 Nephi 11:14-15   |       John 20: 26-27  |
|   had scars he showed his |                       |                       |
|   believers               |                       |                       |
|                           |                       |                       |
|4. Christ taught similar   |    3 Nephi 12         |       Matthew 5       |
|   doctrines               |                       |                       |
|                           |                       |                       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will try to update as I find more


In what situations does the Bible say it's acceptable, perhaps, to do an action you might consider sinful?

The situation you are probably thinking of is Naaman, whose story appears in 2 Kings chapter 5. Naaman, 'commander of the army of the king of Aram', was healed of leprosy through the prophet Elisha, and becomes a follower of God. He says:

  Your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord. But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.” (verse 17-18)

On the other hand, if you read the story of Daniel, he and his companions Shadrach, Mesdhach and Abednego refused to follow the commands of the King and were thrown into a den of lions/fiery furnace for this. So you can't take this as a universal example.

You might also like to read Matthew Chapter 12, where Jesus gives a couple of examples of doing things that were not lawful - especially David, who ate the forbidden bread when he and his companions were hungry.


How does Jesus' pre-incarnational existence relate to oneness pentecostalist godhead doctrine?

From an orthodox trinitarian perspective, Jesus talks to the Father at the Garden of Gethsemane which proves Jesus is distinct from the Father (multiple persons). God in classical theism is understood to be the only uncreated substance in reality. So if Jesus did not preexist the Incarnation, then He is not God. If Jesus did preexist the Incarnation in such a way that He always existed, then Jesus is uncreated and therefore God. There is only one substance which is uncreated, so there is only one God. But in this substance are multiple persons.

So to answer your question, the preexistence of Jesus is important to the trinitarian because it implies that Jesus is uncreated and therefore God. The preexistence of Jesus is dangerous to the unitarian because they are trying to assert that there are not multiple persons in the uncreated substance we call God, so they instead attempt to prove that Jesus is a created being.

It all comes down to whether or not Jesus is created or uncreated.

P.S. I noticed someone had downvoted you, and I don't know why they did that. I thought your question was well formulated and honestly asked.


Who first divided the Bible's books into chapters?

The Bible used today by Christians was dived into chapter and verse by Catholic Arch Bishop Stephen Langton.

Prior to this, Jewish Rabbi,s had devided the OT, the OT used in their calendar, so that is could be used is worship through the year.  This was their Catechism and their Liturgy.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses differentiate Jesus' role in creation from that of a Demiurge?

Before reading this question, I had never heard of the term "demiurge," nor am I very familiar with philosophical terms, but I'm familiar with the Bible and the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses (since I am one), so I can answer based on the brief explanation given on Wikipedia of a Demiurge.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus is a (co-)creator. Rather, we believe according to the Scriptures that everything (besides Jesus himself) was created "through" Jesus. (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6)

Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.—Mt 19:4-6
— Insight on the Scriptures, "Jesus Christ"

Therefore, the role of Jesus in creation could be likened to the role that Moses played in the writing of the Law (John 1:17), or that the angels played as God's messengers. Jesus was not the originator of the creative power or ideas, but he followed God's instructions as God's "master worker." (Prov. 8:30)
When Jesus was accused by the Jews of "making himself equal to God," Jesus' response greatly clarified Jesus' role in relation to God, his Father.

John 5:19 — Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner.

Rather than viewing Jesus as a creator or an artisan (a demiurge), Jehovah's Witnesses view Jesus as the instrument of the one Creator and Artisan — Jehovah God.


According to Catholicism, how many times did Jesus "rise again"?

The short answer is the Resurrection of Jesus occurred only once, and it will not occur again in the future. (We only say “rose again” to emphasize that Jesus really died as a result of the Crucifixion.)
However, some important clarifications are in order:

The Church does not teach that Jesus went to Purgatory. Purgatory exists in order for those who die in friendship with God to be purified of the effects of their sins, should that still be necessary, after death. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1030-1032.) Jesus did not have any sins to purify.
The Church does teach, however, that the righteous who died before the Resurrection of Christ awaited the Resurrection before they entered Heaven. Jesus visited them after his death on the Cross in order to release them and bring them to Heaven. (See CCC 631-637.)

God by nature is pure spirit. He is utterly unchanging, and so He is not affected even by the Incarnation. We are not to think, therefore, that by becoming incarnate, the Son “left Heaven” behind. Rather, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, assumed a human nature at the Incarnation. As the Catechism puts it:

At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature. (No. 479.)

By the Incarnation, the Son assumed a complete human nature: therefore, He has (in His human nature), a human body, a human soul, a human intellect, and a human will. It is important not to confuse Jesus’ human soul with his Divine Nature. Both are spiritual, but one is human and the other is Divine. (CCC 471-475.)

Only a human being can die, go to the abode of the dead, and rise. Therefore, when Jesus did these things, he did so in his human nature only. Nevertheless, actions are always ascribed to the person who performs them. Therefore, since Jesus is a a Divine Person, we can legitimately say that God died, went to the abode of the dead, and rose. However, I reiterate, he accomplished these things in his human nature, not his Divine Nature. (CCC 470.)

The Incarnation, by divine decree, is permanent. In the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, “his kingdom will have no end.” The Son has promised that will never annihilate His human nature (although He is, of course, capable of doing so.) So no, the Son did not become man “only for a few years.”


What is the significance of Lamech's boast?

Lamech killed some younger man. Lamech represents the fifth and last generation mentioned of the Cainites, who by that time were probably a large multitude occupying cities. Lamech represents the culmination of those that turned away from the promise of the Messiah to Eve, in contrast to the Sethites which were the early church.

What we have in Lamech's short poem to his wives, whose names in Hebrew mean 'ornament' and 'shade', is the height of violent boasting.  He essentially say's 'I will kill (and have) who I want and anyone who avenges it shall suffer!'  Grabbing beautiful wives (a polygamy of ornament and 'shade', possibly cast from the lovely flowing hair by his second wife) and having children that were committed to establishing crafts and skills and building cities, implies that in addition to the violence of this people, they were vain, lustful and seeking permanent settlement into the pleasures and ambitions of this world.  The Sethites on the other hand were more like visitors to the world, looking for a better life by faith. Basically Lamech's great boasts, lusts and violence was the early version of Heathenism later represented so well by Greece and Rome.

Note: In my answer I have mostly summarized points learned from Alfred Edersheim's 'The Bible History, Old Testament  Volume I ' but the idea of two races developing with different agendas early in Genesis is common to most Bible Commentaries.


Should Catholic christians be obligated to use in vitro fertilisation? If not, why not?

tl;dr> The Church opposes in vitro fertilisation, but not because it is humanity playing at being God.

The first port of call in determining what the Catholic Church teaches is always the Catechism. If question can be answered by fundamental principles, the answer is likely to be found there. So: first it's necessary to examine the fundamental principles.
The Catechism states

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39
1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

Even though the creation of life is good, it cannot justify a sinful method.
Is in vitro fertilisation a sin?

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. the Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

Is in vitro fertilisation contrary to the eternal law?
Eternal law is “the source — in God — of all law”. It finds its expression in what is called moral law.

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

In vitro fertilisation is obviously an intervention designed to overcome what is seen to be a defect — the inability to conceive naturally. But this condition is part of God's plan.

1936 On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth.41 The "talents" are not distributed equally.42
1937 These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures:

I distribute the virtues quite diversely; I do not give all of them to each person, but some to one, some to others.... I shall give principally charity to one; justice to another; humility to this one, a living faith to that one.... and so I have given many gifts and graces, both spiritual and temporal, with such diversity that I have not given everything to one single person, so that you may be constrained to practice charity towards one another.... I have willed that one should need another and that all should be my ministers in distributing the graces and gifts they have received from me.43

The ability to create life in vitro may also be seen as a talent not given to everyone, to be shared with those who need it.
So: both infertility and the ability to counter it appear to be God-given. The one is the result of Original Sin whereby imperfection entered the world, and which it is part of the human condition to bear. The other may be given for temporal alleviation prior to eternal bliss where there shall be neither tears nor cryingA; or it too is sinful because it counters God's plan.
Well done for reading this far; unfortunately in vitro fertilisation appears to fall between two fundamental principles.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has recognised this dichotomy in an Instruction:

These interventions are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.
From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence ... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time ... to find its place and to be in a position to act.25

The artificial creation of life is not inherently wrong. But

Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of a specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ETB, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person".50

The way in which artificial fertilisation and the methods associated with in vitro creation of life can be and are inherently wrong. The expression of sperm is generally outside the conjugal act and “is another sign of this dissociation [between the unitive act of love and the act of procreation]: even when it is done for the purpose of procreation, the act remains deprived of its unitive meaning: ‘It lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love”’.54”
A procedure included in most implementations of IVF is the disposal of surplus embryos. That is, once life is created in the zygote with the fertilisation, any which are “not required” are destroyed.

... every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.

To destroy life is repugnant to the Church.
All the while it is impossible to unite the methods of IVF with conjugal union,

... in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remain opposed from the moral point of view to homologous in vitro fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.

25 CDF Declaration on Procured Abortion, 12-13: AAS 66 (1974) 738.
39 Cf Matt 6:24
41 Cf Gaudium et Spes 29 # 2.
42 Cf Matt 25:14–30; Luke 19:27
43 S Catherine of Siena, Dial. I, 7.
50 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. 14: AAS 74 (1982) 96.
54 CDF Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual ethics, 9: AAS 68 (1976) 86: Gaudium et Spes, 51. Cf. Decree of the Holy Office, 2 August 1929: AAS 21 (1929) 490; Pope Pius XII, Discourse to those taking part in the 26th Congress of the Italian Society of Urology, 8 October 1953: AAS 45 (1953) 678.
121 S Augustine, Contra Faustum 22: PL 42, 418; S Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, 71, 6
127 Gal 5:19-21 CE; Rom 1:28-32; 1 Cor 9-10; Eph 5:3-5; Col 3:5-8; 1 Tim 9-10; 2 Tim 2-5.
A Cf Rev 21:4
B Homologous (between husband and wife) in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer


According to Catholicism, why did the robbers strip the traveler to Jericho?

The robbers represent the demons, the fallen angels, who take advantage of man fallen into sin:

From the Catena Aurea on Luke 10:

  AMBROSE: But who are those robbers but the Angels of night and darkness, among whom he had not fallen, unless by deviating from the divine command he had placed himself in their way.

and

  AUGUSTINE: He fell then among robbers, that is, the devil and his angels, who through the disobedience of the first man, stripped the race of mankind of the ornaments of virtue, and wounded him, that is, by ruining the gift of the power of free will. Hence it follows, who stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, for to that man sinning he gave a wound, but to us many wounds since to one sin which we contract we add many.

The priest and Levite signify the Law of Moses, which cannot free man from sin:

Explaining Luke 10:30, the 1582 Rheims New Testament commentary says:

  Half Dead.] Here is signified man wounded very sore in his understanding and free will,
  and all other powers of soul and body, by the sin of Adam: but yet that neither understanding, nor free
  will, nor the rest, were extinguished in man or taken away. The Priest and Levite, signify the Law of
  Moses: this Samaritan, is Christ the Priest of the New Testament: the oil and wine, his Sacraments: the
  host, the priests his ministers. Whereby is signified, that the [Old] Law could not recover the spiritual life of
  mankind from the death of sin, that is, justify man: but Christ only, who by his passion and the grace
  and virtue thereof ministered in and by his Sacraments, justifieth, and increaseth the justice of man,
  healing and abling free will to do all good works.


Why is "We Three Kings" a Christmas hymn, and not a Lenten one?

Just noticed this during Mass today (Feast of the Epiphany). After the gospel is read, the proclamation of dates for the movable feasts can be read

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/christmas/announcement-of-easter-and-the-moveable-feasts.cfm

So, We Three Kings, although often thought of as a Christmas hymn is really the only popular English Epiphany hymn that I know of. And that event may have taken place 2 years after Jesus' birth for all we know. Anyway, it's a pretty good bridge for the end of the Christmas season to the beginning of Lent.

Oh, and nobody but Lew Wallace is still thinking about the three kings when Lent comes around.


Does the Catholic Church officially recognize Protestants as Christians?

From Catholic Answers article Does "no salvation outside the Church" include non-Catholic Christians?, non-Catholic Christians are specifically addressed in the Catechism:

  The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who
  are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic
  faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under
  the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been
  properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion
  with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion
  is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would
  permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (CCC 838)

The way I read this, the answer is "yes, but they don't have the full Truth. If they've been properly baptized and believe in Christ, they are associated with the Church, but imperfectly."

This agrees with Catholic Answers article What is the relationship between the Church and baptized Protestants?

  Full Question

  What relationship does the Catholic Church perceive to exist between
  itself and various Protestants (the baptized ones who still accept
  their faith)?

  Answer

  Validly baptized Protestants are regarded as true Christian brothers
  and sisters who are in imperfect relationship with the Church. The
  nature of the imperfections is as varied as Protestantism itself. The
  idea at work here is that the faith is an incarnational thing, not
  just a "spiritual" (disembodied) thing—just like Jesus himself. Thus,
  it is possible to be out of union with the Church "bodily"
  (structurally, sacramentally, liturgically), yet still have a
  spiritual unity with the Church. Likewise, it is possible to be
  "bodily" united to the Church yet cease to be in communion with her
  spiritually (as an apostate Catholic is if he keeps going to Communion
  yet rejects the creed or continues unrepentant in grave sin). The
  latter form of disunity with Church is more serious than the former.

Also, from EWTN Global Catholic Network article Some Things That Catholics Do Not Believe (Item # 7):

  Catholics do not believe that Protestants who are baptized, who lead a good life, love God and their neighbor, and are blamelessly
  ignorant of the just claims of the Catholic Religion to be the one
  true Religion (which is called being in good faith), are excluded from
  Heaven, provided they believe that there is one God in three Divine
  Persons; *that God will duly reward the good and punish the wicked;
  that Jesus Christ is the Son of God made man, who redeemed us, and in
  whom we must trust for our salvation; and provided they thoroughly
  repent of having ever, by their sins, offended God.

  Catholics hold that Protestants who have these dispositions, and who
  have no suspicion of their religion being false, and no means to
  discover, or fail in their honest endeavors to discover, the true
  Religion, and who are so disposed in their heart that they would at
  any cost embrace the Roman Catholic Religion if they knew it to be the
  true one, are Catholics in spirit and in some sense within the
  Catholic Church, without themselves knowing it. She holds that these
  Christians belong to, and are united to the "soul," as it is called,
  of the Catholic Church, although they are not united to the visible
  body of the Church by external communion with her, and by the outward
  profession of her faith.

  Very different is the case of a person who, having the opportunity,
  neglects to learn from genuine trustworthy sources what the Catholic
  Religion is and really teaches, fearing, that were he to become
  convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, he would be compelled by
  his conscience to forsake his own religion, and bear the worldly
  inconveniences attached to this step. This very fear shows a want of
  good faith, and that he is not in that insurmountable ignorance which
  could excuse him in the sight of God, nut that he is one of those of
  whom it is said in Psalm xxxv. 4, "He would not understand that he
  might do well."

  Fairness, no less than common sense, teaches that a man should study
  and examine the teaching of the Catholic Church from Catholic sources
  before condemning her. Surely no man ought to reject Catholic doctrine
  if he has not made himself well acquainted with them. Nor is is fair
  to form a judgment from misrepresentations made by ill-informed,
  interested, or prejudiced persons; one should rather, by the study of
  authorized Catholic works, judge of the truth with that calm and
  unprejudiced mind which the all-important subject of Religion
  deserves. Thus having heard both sides, you will be in a state to pass
  a right judgment and not in danger of being misled by prejudice.

  Our Saviour gave no hope of salvation to the Samaritan woman unless
  she entered the one true Church of the tine, saying to her who was
  destitute of a sure guide: "You adore that which you know not; we
  adore that which we know; for SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS". (St John iv.
  22.) So likewise there is no salvation for any one who, having by God's grace come to the knowledge of the truth, obstinately refuses to
  join the true Church of God.

That third paragraph on, particularly the very last sentence, indicates to me that the hope of salvation for protestants doesn't extend to those that flat-out refuse to learn about what the Catholic Church really teaches.


Are there any differences between Jesus's commandments and God's commandments?

Doubting Thomas said it well in his comment: "Jesus was just elaborating on God's Commandments from the OT; revealing their true meaning.". In that spirit, here's my elaboration.

In Matthew 5:21-48, there are six it has been said statements:

Do not murder
Do not commit adultery
Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce
Do not break your oath
Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth
Love your neighbor and hate your enemy

In each case, Jesus says a little word, "but", and then goes one huge step further. Just to take the last one as an example:

  You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

See the above verses or the full chapter for more.

Finally, note that Jesus Himself saw no difference. As He mentions just before the above verses:

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:17-18


Technically, "angel" (from the Greek Angelos) is a job function, not genus and species.  Angelos means messenger - they deliver messages.  If the messenger is unable to communicate, it doesn't really seem up to the job of delivering a message.

The angels recorded in Scripture all clearly had the ability to converse with the people to whom they were sent - whether to Abraham, Manoah (Samson's father), Mary, Joseph, Zechariah, etc...  In the cases where the angel's identity was hidden, there was nothing to suggest they appeared anything other than human, along with the concomitant powers of humans.

As to whether or not Cherubim and Seraphim (the heavenly creatures typically given these jobs) have the ability to communicate when not in the presence of humans, most Protestants would say, there would be only speculation. Historically, the doctrine of God's omnipresence and omniscience is what gives us the ability to communicate with God in any place - there is nothing to suggest that heavenly creatures - angelic or demonic - possess this attribute.

As svidgen points out, however, there are interpretations of Revelation 8 that Catholics would interpret as giving Angels the ability to hear prayers.


List of old heresies condemned by the Catholic Church now present in Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses

In 325 A.D. the Church produced the Creed of Nicaea (to distinguish it from the Nicene Creed) in order to exclude one particular heresy doing the rounds back then.  Examination of the Creed of Nicaea shows both the Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witness religions supporting that heresy, in different ways, and to different degrees. I do not intend to do a comparison between the two modern groups (you only ask for a list), simply to state the Creed of Nicaea so that those familiar with LDS and JW doctrines on the Person of Christ will see how they fall foul of the heresy spelled out in that ancient document. I do not think Stack Exchange accepts simple lists, but requires evidence to support answers, hence the details I provide. Because the opening sentence runs on (and on, and on) I quote the first four paragraphs before picking out the various heresies each modern group supports. Here is what the Creed of Nicaea says:

  “We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of all things
  visible and invisible;

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father,
  only-begotten, that is, from the substance (ousia) of the Father;
  God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not
  made, of one substance (homoousios, consubstantial) with the Father,
  through whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth; who
  for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, was made
  man, suffered, and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven,
  and is coming to judge the living and the dead;

  And in the Holy Spirit.

  And those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not’, and: ‘Before he
  was begotten he was not’, and: ‘He came into being from nothing’, or
  those who pretend that the Son of God is ‘Of another substance
  (hypostasis), or essence (ousia) [than the Father] or ‘created’ or ‘alterable’ or ‘mutable’, the catholic and apostolic church places
  under a curse.”

Please note how this ancient document is penned by “the catholic and apostolic church” and how they state that those disagreeing with this Creed are anathema – cursed. That is because they are viewed as supporting the heresy the Creed was designed to expose.

Now, the LDS are anathema (heretical) due to claiming there are many Gods/gods. They teach that the god Elohim fathered his firstborn via a spirit wife, and he was called Jehovah (who had, as a younger brother, Lucifer). This Jehovah became a god himself, and also became the man, Jesus Christ. They teach that there was a time when the Son of God ‘was not’. Hence the LDS violate the first sentence plus paragraph four. That amounts to two particular heresies.

The JWs are anathema (heretical) due to claiming that Jesus was created by Jehovah as the archangel Michael. The JWs disagree on the meaning of ‘only-begotten’, saying that it means he was the first-created creature of Jehovah God, whereas the Creed stresses that ‘begotten’ means the opposite of ‘made’. They are cursed because of disagreeing with paragraph four of the Creed; one particular heresy. They also claim Jesus is a different 'god' to Jehovah God, being 'a god' as per their rendition of John 1:1, which likewise makes them polytheistic, as are the LDS. That is a second heresy.

Please note, this answer does not claim to be an exhaustive list. But it should suffice to give a categoric answer to the question as to why LDS and JW denominations are viewed as heretical by Catholicism (and Protestantism also, let it be noted) today.

Source: Article ‘What Really Happened at Nicea?’ By James R. White, Christian Research Journal, Spring 1997 pp 30-34


What scripture is James 4:5 referring to?

There is indeed no Old Testament passage that contains those words, but there are a number of theories regarding what James was referring to. From Precept Austin:

  Ideas include (1) James quoted from some unknown apocryphal work (2)
  The quote is an unrecorded statement of James' half brother Jesus. (3)
  James quotes from some NT passage. (4) James was paraphrasing an OT
  passage. (5) James was not quoting a specific single passage, but is
  summarizing truths found in several OT passages. (6) Finally, some
  commentators (and Bible translations) do not treat the first half of
  verse 5 as a "formula" introducing a quotation but as a sentence which
  stands by itself. Several of the translations emphasize this latter
  view by dividing verse 5 into two separate sentences...

  Or think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which
  he made to dwell in us long unto envying? (ASV)
  Think ye that the scripture speaks in vain? Does the Spirit which has
  taken his abode in us desire enviously? (Darby)
  Do you think what the scriptures have to say about this is a mere
  formality? Or do you imagine that this spirit of passionate jealousy
  is the Spirit he has caused to live in us? (Phillips)
  Or think ye that, in vain, the scripture speaketh? Is it, for envying,
  that the spirit which hath taken an abode within us doth crave?
  (Rotherdam)


Was Satan/Lucifer the angel of music before his fall?

This is not necessarily a Catholic answer, but it's the only answer I can provide. The answer, then, is that it is not clearly demonstrable from Scripture (or any popular tradition) that Satan / Lucifer was the angel of music before his fall. Nonetheless, the reason that some people come to this conclusion is likely based upon taking the following passage and applying it to Satan.

Ezekiel 28:13 KJV

  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy
  covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx,
  and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and
  gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in
  thee in the day that thou wast created.

*Emphasis mine.

There we can see that if this passage, which is typically titled "A Lament over the King of Tyre," if taken as referring Satan metaphorically, can give one reason to think that Satan was the leader of music in heaven. There are more than a few liberal interpretive leaps needed to arrive at such a conclusion; nonetheless, this would be the only passage I can find that would fit such a theory.

Pulpit commentary offers this:

  The workmanship of thy tabret and pipes; better, the service. The Authorized Version and Revised Version follow Luther. Keil agrees as to "tabret" (so Genesis 31:27; Isaiah 5:12; elsewhere, as in Exodus 15:20 and Job 21:12, the Authorized Version gives "timbrels"), but takes the latter word (not found elsewhere) as identical with its feminine form, and meaning "female." He sees in the clause, accordingly, a picture of the pomp of the Tyrian king, surrounded by the odalisques of the harem, who, with their timbrels, danced to his honor as their lord and king (camp. Isaiah 23:16; Exodus 15:20; 1 Samuel 18:6).


Which Christians refuse vaccinations on religious grounds?

I believe the answer is to be found in another news article, published around the same time as your question, titled, "Chilliwack [British Columbia] pastor tells congregation vaccines interfere with God’s care":

The pastor for the community at the centre of the Fraser Valley measles outbreak says he sees vaccines as an interference with God’s providential care.
Rev. Adriaan Geuze says his 1,200-strong Reformed Congregation of North America in Chilliwack mostly shares that view, which is why vaccination rates in the community are “very low.”
“We leave it in (God’s) hands. If it is in his will that somehow we get a contagious disease, like in this case the measles, there are other ways, of course, to avoid this. If (we get sick), he can also heal us from it,” he said in an interview Friday.
...
Geuze [explains] that there is no need to make a healthy “God-given” body “a little bit sick” through vaccination.
He does not oppose other means of boosting immunity, such as rest, healthy living and eating well. Nor does the church oppose medical treatment when a person is already sick, he added.
Asked if he actively advises his congregants not to vaccinate their children, Geuze responded: “Of course I openly express my own point of view according to the Bible, absolutely. But it’s not that we force them. It’s through their own conscience that they have to act,” he said. “They expect that from me, that in a clear way I lay it all before them.”
Opinions on whether or not to vaccinate, however, are divided within the Fraser Valley’s Christian community.
Rev. Abel Pol of Chilliwack’s Canadian Reformed Church said that while he has never surveyed the church’s 400-plus membership on the issue, he suspects that most if not all the congregation is in favour of vaccinations.
...
Pol said those who oppose vaccinations on religious grounds commonly quote the same passage of the Bible, Matthew 9:12, part of which reads:
“And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ But when he heard it, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick do. Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

So they oppose it based on a reading of Matthew 9:12, a connection I don't understand. The reason they give is that it is "an interference with God's providential care." Given the church's Dutch reformed background, I suspect it's accurate to pinpoint Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 27 as the source of their discomfort, as the other answer conjectures.
Geuze's church is one of four in the Reformed Congregations in North America, and according to Wikipedia makes up 1251 of 1798 (70%) of the denomination's members. The denomination formed by splitting from the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, another small (though larger) conservative reformed denomination, in 1967. And in fact, the school at the center of the story, Mount Cheam Christian School, is affiliated with the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, and the denomination has its own congregation in Chilliwack.
Two other articles indicate that the NRC prohibits vaccinations, just as its offshoot does, and that there have been previous outbreaks tied to this community's refusal to vaccinate. Those outbreaks have occurred not only in the Chilliwack area, but also elsewhere in Canada.
It's clear that, just as the other answer conjectured, this all traces back to certain conservative reformed folk in the Netherlands:

The anti-vaccination beliefs of conservative streams of the Dutch Reformed tradition remain a concern to public health officials in the Netherlands.
A report in the 2001 American Journal of Epidemiology reported 275,000 members of the tradition in that country (roughly one-eighth of the total) were refusing vaccinations.
The unvaccinated Christians were the only victims of a Dutch polio outbreak in the early 1990s. Virtually all were members of conservative or orthodox branches of the Reformed tradition that make their home in the Netherland's so-called Bible Belt, known as "De Bijbelgordel."


According to Calvin, how can God be loving if he created people to go to hell?

I found a compilation of John Calvin quotes on the topic of God's love. Here is one that struck me as relevant to your question:

  Sermon #28, Deut. 4.36-38, p. 167, this quote was compiled by Andrew
  Myers.

  It is true that Saint John says generally, that [God] loved the world.
  And why? For Jesus Christ offers Himself generally to all men without
  exception to be their redeemer…

  Thus we see three degrees of the love that God has showed us in our
  Lord Jesus Christ.  The first is in respect of the redemption that was
  purchased in the person of Him that gave Himself to death for us, and
  became accursed to reconcile us to God his Father.  That is the first
  degree of love, which extends to all men, inasmuch as Jesus Christ
  reaches out his arms to call and allure all men both great and small,
  and to win them to Him.

  But there is a special love for those to whom the gospel is preached:
  which is that God testifies unto them that He will make them partakers
  of the benefit that was purchased for them by the death and passion of
  his Son.  And forasmuch as we be of that number, therefore we are
  double bound already to our God: here are two bonds which hold us as
  it were strait tied unto Him.

  Now let us come to the third bond, which depends upon the third love
  that God shows us: which is that He not only causes the gospel to be
  preached unto us, but also makes us to feel the power thereof, so as
  we know Him to be our Father and Savior, not doubting but that our
  sins are forgiven us for our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, who brings us
  the gift of the Holy Ghost, to reform us after his own image.

The other quotes are here:
https://www.monergism.com/john-calvin-god%E2%80%99s-love

The preceding quote shows

(1) that God loves all people with a first token because Jesus' offer of his life was sufficient to save all mankind,

(2) that God loved a subset of all people by preaching the gospel to them (though none were worthy to hear Him deliver His counsel), a second, more powerful token of his love,

(3) that God loved a subset of those who heard the gospel and made that message powerfully persuasive, converting them to truth and salvation, and ultimately translating them to Heaven.

Thus God loves even those who end up in Hell, and Christ was willing to suffer even for many who wasted His gift of His precious blood, pouring it into the sewer.


Why is so hard to find a print version of ASV bible?

The primary reasons that this translation is relatively difficult to find in hard copy are:

It was never especially popular to begin with
It was superseded many years ago by much more popular translations

Initial popularity
The ASV is based on the English Revision (1881–85), a version meant to revise the King James Version for use in the Church of England. However, people continued to prefer the King James, and so the English Revision was not particularly popular, and neither was its cousin the ASV (1901).  H. L. Wilmington writes:

Although it enjoyed better permanent reception than the [English Revision], it still has not seriously cut into the lead of the King James Version. (Guide to the Bible, 809)

Interestingly, in part because of its use of the word "Jehovah," the ASV did achieve popularity with one group, the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Subsequent translations
The ASV's popularity declined even further as new translations appeared.  The Revised Standard Version (1952) dropped the Elizabethan style of the ASV, making it more accessible.  It was the first serious challenger to the KJV, and was used by Protestants and Catholics alike.
Not long after, other translations appeared based on the ASV.  The New American Standard Bible (1971), for example, quickly displaced the RSV in conservative circles due to perceived textual issues, and it is still a top-ten Bible translation.  Similarly, the Jehovah's Witnesses largely moved on to the New World Translation (1961).
Concluding thoughts
One of the main reasons people today use the ASV is due to its public domain status: it is freely available in many Bible software packages and online.
However, this popularity does not carry over to print copies.  Relatively few used copies exist because the ASV failed to supplant the KJV early on, and it was largely replaced by more modern translations over 40 years ago.
Michael C. Armour, in A Newcomer's Guide to the Bible, describes how the ASV simply didn't find a niche—it is too different from the KJV for purists, but too similar to it for most modern readers:

Due to the great popularity of the King James Version, with its Elizabethan English, the translators of the ERV and the ASV felt they needed to retain the Elizabethan style.  This decision, unfortunately, limited the period of time in which these two versions would be influential.  Even though both were quite popular prior to the Second World War, neither is widely read any more.  There style is too antiquated for most modern readers, and those who like the Elizabethan style have shown a preference to continue using the King James Version. (240)


Is it permissible for priests who normally celebrates the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to concelebrate Mass?

In the traditional (i.e. before Vatican II) rite, a mass of priestly ordination would be concelebrated by the ordaining bishop and the newly ordained priest(s). Specifically, they would pray the canon of the mass together. This is also the only case I've encountered where the canon is spoken loudly.
(There may be other traditional concelebrations, but I haven't seen any. The consecration of a bishop would be a possible example, but I have no knowledge about that.)


In the New Testament who was the first person to recognize Jesus as the Messiah?

Mary was informed by Gabriel that her Son would be Son of God, and be given the throne of David; while Joseph was made aware that He would save His people

The first to be made cognisant of the fact that Jesus was specifically Messiah, or Christ, were certain shepherds abiding in the fields outside Bethlehem, keeping watch over their flocks by night. The angel passed a remark to the effect that for them, in the City of David, was born a Saviour which is Christ (Messiah) the Lord. They went to see Him.

Then there were Simeon and Anna in the Temple.

This can be read in Matthew 1 and Luke 1 and 2.


How can we practice Matthew 18:15 in a public forum?

Whether a person hurts our feelings is a different matter than whether that person has sinned against us.  For example, my doctor might tell me I am overweight.  In that case, my doctor would be acting lovingly toward me.  If my feelings are hurt, then I am the one with the hard heart in that example.

Therefore my counsel is to be especially careful in asking for repentence from someone who has hurt your feelings.

Otherwise, my thought is that there is always a way to ask for private communication.  It may be the case that private communication cannot be accomplished immediately, so you may have to employ patience.  Suppose, for example that you are in a huge auditorium and a public speaker bears false witness against you (that being a sin from Exodus 20-23, the Ten Commandments and their sentencing rules).

I don't think you should stand up in that public forum and proclaim, "I would like to speak with you privately!"  Entertaining the thought of that action leads one to think it might be inappropriate per the instructions from Matthew 18:15.  If you agree,  you might instead contact the public speaker by postal mail, waiting many days to receive any reply.  You won't get the pleasure of an immediate retraction, and you may therefore have to suffer embarrassment during your period of patiently reaching out to the public speaker.  That seems OK.

On this SE, you could ask a person to contact you using the comment system, with a message along the lines of, "Brother, I would like to email with you privately concerning something you've written here.  Would you please email me at xxx -at- yyy.zzz?"

I would suggest that you then exchange phone numbers and not use email to settle your difference.


What does Jesus mean by saying, "Why do you call me good?"

This passage is often used to bolster the claim that Jesus is not God.  The usual misinterpretation is that Jesus is saying that He isn't good, because He isn't God.
The opposite is true.  In this passage, Jesus is establishing His deity.  The Answering Islam site offers a fairly good explanation.

Excerpt:

  In the central passage of chapter 10, Jesus makes the statement:

  I am the good shepherd. (John 10:14)  This establishes his claim to
  deity in a double way. First, because of the criterion above, since he
  calls himself good, and this not only in a general way as "a good
  shepherd" (one of many) but as "the good shepherd".

  It is a simple syllogism:

    No-one except God is good  and      Jesus is good  therefore      Jesus is God

  Somebody might want to argue that here "good" is only qualifying
  something else (i.e. "shepherd"), but we simply observe that in the
  original passage (Luke 18:18 above), it was qualifying "teacher". So,
  the situation is indeed parallel, and the argument applies.

  Second, Jesus calls himself not only "good", but he claims the title
  "shepherd". This is a clear reference back to Psalm 23 and, even more
  important, Ezekiel 34, where God himself is the shepherd of Israel
  (see this discussion). Thus, with this statement Jesus takes upon
  himself yet another title of God.

  Why do we call him good? Because he is - AND he is the Lord God.

A more succinct answer (with the same outcome) can be found on this article about WJD at Heartlight.

  Jesus is challenging the religious leader to wake up and understand
  the truth that stands right in front of him. If he is calling Jesus
  "good," then he must come to understand that Jesus is God and not play
  religious games, but come to truly believe. Jesus isn't denying that
  he is God; Jesus is affirming that he is God and that man truly needs
  to acknowledge that he is. Eternal questions are not simply religious
  speculation, but the core questions of the human soul. Only God can
  answer those questions. So if he is going to ask Jesus this question,
  he needs to pay attention and place his faith in Jesus' answer. So do
  we!


Where is there official writings from Perpetua or Felicity?

This site provides a copy of the purported prison diary written by Saint Perpetua, written around 203 CE. The diary forms part of the non-canonical Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, also known as The Passion of St. Perpetua, St. Felicitas, and their Companions. It is a beautifully crafted story and many believe Perpetua and Felicity really existed and that Perpetua's diary is authentic, although it has been edited. Assuming its authenticity, Perpetua's original diary no longer exists.

There are two saints known as Felicity.  Saint Felicity (Felicitas) is a legendary martyr said to have lived in Rome between about 101 and 165 CE. This information comes from a sixth-century 'Acts', which may have been the first record of St. Felicity, as her name does not appear in the well-known fourth-century Roman calendar. Another legendary Saint Felicity was said to have been a slave of Perpetua, and both died as martyrs in Carthage in 203 CE.

In Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative (edited by Brant, Hedrick and Shea), pages 249-250, Dennis R. MacDonald discusses parallels between the the deaths of Perpetua and of Polyxena, which is narrated in Euripides' ancient story of Hecuba.  Thomas J. Heffernan, in The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity, page x, acknowledges there is much in the depiction of Perpetua that owes to earlier texts, and that it is purposely intended to parallel the heroism of Perpetua with that of Polyxena, but concludes there is a historical core to the story.


Were the actions of the 3rd Duke of Alba in the 16th Century considered a Catholic Crusade?

Professor Petrus Johannes Blok was Professor of Dutch History at Leiden University, the Netherlands oldest university, in the late 19th and early 20th century. In 1907 he identified that the decree sentencing almost all Netherlands inhabitants to death, and depriving them of their property, said to have been promulgated in Spain in 1568, was actually a forgery dating from some time in the 1570s. In a sense then, it was, according to the Professor, fake news, but from the 16th century; and generally accepted by historians until the 20th.

See page 42-43 of "Britain and the Netherlands Volume 5" by Bromley and Kossmann .

The Netherlands  Inquisition had been running for several decades already and, as Phillip II himself observed, was less merciful than the Spanish. At one time heretics who  refused to repent could be burned. If a man or boy repented he could be beheaded, but if a woman or girl repented she could be buried alive.

This article, on the website of St Andrew's University, the oldest in Scotland, quotes estimates of 50,000 to 100,00 deaths. After the Duke of Albi arrived many more thousands of deaths were inflicted, it says.

This was the same Duke of Albi who in 1556 had besieged Rome and threatened to sack the city if the then pope did not accept his terms.

However no attempt was made to exterminate almost all the inhabitants of the Netherlands indiscriminately. The decree, even if it had existed, was not acted upon. That the Duke of Alba did lead a force to the Netherlands and that much persecution followed is true.

The historical details are somewhat disputed and perhaps the History site might provide some answers  as to roughly how many perished, and how many suffered other punishment or went into exile.

If, in fact, the Pope had approved a campaign to kill all 3,00,000, many of whom were Catholic anyway, and had called on all Catholics to support it,  then that would have been a most extraordinary thing. We can only speculate whether it might have been called a crusade, or what it might have been called.

Rather depressingly, perhaps, what actually happened was, in the context of sixteenth century Europe,  more a case of "business as usual".


Short answer: A literal reading of the text would indicate that yes, Adam was created, named the animal, and married all in one day.

Gen 1:1-2:6 gives an overview of the creation of the world. Gen 2:7-25 then goes back and gives additional detail about the creation of Adam and Eve. (There's nothing odd about this, it's a common enough literary technique: first give an overview, then go back and give details about the part you're most interested in.)

Gen 1:26-27 says that God created humans on the sixth day. It specifically says male and female. Gen 2:7 describes the creation of Adam and 2:21-22 describes the creation of Eve. So the plain reading is that 2:7, 2:22, and everything in between therefore happenned on one day.

I don't see any difficulty in supposing that Adam and Eve were both created and married to each other in one day. It's not like they had a lot of choice about potential marriage partners.

Perhaps you struggle with how Adam could have named all the animals in one day? That depends how many animals he named. You often hear how there are millions of species in the world. But the vast majority of those are microscopic, most of the rest are insects or arachnids, and a hefty percentage are sea creatures. The text says Adam named cattle, birds and "every beast of the field". There's no mention of Adam naming fish, insects, or microscopic creatures. If you just count mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians, there are about 30,000 species. Genesis does not spell out how broad or narrow the categories where that he named, and species is pretty narrow. Like did Adam name "dogs" (in whatever language he spoke, of course, not English), or did he name every individual breed? Or for that matter did he just give a name to the broader family that includes dogs, wolves, etc? Realistically, Adam probably named a few thousand animals, maybe as little as a few hundred. If he just went down the line and said, "Okay, I'll call that a 'dog', that's a 'cat', that's a 'moose' ..." etc. he could have named each one in a second or two. At 3 seconds per animal he could name 20 per minute, 1200 per hour, 9600 in an 8-hour working day. Okay, I doubt he kept up a rapid-fire pace of naming for 8 straight hours, but he could have named several thousand animals in a day.

If you want to take the story symbolically or allegorically, then the whole question becomes moot. If it's all just a symbolic story and none of it really happenned, then it's meaningless to talk about how long it took.


Is the global Christian population increasing?

To answer your first question, yes, the total Christian population is growing, by about 1.5% per year.  This number comes from one of several excellent studies of Christian populations, a 2013 report published by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. (full report)

This particular study focuses on the growth rate of Christian populations, and provides details by country, so it's particularly suitable for the questions you pose.  It compares the number of Christians in 1970 to the number of Christians in 2010 and the projected number in 2020, and provides rates of growth, for each country.  For example, here's a table showing countries with the most Christians:

And here's the growth data for Central African nations (similar tables are available for other groups of nations):

It also provides some growth data by faith tradition and continent:

There are other excellent reports out there, which focus on different things.  The 2011 report published by the Pew Research Center (full report) focuses less on the growth rate but has some helpful graphics showing the shifts in global Christianity.  For example, a comparison of regional distribution between 1910 and 2010:

And a map of Christianity by country in 2010:

Note that this is only a small sampling of the data available in these two reports; the full versions go into a lot of detail about individual countries and faith traditions.


Questions about Eastern Orthodox infant baptism practices

This seems to be only the practice in Georgia by the Patriarch there.

Both are immersed because that is how Ilia II decided to baptize them.

Ilia II, recognised as the Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church, carried out the baptisms of 780 babies at the Trinity Cathedral last Friday ...
The baptism sees each baby's head dipped in holy water, before being spun 180 degrees so its feet can be dipped immediately after. That process is repeated three times.
Ilia II is one of the country's most powerful public figures, and came up with the routine himself.1

Baptism is normally performed by the three-fold immersion of a person in the name of the Holy Trinity; in other words, a person is immersed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," with one immersion at the mention of each person of the Holy Trinity. 2

1 http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2017/01/georgian-priest-s-acrobatic-baptism-technique.html
2 https://orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism#Infant_Baptism and http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Baptism.htm