How do Catholics believe God is eternal if Jesus died on the cross?

I'm going to answer with an earthly illustration and then tie the scriptural doctrine to it at the end, so bear with me.

Suppose there is a video game developer.
He spends his days typing the computer code that is the game.
He experiences the game from the perspective of a programmer.

He knows how the graphics will be drawn to screen and how all the pieces will interact.
Then the game developer decides to experience the game differently.
He hits the preview mode button (f12 perhaps) and now when he types on the keyboard a character jumps and moves around. He is experiencing the game world as a player through what is called an avatar.

Something happens in the game and the avatar 'dies', which is to say that the game code prevents the developer from experiencing the game world through the avatar anymore.
At this point the game developer can...

A) Hit ESC and go back to experiencing the game as a programmer, looking at code
B) Wait (or use a shortcut key built for developers) for the avatar to respawn.

  In either case the developer exists even when the avatar is surrendered or lost.

Now for the Scriptual doctrine tie in...

The Spirit of the Son as 'developer':

  1 Corinthians 8:6 "Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and
  through whom we live."

  Hebrews 1:2 "his Son [Jesus]... through whom also he made the
  universe."

  John 1:2-3 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; >without him nothing was made that has been made.

The Spirit of the Son then limited itself to experience the created universe through an avatar:

  Philippians 2:5-7 Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form
  of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but
  emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in
  the likeness of men.

The Spirit of the Son was able to hit the 'respawn' button, resurrect the human body avatar-

  John 10:18 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own
  accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take
  it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.

  Ephesians1:19-20 according to the working of his great might 20 that
  he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead

Returning to overseer of the 'source code'-

  Ephesians 4:10

  10 He [Jesus] who descended is the one who also ascended far above all
  the heavens, that he might fill all things.

  1 Peter 3:22  Who [Jesus] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of
  God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to
  him.

The existence of the Son is not threatened by the loss of an avatar.

Remaining questions

The above is a cheap painting of doctrine that is common among many Christian denominations. Opinions diverge on the details of the Son's relationship to the human avatar.

  Did the Spirit of the Son leave the human avatar when it died and
  re-enter it on resurrection, or did the Son stay bound to the avatar
  and wait for resurrection 'in the dark'?

  Did the Son return to whatever the Son was before the incarnation, or
  is there something different about the Son after that experience? In
  other words, does the Son continue to bind itself to a immortalized
  version of the Jesus body?

You can find the second question discussed briefly
HERE


How do opponents of Decision Theology distinguish themselves from Universal Salvation?

pteranodon, Your question is vast. It covers at least two doctrines in the bible—Conversion and Justification, each of which deserves much time in explaining.  But, if you are willing, I'd like to tackle your query.
Defining Decision Theology
Divine Monergists (Lutherans & Calvinists) use the term "decision theology" to describe a particularly Arminian view of conversion in which a person is confronted with Jesus (who he is and what he has done for that person) and then makes use of his will (makes a decision) to be a Christian or not.  Years ago the Southern Baptist Convention put out a pamphlet which pictured conversion this way:  God has cast his vote; he wants you in heaven.  But Satan has also cast his vote; he wants you in hell.  You have the ability to cast the 'tie-breaker'.  What will your vote (decision)be?  If you'd like a current explanation of this, just look at the SBC website:

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Savior. (http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp)

Notice in this explanation of conversion the Holy Spirit terrifies you as you become aware of your sin and the consequences of sin (hell). Then you respond (decide) toward God. So also, in the next paragraph one 'accepts' (decides) to commit himself to Jesus.
Conversion
When Lutherans use the word, 'conversion' we speak of that instant and moment in which a person is an unbeliever and then is given faith to both know and trust in the Triune God.  I make this distinction since many especially in evangelical/arminian church bodies make becoming a Christian a process.  For Lutherans there is an instant and a moment in which a person is an unbeliever and then becomes a believer.
In conversion, God uses his word to create faith in a person's heart.  God is the one who chooses a person and creates faith in his heart through his word.  A person is not able to use his will in conversion because, through the fall into sin, his will is the very thing that needs to be converted.  In showing this from scripture two points are usually made to back this up from scripture:

The far-reaching effects of sin (so that a person is dead, blind, an enemy of God, without any ability to know God or come to him and decide for him):  Is 65:1; Mt 7:18; Lk 6:43,44; Jn 3:6; 6:44; Ro 3:11; 8:7; 10:20; 1 Cor 2:14; 12:3; Eph 2:1; Col 1:21; 2:13
Conversion is entirely a work of God:  1 Peter 1:23; Rom 10:17, James 1:17-18; Ac 11:21; Jn 6:44; 1 Cor 12:3; Philip 2:13; Col 2:13; Dt 29:4; Jr 32:39; Eze 36:26; Ac 26:16–18; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 1:17; 2:5; Philip 1:6; 2:13.

For an exhaustive treatment of this, I invite you to walk through Article II in the Formula of Concord:  (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-freewill.php)
Justification
Lutherans have always upheld the doctrine of Justification.  Justification is the teaching in the bible that one is "declared not guilty" or "declared righteous" in Christ.  The doctrine of Justification has an objective and subjective sense to it.  Objectively God has declared the entire world 'not guilty.' (Rom 3:20-24;4:5;5:16,18; 2 Cor 5:18, 1 Pet 3 18, 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 2:1 et al)  Subjectively, God has declared individuals (me!) not guilty (Gal 2:20; Mt 9:2; Lk 7:47,48; 18:14).
Again, the book of Concord is an excellent resource to look into this further:  (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php)
Conversation/Confusion
Where these two doctrines come together and are criticized by many Evangelicals/Arminians is the deduction that if God chooses people and declares the world 'not guilty', then everybody must get into heaven.  This is not what Lutherans teach.  While the credit for being being justified and given faith is given to God (and him alone), it is possible for a person to be given faith and then fall away.  For God's word is powerful, but not irresistible.  In this case the cause and blame for being an unbeliever (and ending up in hell) is the person's, not God's.(Jr 15:7; 25:5,7; 35:15,17; Ho 11:5,6—Mt 23:37; Ac 7:51; 2 Chr 24:19; 30:6–10; 36:13; Ne 9:29; Jr 5:3–5; Jr 23:14; Eze 13:22;)  Again, the above two articles cited from the book of Concord give a more exhaustive treatment of this. And it might be good to back up even further and walk through article I (original sin) too.
Your question does also deal with the doctrine of election too.  But, I thought this would be a decent beginning in answering your question.  The doctrine of election is covered in Article XI in the formula of Concord (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php) And, I thoroughly encourage you to read through that at well.  It does a beautiful job of bringing so many of these issues together.

Pastor Steve Bauer (http://stevebauer.us)


Does Hebrews 4:12 imply that unspoken good intentions might justify sins?

It is arguably the same writer (opinions differ on Paul writing Hebrews) who wrote :

  And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. Romans 3:8 [KJV].

Romans 3:8 would be a resounding 'No' to your question, I believe.

To do evil that good may come out of it is worthy of 'damnation' (or 'condemnation' as some translate the word).

You suggest yourself that harm is done to certain persons - and that should never be, for any reason whatsoever.

That fact alone should stop someone doing whatever it is that they are doing.

As to the terribly difficult situations that people find themselves in (maybe through no fault of their own) or into which they are forced by coercion, brutality and sheer terror, well, who can utter condemnation in such cases ?

As I suggested in my comment : context is so important.


According to Catholicism, is the power of exorcism the fruit of the true church?

Is a Catholic priest's power of exorcism acceptable evidence of the Catholic Church's truth and validity of its claim to be the one true church?

The short answer is no.

The Catholic Church affirms the following, but no more:

  The present rite of exorcism as given in the Roman Ritual fully agrees with patristic teaching and is a proof of the continuity of Catholic tradition in this matter. - Catholic Encyclopedia

Generally speaking, Catholic priests may seem more efficacious in this field, but that may be more due to a combination of Church authority and training of exorcists, as well the spiritual aides that we call the sacraments, especially confession and Communion. But this does not constitute unique proof or fruit of the Catholic Church.

Since the foremost authority on exorcism, Fr. Gabriele Amorth admits that some members of other Christian Churches such as Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants, all perform real and valid exorcisms, I do not see how one can claim the above statement be in the affirmative. No such statements will be found in the writings of Catholic theologians.

First of all, let us look at what Scripture tells us about this subject.

  9 Then calling together the twelve apostles, he gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
  2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
  3 And he said to them: Take nothing for your journey; neither staff, nor scrip, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.
  4 And whatsoever house you shall enter into, abide there, and depart not from thence.
  5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off even the dust of your feet, for a testimony against them.
  6 And going out, they went about through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere. - Luke 9: 1-6

  37 John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him.
  38 But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me.
  39 For he that is not against you, is for you. - Mark 9: 37-39

Although Christ affirms that the Apostles have such powers and others though apostolic succession, Scripture do not deny this gift to those who believe, though not in total unity with the Catholic Church. Fr. Gabriele Amorth wrote that many Protestant exorcists consulted him about particular issues at hand.

A priest who performs an a public and solemn exorcism does so in the name of Jesus Christ and his Church.

Historically speaking, some great saints who were not priests were quite well known as exorcist. Most notable were St. Peter the Exorcist, St. Anthony of the Desert and St. Benedict of Nursia. In fact, St. Benedict is the patron saint of exorcists and the now famous Medal of St. Benedict is used in the protection against the demon.

It  seems that the greater the sanctity of an exorcist is, the greater is his ability to liberate souls from the hands of Satan.

In his book An exorcist tells His Story, Fr Gabriele Amorth states the following:

  Who Can Expel Demons?

  "The Holy Spirit, with divine freedom, gives his charismas however and to whomever he pleases. These are not given to be the glory or benefit of the receiver but as a service to his brothers. Among these charismas is the power to liberate from evil spirits and to heal from illness. These gifts can be given to individuals and also to communities." (Page 155)

Fr Gabriele Amorth was exorcist for the Diocese of Rome prior to his death  in 2016. He equally states that Christians of other denominations do expel demons during their prayers for liberation of a person from the grippes of Satan and his Legions. This admission is not limited to the Orthodox Churches, but also encompasses mainstream Protestant denominations. He does admit however that he was occasionally consulted by "exorcists" of other churches of particularly hard cases to liberate.

As Catholics, we have more available aides in combatting evil than our Protestant brethren.

  In his book An Exorcist Tells His Story, Fr. Amorth lists the following prayers to help combat evil; however, Fr. Amorth and many other priests have stressed that the number one protection from evil is the Sacrament of Confession and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Often times people want esoteric rituals to deliver them from evil, when in reality what they need is to become right with God. Along with regular Confession and reception of the Holy Eucharist, these prayers should be coupled with Our Lord’s Prayer and the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. - 5 Prayers Recommended by an Exorcist to Combat Evil

The fact that within the Roman Catholic Rite only an authorized priest with the local bishop's permission may perform an exorcism (while using the Rituale Romanum) is a question of Canon Law and church disciple. Rome can change this rule at any moment if the need were serious enough. Some Eastern Orthodox exorcists are married deacons or subdeacons. The Orthodox have valid sacraments and priesthood!

  The practice of exorcism was not confined to clerics in the early ages, as is clear from Tertullian (Apology 23; cf. On Idolatry 11) and Origen (Against Celsus VII.4). The latter expressly states that even the simplest and rudest of the faithful sometimes cast out demons, by a mere prayer or adjuration (Mark 15:17), and urges the fact as a proof of the power of Christ's grace, and the inability of demons to resist it.

  Thus the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII.26) say expressly that "the exorcist is not ordained", i.e. for the special office of exorcist, but that if anyone possess the charismatic power, he is to be recognized, and if need be, ordained deacon or subdeacon. This is the practice which has survived in the Eastern Orthodox Church. - Catholic Encyclopedia

And just a final thought on this whole issue is that Origen, a Church Father, credits Jews with a special talent for exorcising demons (Against Celsus, book 4).

Addendum: Even within in the Church, some exorcisms are not successful in liberating souls from a diabolical possession by a Catholic priests who fulfill the necessary requirements for performing them. If exorcisms are the “fruit” of the true Church, then this fact begs the question as to why some cases of possession do not succeed, even if they are extremely rare.
One such case can be read here, although more do exist, this is the most well known.


Did Jesus transform into spirit form after Resurrection

Probably the most definitive verse on this is in Luke:

36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43 and He took it and ate it before them. Luke 24:36-42 NASB

Here Jesus affirms that a spirit does not have flesh and blood, but He Himself does.  To prove it, He tells His disciples to touch Him.  Then He provides another proof by taking a piece of broiled fish and eating it.  This is further proof because spirits do not and cannot eat physical food.
These appear to be just two of the many convincing proofs Luke mentions in the first chapter of Acts:

To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.  Acts 1:3 NASB

So, no, Jesus was not merely a spirit.  His resurrection was a bodily resurrection.  However, just as before the resurrection, He was Lord of Creation and could do miraculous things.


What is the function of permanent acolytes and lectors in the Catholic Church?

What is the function of instituted acolytes and lectors in the Catholic Church?
The following applies to instituted acolytes and lectors. These offices historically are looked on as steppingstones towards ordination and thus are not permanent in nature.
Acolyte

A ministry to which a person is specially appointed by the Church to assist the deacon and to minister to the priest. His duty is to attend to the service of the altar and to assist as needed in the celebration of the Mass. He may also distribute Holy Communion as an auxiliary minister at the Eucharistic liturgy and to the sick. An acolyte may be entrusted with publicly exposing the Blessed Sacrament for adoration but not with giving benediction. He may also, to the extent needed, take care of instructing other faithful who by appointment assist the priest or deacon by carrying the missal, cross, candles, and similar functions. The ministry of acolyte is reserved to men and conferred by the bishop of the diocese or, in clerical institutes of religious, by the major superior, according to liturgical rites composed for the purpose by the Church. Women may be delegated to perform some of the functions of an acolyte.

Lector

One of the ministries adapted to present day needs in the Latin Church, otherwise known as reader. He functions partially as the subdeacon did previously. He is appointed to read the word of God in the liturgical assembly. Accordingly he reads the lesson from Sacred Scripture, except the Gospel, in the Mass and in other sacred celebrations; recites the psalms between the readings in absence of the psalmist; presents the intentions for general intercessions when the deacon or cantor is absent; and may also direct the congregation in the singing. If necessary he also assumes the responsibility of instructing any of the faithful called upon to read the Scriptures in any liturgical celebration.

Pope Francis’s new document seems to say the offices may be permanent, even though he allows them to be permanently instituted as such, the episcopal conferences may have to decide on this.
Since the motu proprio was dated January 10, 2021, it is still too early to see the actual decisions of how this is implemented.


According to Roman Catholicism, is a person required to fast?

Yes. "Binding" and "obligatory" mean exactly what it looks like: "are binding upon" means "apply to", and "obligatory" means "mandatory" or "compulsory."
From the Code of Canon Law:

1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.
1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

This means that a Catholic within the ages of 14/18 and 59 who does not practice abstinence on Fridays or does not fast on Holy Wednesday or Good Friday is guilty of violating Canon 1251.
However, you will find that Canon Law is rather forgiving in actually imposing penalties for violation of its canons, unless that lack of imposition were to constitute a scandal:

1399 In addition to the cases established here or in other laws, the external violation of a divine or canonical law can be punished by a just penalty only when the special gravity of the violation demands punishment and there is an urgent need to prevent or repair scandals.

That being said, attending Mass on Sunday is also an obligation:

1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Here we see "obliged" again, and not participating in Sunday Mass is thus a violation of a Canon. But beyond that, it is a sin against the Third Commandment (cf. Ex 20:8–10). Analogously, not fasting or not abstaining from meat when demanded is a sin against Temperance (the virtue of self-restraint or moderation, opposed to the deadly sin of Gluttony), as well as against Obedience to one's Bishop, who requests this Work of Mercy from his flock.
Sins, however, can be classified as mortal or venial; a mortal sin rejects sanctifying grace and binds a soul to damnation, unless confessed, but a venial one, though it impedes the communion of a soul with the Lord, doesn't condemn them. The difference between the two is that the former involves "a grave matter," according to Canons 1854 and following:

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. the distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,Cf. I Jn 16–17 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 17 #12
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."Mk 10:19 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Because the Decalogue does not mandate fasting, I would be tempted to say that the sin of neglecting abstinence and fasting is venial, but I disclaim that my opinion here should be taken as authoritative. In doubt, it's best to consult one's spiritual director. Of course, we must strive to avoid even venial sins, so the possible venial character of neglect of abstinence and fast should not be taken as a license to ignore it.
In summary, while there is no canonical sanction against failing to uphold this obligation, it is still a violation of a Canon, as well as a sin. While it probably does not impede Holy Communion, it is still something we should try to avoid if we can and confess if we cannot.


In Roman Catholicism, does an individual's history of miscarriage lead to different or more specific guidance on pregnancy prevention?

There are two ways of preventing miscarriages (spontaneous abortions):

Not conceiving at all

by abstaining from sexual intercourse (allowed)
by contracepting (forbidden)

Treating the underlying medical cause of recurrent miscarriage (allowed)

If #1 is intended, yet the husband and wife still engage in the marriage act, this is contraception, and the Church prohibits all forms of contraception (frustrating the procreative end of the marriage act). As Pope Pius XI said in his encyclical on Christian marriage Casti Connubii:

  [A]ny use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature.

Certainly, #1 could be intended by refraining from sexual relations, too, and the Church does not forbid this as long as both husband and wife agree to it.

The Catholic Church prohibits contraception in any form, regardless of other factors. If there is a serious reason for having marriage relations (e.g., to prevent a spouse from committing adultery), yet conceiving may be dangerous to her health (e.g., due to recurrent miscarriage), the couple can (and could even be obliged to) have marriage relations during the relatively more infertile period of her cycle. See, e.g., "Recourse to Infertile Periods" (§16) of Humanæ Vitæ.

Regarding #2, Catholics are certainly permitted to cure recurrent miscarriage, just as they are permitted and in some cases obliged, to cure any other disease. Failure to cure, if possible, a life-threatening disease could be a sin against the 5th Commandment. If curing the recurrent miscarriage produces some other undesired effect, like infertility, it might still be permissible to cure the recurrent miscarriage, as long as infertility is not intended; this is the principle of double-effect:

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

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

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

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

Usually recurrent miscarriage, like infertility, is a sign of some underlying medical issue that needs to be addressed. See ch. 12 "Recurrent Miscarriage" of Catholic OB/GYN Dr. Hilgers's The NaProTECHNOLOGY Revolution. Dr. Hilgers practices medicine in accordance with Catholic moral teaching.


What is Young-Earth Creationism, and how is it argued for?

Young Earth Creationism, abbreviated YEC, is the idea that the earth is relatively young (several thousand years old) compared to Old Earth Creationism (OEC) which agree with secular science that currently claims the earth is 4.55 Billion years old.

While there is a lot of good physical evidence for YEC discussed elsewhere the question at hand is what is the Biblical basis for it.

Here is my opinion on the Biblical basis:

If the earth was old that puts death in the world before sin.1
Genesis was as explicit as possible in putting the term day as we mean it without going to the absurd length to have to specify exactly 24 hours.2
Contrary to popular belief the bible does not state that the earth was flooded from rain alone, but instead states that the fountains of the deep broke open AND it rained for 40 days. which is the only way that it could have happened, and if truly global it explains quite a bit about geology.3
In the 10 commandments in Exodus it is explained why the Sabbath is holy: 'In six days did the Lord God create the heavens and earth, and all that is within them and on the seventh day He rested'. Exodus 20:11
2 Peter 3, talks about scoffers in the last days who are willingly ignorant about the flood destroying the whole world. and talks about how the world will be destroyed again in fire (so if you claim the flood was local, then you would have to conclude that God destroying the world in fire at the end will also be local somehow too). It also warns about people twisting the scriptures, which is what it looks to me OEC's do when they try to get millions of years out of "There was evening, there was morning, Day 1"2
Mark 10:6, Jesus himself said 'From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female'.

The bottom line is to get an Old Earth View, you have to change the standard interpretation of much of the scripture and take many words out individually nit picking at what their meaning could be, instead of looking at the passage as a whole. Also the main proponents of OEC such as Hugh Ross, for an example, have come from first from a secular background and tried to reconcile what they already believed with the bible. Look at his bio; he states clearly that he went looking for a religion that fit what he understood to be true about science. Instead of coming to Christ and trying to find out what is truth, they do the opposite; they say, "This is true, now how can we make christianity agree with it?"

1 Romans 5:12 states that death entered the world because of the sin of Adam.  Now some YEC's taken that to an extreme and say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics entered the world at that time, and that's a big stumbling block for OEC's like Hugh Ross. I don't make that claim and don't think the bible makes the claim that entropy = death. In fact in there is allot of chaos in genesis before man shows up. But while some will claim there is no biblical support for the idea that death means anything other than human death, I think it's very clear if you look throughout the bible you see the ideal that man's sin is the cause for animal suffering.

God killed animals right after Adam sinned to cover his nakedness.
God didn't tell Adam he could eat animals before he sinned.
God instituted animal sacrifices because 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins'.

2 It's true the Hebrew word YOHM can mean anything from 12 hours to an indeterminate period, but so can our own English word day, but it's rare to mean something other than 24 hours. While there are other Hebrew words that only mean long periods of time that could have been used instead. God says he is not the author of confusion, so why would he say there was evening and morning, day 1(which OEC's claim should mean "the was the dawn of an age, and a close of an age, age 1") when he could have just said this was the first age.

3 as stated in many arguments against a global flood, if it rained for 40 days enough to cover the current topography of earth it would rain so hard that the friction from the water would burn the atmosphere and also the rain would so much force as to brake the ark itself. But instead of saying the rain caused the flood it says he broke open the fountains of the deep, AND it rained.


Covering of the hair for women, and beards in 1st Century Palestine

It might be clearer to ask about Jewish versus other men and women. My impression is that most women wore head coverings at that time, and most men wore beards, but customs varied greatly among non-Jewish people. Prostitutes likely would not wear head coverings. I don't see homosexuals as a group that would be likely to have a common practice about beards, though doubtless some shaved to be more feminine.

Michael Marlowe discusses head coverings and other clothing issues at http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings3.html . The Bible makes clear that the Jews are to remain a distinct people, and should not adopt many of the customs of the people around them (gentiles).

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. (Leviticus 18:3. cf. also Deuteronomy 12:29-32 and 2 Kings 17:13-15.)

The LORD has prepared a sacrifice and consecrated his guests ... and on the day of the LORD's sacrifice, I will punish ... all who array themselves in foreign attire. (Zephaniah 1:8)

Marlowe suggests that Jewish men of the first century did not cover their heads when they prayed. They likely covered or uncovered their heads for practical reasons only. Women normally kept their heads covered any time they were outside of their home.

Philo of Alexandria refers to a woman's head covering as a "symbol of modesty", suggesting that an innocent woman would be uncomfortable in its absense.


Why would Zachariah doubt Angel Gabriel?

Zechariah had a number of precedents which would have been an example to him.
Firstly, Abraham had been visited by three 'men' and the narrative is written in a mysterious way, indicating the nature of that 'visitation' :

And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord . . . .  [Genesis 18 2,3 KJV]
And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife?  [verse 9]
And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. [verse 10]

Manoah's wife was barren and an angel visited them and a promise was made and Manoah said :

Now let thy words come to pass.  [Judges 13:12 KJV]

Manoah believed the angel. And so did Abraham believe the visitation he had received :

And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
[Romans 4: 19-22, KJV ]

When Zechariah prevaricates and says :

Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years ?
[Luke 1:18 KJV] . . .

. . . . the angel Gabriel responds :

I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, [Luke 1: 19b, KJV]

One imagines the mighty Archangel drawing himself up in a slightly frosty response, somewhat indignant at the unbelief of the Levite priest. 'I am Gabriel . . . '
And Gabriel uses just a tiny fraction of his immense powers to chasten the Levite with dumbness for the next nine months.
Later, Mary shows no such unbelief and accepts a far, far greater message, only asking the perfectly legitimate question (there being no precedent to the import of the angelic revelation) 'How shall it be, seeing I know not a man ?'
Not, how shall I know this (for she has already been made aware of the fact) but she asks 'how' as to the means of the staggering miracle with which she is being presented.
So, in summary 'Why would he doubt ?' : well, he should not doubt, for there was ample precedent and example for him to believe and follow.
So why did he doubt ?
Maybe because for four hundred years there had been no further scripture written after Malachi's prophecy. Only there had been the translation of Hebrew into Greek (LXX).
Maybe because of what was going on in the temple, if the things that Jesus corrected, physically, had already begun.
Maybe because of his age and the weariness of waiting for the redemption of Israel.
Maybe because of the activities of scribes and Pharisees and doctors of the law and the Herodians and the relatives of the High Priest : again, assuming that what we see in the days of Jesus' ministry had already become established in Zechariah's day.
Maybe because of discouragement.
Maybe because of age.
Maybe because of weariness.
(I speak as a man of sixty eight years myself.)
Maybe all of this.
And who, then, shall point the finger and condemn ?
Not I.
=============================================================
There is no evidence in scripture that 'false angels' were seen, either regularly or at all. And I can see no reason, therefore, for that to be a factor in Zechariah's mind as to doubting what had been said to him.
Had that been the case, the narrative would surely have informed us of that factor.


Why does only one person "teach" during a church meeting?

I attended meetings of the Vineyard for a period of a year and the members there exercised the gifts of the Spirit, with multiple people, one at a time, giving revelation and prophesying, tongues and interpretations. Then they bunched together and prayed for healings for the afflicted.

I attended a Brethren-inspired gathering for about 8 years. There, they encouraged multiple brothers to get up and speak on the same Sunday morning. The one with little experience spoke for 10 minutes; those with more ability, 15-20 minutes; those with gift, 30 minutes. (So when I say that I have preached for 8 years, people think I'm a pastor!) In this same church, the singing was not led by a choir or worship leader, but members of the body spoke out a hymn number between individual bouts of verbal worship, and we sang that.

Because these settings are outside of any traditional settings I've witnessed in mainline denominations, I can only conclude that historical tradition has dictated the idea of a single speaker. Also, it makes sense for the pastor to do all the speaking because he is paid to do so and (generally) has the ability to communicate the things of God well. In a regular church service where many are present, it certainly makes for a more controlled environment when the message isn't interrupted with questions or comments (I've attended one of those, too!)


How do you know someone is in heaven?
The short answer is that it is impossible to know!
Generally speaking, we can not tell one way or another, unless God reveals this information to us in some form or another as He deems fit.
As a Catholic, we have a process of canonization to help determine is someone is in Heaven. The ultimate proof is that the Church requires a miracle, to be done through the intercession of one believed to be in Heaven.
St. Thomas Aquinas has a few words on true and false miracles.

Whether the wicked can work miracles?
Some miracles are not true but imaginary deeds, because they delude man by the appearance of that which is not; while others are true deeds, yet they have not the character of a true miracle, because they are done by the power of some natural cause. Both of these can be done by the demons, as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 2).
True miracles cannot be wrought save by the power of God, because God works them for man's benefit, and this in two ways: in one way for the confirmation of truth declared, in another way in proof of a person's holiness, which God desires to propose as an example of virtue. On the first way miracles can be wrought by any one who preaches the true faith and calls upon Christ's name, as even the wicked do sometimes. On this way even the wicked can work miracles. Hence Jerome commenting on Matthew 7:22, "Have not we prophesied in Thy name?" says: "Sometimes prophesying, the working of miracles, and the casting out of demons are accorded not to the merit of those who do these things, but to the invoking of Christ's name, that men may honor God, by invoking Whom such great miracles are wrought."
In the second way miracles are not wrought except by the saints, since it is in proof of their holiness that miracles are wrought during their lifetime or after death, either by themselves or by others. For we read (Acts 19:11-12) that "God wrought by the hand of Paul . . . miracles" and "even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs . . . and the diseases departed from them." On this way indeed there is nothing to prevent a sinner from working miracles by invoking a saint; but the miracle is ascribed not to him, but to the one in proof of whose holiness such things are done.

Some go out of their way to ask such people they believe to live very holy lives these types of questions. See: here.
The Curé d'Ars (Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney) had the following written down in his biography about a man who had committed suicide:

"...a woman...told....Vianney that she was devastated because her husband had committed suicide. She wanted to approach the great priest but his line often lasted for hours and she could not reach him. She was ready to give up and in a moment of mystical insight that only a great saint can receive,...Vianney exclaimed through the crowd, “He is saved!” The woman was incredulous so the saint repeated, stressing each word, “I tell you he is saved. He is in Purgatory, and you must pray for him. Between the parapet of the bridge and the water he had time to make an act of contrition.”

As for the opposite, the Catholic Church has not named a single person as having been known to be in hell. Guess it is best not to know.
Here is a little lighthearted story on this.

Biagio Martinelli(Cesena 1463 – Rome 1544), better known as Biagio da Cesena (meaning "from Cesena", his native city), was a 16th-century Italian official who served as Papal Master of Ceremonies. He is widely known for his negative reaction to the nude figures presented in Michelangelo's painting of The Last Judgment.
In 1518 da Cesena became Papal Master of Ceremonies to Pope Leo X. He would also act in this role to Popes Adrian VI, Clement VII, and Paul III.
After the completion of The Last Judgment da Cesena said of the fresco, "it was mostly disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully". Da Cesena went on to say the painting was more suitable "for the public baths and taverns" than a Papal chapel. In response, Michelangelo worked Cesena's face into the scene as Minos, judge of the underworld with donkey ears, while his nudity is covered by a coiled snake. It was widely said that when Cesena complained to Pope Paul III, the pontiff joked that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell and the portrait would have to remain.


Where does the story of "the Cross on top of Adam's Skull" come from?

According to Emmanouela Grypeou and Helen Spurling (The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity, Brill 2013, p71ff), the earliest Christian reference to this idea is Origen (c. 184-253), who traces it to Jewish tradition:

  Concerning the place of the skull, it came to me that Hebrews hand down [the tradition that] the body of Adam has been buried there; in order that 'as in Adam all die' both Adam would be raised and 'in Christ all will be made alive'. (Commentary on Matthew, 27.32, original in Greek; later Latin translation here does not mention any Jewish tradition)

Essentially the same story is recounted by:

A text of c.325-350 attributed, probably falsely, to Athanasius of Alexandria (c.297-373)
John Chrysostom (c.347-407) in a homily on John's gospel, 19:16, says "Some say that Adam died there, and there lies; and that Jesus in this place where death had reigned, there also set up the trophy."
A fifth or sixth century commentary on Isaiah, attributed, again probably falsely, to Basil the Great (329-379)
Epiphanius of Salamis (c.310-403) in his Panarion 46.5, against the Tatianists, says Adam "was buried there, on the site of Golgotha. This is probably the way the place, which means 'Place of a Skull', got its name, since the contour of the site bears no resemblance to a skull."
Basil of Seleucia (d. 458) in his Sermon 38 (Patrologia Graeca 85.409)
Jerome (347-420) in his commentaries on Matthew 27:33 and Ephesians 5:14, both written in 398; though he finds the story doubtful.

Even at this stage of Christian history, there was some doubt about the archaeological truth of the story, despite its tempting doctrinal resonance (Christ as the second Adam). The location of the crucifixion was not known with any certainty; still less, the burial place of Adam, which Jerome instead located in Hebron. If Adam's skull is buried under Golgotha, and if the Holy Sepulchre is indeed built on top of Golgotha, then the skull is somewhere under the church.

Regardless, it is still a very old story, as the examples above show.


According to the Catholic Church, how do you perform an examination of conscience?

There a guides for helping with examination of conscience, such as this short examination of conscience and this longer version. They often go through the 10 Commandments

Thou shalt not have other gods besides Me
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember to keep holy the Lord’s day
Honor thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods

and give particular examples of violations of each commandment. Reviewing the commandments of the Church:

To go to Mass and refrain from servile work on Sundays and holy days
To go to Confession at least once a year (traditionally done during Lent)
To receive the Eucharist at least once a year, during the Easter Season (known as the "Easter duty")
To observe the days of fasting and abstinence
To help to provide for the needs of the Church according to one's abilities and station in life
To obey the marriage laws of the Church

and the capital sins (i.e., sins from which others arise):

Pride
Greed
Lust
Anger
Gluttony
Envy
Sloth

can also help.

As the Council of Trent says:

  Tell your sins as they are in your mind, that is, as they appear to you, according to your own feeling about them.

See the appendix of The Secret of Confession: Including the Wonders of Confession for a short "How to Go to Confession."

Also, the Veni, Sancte Spiritus (Come, O Holy Ghost) prayer is commonly said at the beginning of the examination of conscience, to ask the Holy Ghost to enlighten you with the graces to discover your sins and make a good confession. You can hear it sung here.


How can a Christian seek out the best Homilists/Preachers?

I was a little surprised in finding the answer to this question, from a Catholic perspective at least, kind of reversed the tradition of parishes representing a contiguous geographical area.

One of the precepts of the Catholic Church is to provide for the needs of the church, the church being the universal church, the diocese and the local parish where one is a member.  I don't have the old canon reference for it, but anyone over 50 will tell you that one is "not really supposed to a parish across town".

But, if this were true, it would still say this in canon law, and it doesn't.

This, is what canon law says about the laity's obligation concerning Mass

  Can.  1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Now, you're talking about homilies and sermons, other preaching and teaching is certainly up to you to find, but homilies and sermons would only be in the context of a greater form of worship and are definitely special creatures.

But, they're not the most important part.  I don't know what the most important part of a protestant service is, but the most important part of the Catholic Mass is in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, not the Liturgy of the Word (which the homily is a part of) and that part, unless some profoundly illicit thing is happening, should have equal awesomeness wherever you go.

That being said a common complaint of apostates and other sorry folks is that, "they're not being fed" when they go to Mass.  Well, in truth, unless they're avoiding communion, which I doubt, they are being fed.  The problem is that they feel the preaching isn't reaching them.  But, that's what G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis are for and those guys aren't even priests the priest has to talk about the scripture or some part of the Mass, he can't go off on a tangent every week about the horrors of pornography.

So, before I go off on a tangent and write more than you want to read :), the best advice I can give is to go to Mass early and pray and occasionally go to a church where you know the preaching is on fire, but make sure you provide for the needs of your local church because they probably provide a lot of important services, besides preaching, which is vitally important to the needs of your, more immediate, community.


What Christian groups believe sex was the original sin, and not disobedience?

I believe that you are referring to the theory that the original sin was sex. This, however, is not Biblically true. Before the fall, God said:

  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
  multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
  over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
  living thing that moveth upon the earth.

  Genesis 1:28

How could they multiply if sex was a sin? The original sin, according to the Bible, was disobedience. (See Genesis 3)

EDIT: Because the question was edited, my answer has now been edited too. I have ran into a few people, mostly from the Catholic faith,  who believed in this teaching. As far as I know, this is not Catholic doctrine, they just had been misinformed.


Is salvation acheived by faith alone, or does it in fact require some works?

James 2:14-26 answers your question perfectly.

Faith is shown through works. I've included the excerpt below *.

Symbolically, sin can be likened to nakedness, whereas clean white robes represent good deeds which are obviously tied with faith.

Revelation 19:8

  8 She has been permitted to dress in fine (radiant) linen, dazzling
  and white—for the fine linen is (signifies, represents) the
  righteousness (the upright, just, and godly living, deeds, and
  conduct, and right standing with God) of the saints (God’s holy
  people).

With the amount of reference to "white robes" in Revelation (such as Revelation 7:14 ), and their correlation to faith (deeds) which is the result of both Christ's sacrifice and good works on the part of the follower, we can conclude that works are a large part of faith.

There is a definite correlation between good works (by which faith can be measured) and being counted among Christ's people.

Matthew 25:36 Compare to James below:

  36 I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me
  [j]with help and ministering care, I was in prison and you came to see
  Me.

James 2:14-26

  14 What is the use (profit), my brethren, for anyone to profess to
  have faith if he has no [good] works [to show for it]? Can [such]
  faith save [his soul]?

  15 If a brother or sister is poorly clad and lacks food for each day,

  16 And one of you says to him, Good-bye! Keep [yourself] warm and well
  fed, without giving him the necessities for the body, what good does
  that do?

  17 So also faith, if it does not have works (deeds and actions of
  obedience to back it up), by itself is destitute of power
  (inoperative, dead).

  18 But someone will say [to you then], You [say you] have faith, and I
  have [good] works. Now you show me your [alleged] faith apart from any
  [good] works [if you can], and I by [good] works [of obedience] will
  show you my faith.

  19 You believe that God is one; you do well. So do the demons believe
  and shudder [in terror and horror such as [a]make a man’s hair stand
  on end and contract the surface of his skin]!

  20 Are you willing to be shown [proof], you foolish (unproductive,
  spiritually deficient) fellow, that faith apart from [good] works is
  inactive and ineffective and worthless?

  21 Was not our forefather Abraham [shown to be] justified (made
  acceptable to God) by [his] works when he brought to the altar as an
  offering his [own] son Isaac?

  22 You see that [his] faith was cooperating with his works, and [his]
  faith was completed and reached its supreme expression [when he
  implemented it] by [good] works.

  23 And [so] the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed in
  (adhered to, trusted in, and relied on) God, and this was accounted to
  him as righteousness (as conformity to God’s will in thought and
  deed), and he was called God’s friend.

  24 You see that a man is justified (pronounced righteous before God)
  through what he does and not alone through faith [through works of
  obedience as well as by what he believes].

  25 So also with Rahab the harlot—was she not shown to be justified
  (pronounced righteous before God) by [good] deeds when she took in the
  scouts (spies) and sent them away by a different route?

  26 For as the human body apart from the spirit is lifeless, so faith
  apart from [its] works of obedience is also dead.


Identifying a source for this C S Lewis quote (reflecting St Augustine and St Paul)

I actually have more than one potential answer to my initial question now, although I'm not sure that they are exactly the original quote I’m looking for. These are the best answers so far:

The first lead comes from @DJClayworth in his comment to my original question who suggested:

  At the end of one character who has been good but a
  worshiper of Tash meets Aslan and throws himself down expecting to be
  killed. Aslan picks him up saying "Many worshiped Tash thinking him to
  be me. Many also worship me, thinking me to be Tash.

Of course I haven’t read the Narnia series so I am not very well informed about the character development or context. Here is my valiant but feeble interpretation of @DJClayworth’s comment: Perhaps CSL is conveying that the conflict between worshippers of two adversarial characters (perhaps with Aslan being Yeshua-like and Tash being Lucifer-like) are somehow worshiping the same deity. That’s the best I can possibly extrapolate so far. I don’t know what else to infer from this?

I found the actual page reference from the book providing a little more context. Here is the full paragraph from Lewis’ (1956) The Last Battle:

  Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

(pp144-145).  This book cited here was republished in 2007 by HarperCollins.

I have difficulty extrapolating the christian metaphor or narrative that Lewis is trying to convey. It completely escapes me. The unusual language that is almost Shakespearean doesn't help either. I can’t imagine C S Lewis’ audience of children would understand this any better than I can.

Anyways, the quote I described in my original question sounded to me more like a pointed “maxim” or “axiom” about God’s universal nature drawing all religions and human cultures from a single origin. That is more what I was getting at in my question.

Moving onto the second lead that I am working with now, there is a popular meme in circulation attributed to C. S. Lewis without a proper citation (so this destroys its credibility - - it’s almost baseless) but I think it is much closer to my original question.

One meme reads:

  I am in your world,” said Aslan. “But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.

Another similar quote and even more axiomatic reads: “In your world, I have another name. You should know me by it.”

In this quote, I suppose it could be interpreted that the God who we know in Heaven goes by many names when humans walk the Earth and so we should come to get to know Him in the name of Christ.

At this point I suppose this meme is probably the one that I saw years ago that I can only remember vaguely today. This is as close as I’ve got to the answer to my original question but my memory is telling me that I am still missing something.

This ‘axiom’ (more like a vapid meme) is not only unsourced but it’s also way beyond the confines of Catholic doctrine which lends it even less credibility in my mind.

I checked C. S. Lewis’ Wikiquote page looking for a reference but didn’t find anything. If any of you people here on Stack Exchange have a reference, please feel free to update this answer with a correction.

I'll mark my question as answered.


You are mistaken:

  The man’s name was Elimelek, his wife’s name was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion...They married Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. - Ruth 1:2,4 NIV [Emphasis added]

So it is Naomi, not Ruth who was the wife of Elimelech; the verse you cited gives the more specific information that Ruth married Mahlon whereas chapter 1 leaves it open as to whether it was Mahlon or Kilion that she'd married.


What is meant by the 'Confirmation' concerning the receiving of Holy Spirit in Acts 8:5-19?

The is from the perspective which is taught by a Word of Faith church.

One. If Phillip was able to perform miracles and baptize people, then what was the need for Peter and John to go to Samaria?
1 Cor 12:11: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

For whatever reason Phillip knew the Holy Spirit did not will for Him to lay hands on people and them have the miracle of the Holy Spirit fill them.

Two. Why was the Holy Spirit not given when Phillip baptized the people?

Being filled with the Holy Spirit is not the same as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Being baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues is a different kind of miracle than the New Birth.

Three. What actually happened when Peter and John placed their hands on the people that even Simon the sorcerer was amazed at it?
Four. What kind of manifestation of the Spirit was it? Clearly it was visible and powerful.

They were filled with the Holy Spirit and they probably spoke in tongues but there may have also been:

Prophecy
Holy Laughter
Falling, shouting, dancing, shaking, paralysis.

Five. Why is this incidence known as Confirmation?

It is not known as confirmation in all Christian denominations.


What role does the New Covenant play in Reformed Theology?

To my understanding, covenant theology is a lens through which to interpret scripture and understand it. It appears from the answer below that this way of interpreting and understanding scripture encompasses the traditionally understood purpose behind Jesus' death with the institution of the New Covenant [NT].

What is Covenant Theology in Reformed Theology?

  Covenant theology (also known as Covenantalism, Federal theology,
  or Federalism) is a Calvinist conceptual overview and interpretive
  framework for understanding the overall flow of the Bible. It uses the
  theological concept of covenant as an organizing principle for
  Christian theology. The standard description of covenant theology
  views the history of God's dealings with mankind, from Creation to
  Fall to Redemption to Consummation, under the framework of the three
  overarching theological covenants of redemption, works, and
  grace.1

  1. cf. Covenant Theology |
  Wikipedia.

Repeating, the three overarching theological covenants are:

The covenant of works,
The covenant of redemption, and
The covenant of grace.

This is in contrast to the [Catholic] Perspective of the Old Covenant and the New and Everlasting Covenant (Old Testament and New Testament).

The covenant that appears to answer the questions - How does Reformed theology in particular connect its view of the purpose behind Jesus' death with the institution of the New Covenant? Or does Reformed theology talk much about the New Covenant? What sort of emphasis does it place on any connection between the Covenant and the Sacrifice? - is the covenant of grace, the promised eternal blessing for belief in Christ and obedience to God's word. It is seen as the basis for all biblical covenants that God made individually with Noah, Abraham, and David, nationally with O.T. Israel as a people, and universally with man in the New Covenant (sic).2

2. cf. Covenant of Grace | Theopedia.

Thus from my rudimentary understanding, the covenants of works is that pre-Fall agreement between God and Adam in which Adam was promised blessing and life upon obedience to the terms of the covenant and cursing and death should he disobey the terms of the covenant. The covenant of grace as above, and both founded on the covenant of redemption.

Further reading:

What Is Covenant Theology?.
The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology by Geerhardus Vos.
Covenant Theology 4: The Covenant of Redemption By Carl Gobelman.


Why was the name of St Joseph not mentioned at Luke 2: 19?

There are a few, related reasons that the Blessed Mother, and not St. Joseph, is said to have "kept all these words, pondering them in her heart" (Lk. 2:19):
On the nativity, Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., writes (Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life ch. 3):

Mary grew in humility, poverty and love of God by giving birth to her Son in a stable. His cradle was but a manger. But, by contrast, there were the angels there to sing “Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.” Those words were sweet to the ears of the shepherds and of St. Joseph, and still more sweet to the ears of Mary. They were the beginning of a Gloria which the Church does not cease to sing at Mass while this world endures, and the liturgy of eternity has not yet replaced that of time.
It is said of Mary that she kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. Though her joy at the birth of her Son was intense, she treasured it up in silence. St. Elisabeth alone received her confidences. God’s greatest actions defy human expression. What could Mary say to equal what she had experienced?

St. Ambrose wrote (quoted in St. Thomas's Catena Aurea on St. Luke's Gospel):

Esteem not the words of the shepherds as mean and despicable: For from the shepherds Mary increases her faith, as it follows: Mary kept all these sayings, and pondered them in her heart. Let us learn the chastity of the sacred Virgin in all things, who no less chaste in her words than in her body, gathered up in her heart the materials of faith.

The third reason Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., gives in his Commentary on St. Luke, pp. 100-101, is

that in good time she might unfold all these things and narrate them in order to the apostles, and especially to S. Luke, who was destined to write of them. Observe here in the Virgin the rare example of maidenly silence and modesty,* of heavenly prudence, and of the firmest faith and hope, as she wonders at the present and waits for the future.

*cf. 1 Timothy 2:11:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Her prompt, unquestioning, silent obedience to St. Joseph telling her they needed to flee to Egypt (Mt. 2:13-14) is another example of her womanly virtues.


There are two "Sheba"s in the Bible. One is a descendant of Cush (Ethiopia). This Cush is probably somewhere near there.

The other is a decendant of Shem. The Semite Sheba's brothers include Ophir and Havilah.

Ophir and Havila are places accessible from King Solomon's Red Sea port Etzion Geber (near Eilat/Aqaba today) It would make sense that the Semite Sheba is somewhere on the Red Sea.

It could well be that the two Shebas refer to the same nation, which had a mixture of Semite and Hamite characteristics. Indeed, there was much trade and interface across the Red Sea strait.

This fits well with the Ethopian tradition that King Solomon had a son with the Queen of Sheba, Menelik, who is the progenitor of the Ethiopian Monarchy. There is much evidence that the Queen was dark and not Nordic, Chinese, or West African.


In the Catholic Church, what are the options for a person whose spouse abandons them?

There's not a lot that can be done in this particular instance. One possibility is for Alice to argue that if Ben saw fit to leave, he didn't seem to be taking the marriage vows very seriously, and perhaps the marriage wasn't valid after all.
Catholicism regards marriage as including a permanent state of fidelity to one's spouse; Ben's leaving might be used to support an argument that at the time of the marriage, he didn't subscribe to this understanding of marriage. And canon law states that if one of the parties "marries" while intentionally meaning by marriage something different than the Church means, the relationship isn't a marriage:

If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.
(Canon 1102 sec. 2)

If Alice chooses to go this route and request a declaration of nullity in the marriage, the marriage tribunal is under the obligation to notify Ben and summon him to the ecclesiastical court within 20 days (canon 1507 sect. 2). If Alice has no idea of where Ben is—which may be the case; you don't specify—then it won't be possible to summon him. In this case it's possible for the judge to try and contact him, and, failing, issue a decree stating that all reasonable efforts to summon Ben have been made, and ordering the marriage tribunal to proceed.
If Ann does know where Ben lives (but simply can't communicate with him), a citation can be delivered to the address he's reasonably believed to live at. If Ben refuses to respond, but there is reasonable proof that the citation was delivered to him, the judge can declare Ben absent. This may allow the case to proceed without him. I don't know whether the law allows a declaration of nullity to be granted with Ben absent, much less whether it would be granted in the specific case. If it is, of course, Alice was never married and is free to if she desires.
If Alice chooses not to seek such a declaration, or if for whatever reason the declaration is not granted, then Alice is indeed married. She is unable to validly marry again, at least until Ben dies (canon 1085); nor can she enter a religious institute (canon 643, sec. 1, note 2).
However, she can request the local bishop to try to mediate in the affair:

Whenever there is hope of a favorable outcome, the judge is to use pastoral means to reconcile the spouses and persuade them to restore conjugal living.
(Canon 1695)

Indeed, this process should have started even before the annulment process:

Whenever the judge perceives some hope of a favorable outcome at the start of litigation or even at any other time, the judge is not to neglect to encourage and assist the parties to collaborate in seeking an equitable solution to the controversy and to indicate to them suitable means to this end, even by using reputable persons for mediation.
(Canon 1446 sec. 2, emphasis added)

If this is not successful, Alice can request an ecclesiastical decree of separation. There are a few situations in which the Church recognizes that abandonment of a spouse is the right of the other spouse: if the one spouse has committed adultery (canon 1152, sec. 1) or if  "either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult" (canon 1153 sec. 1). But if neither of these is the case (as appears in this instance), then Ben has wrongfully and maliciously abandoned Alice. If the bishop issues a decree of separation, it will account for the care of their children as well (canon 1154). It will require them to live out their lives in fidelity to the absent other, and to hope and pray for, and possibly try to work towards, reunification.


Why was Dan removed from the list of 12 Israel tribes in Rev 7?

Dan fell into idolatry in Judges 17 and 18, and was thus removed:

Judges 18:30-31:

  And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and
  Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests
  to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the
  land. So they set up Micah's carved image that he made, as long as the
  house of God was at Shiloh.

Also, Ephraim is missing as well.  Hosea 4:17 explains why:

  Ephraim is joined to idols; leave him alone.

See this link for more details.


Why are many Christians antagonistic towards the idea that God has a form?

Me think the following applies here:

  You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of
  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
  that is in the water under the earth.

That means (at least), that even if god had a form, we could not know it rightfully, for everyone that would show us how that form is like would violate the 3rd commandment.


Question regarding different translations of the Bible into Japanese

The most recent and most used translation in Japan is the 新共同訳聖書 Shin Kyōdō Yaku Seisho, both in Catholic and Protestant denominations in Japan.
Both the most recent version from 1987 and the older colloquial version (called 口語訳 – Kogoyaku) are also available and searchable online:
http://www.bible.or.jp/read/vers_search.html
The most recent version doesn't have the (confusing) transliterations of persons mentioned in the bible.
For example, in the Kogoyaku, the word "Jesus" would be rendered into kana as ジーザズ (d͡ʑi-i-d͡za̠-su) to correspond with "Djeezas", as we would pronounce it, which kinda goes against how syllables can group in Japanese.
In the recent version, this is rendered closer to Japanese syllable & transcription rules, as ジーズー (d͡ʑi-i-su-u)
I would therefore recommend the 1987 edition.


What does it mean to "worship God" to Christians in general?

In the Nicene Creed, one of the oldest formulations of the Faith, and one which is repeated every Sunday by a large portion of Christianity, it says of the Holy Spirit:

  I believe in the Holy Spirit, ... who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets

In theory then, all three members of the Trinity are worshipped and glorified equally.

That said, your question specifically asks for practice, not theological formulation.  And, since the Trinity is a hard concept to grok, one should expect significant deviation in practice.  That being said, both in my Baptistic and Episcopalian circles, it is not all uncommon to begin a prayer with "Father God Almighty" (I do) and to end with "All these things we pray in Jesus' name."  That one should so easily morph from one to the other speaks to the fuzziness of the distinction in our minds.

When discussing the role/s of the Godhead, study leads us to separate the individual persons of the godhead.  Reduction is a useful thing in study - that's why we dissect things.  That said, when you cut something up, sometimes you kill it :)  I say that to say that my formulation of prayer (again, not uncommon) shows how we can dissect the roles, but still see the sum "Three-In-One" as one being.

Mormons and other non-Trinitarians (a very small percentage of Christians) very clearly believe God the Father and God the Son to be two separate people - but those of us who are Trinitarian tend to be a little wibbly-wobbly on the whole thing.  In practice, we have a lot of bi-natarian theology (God the Father zaps you, and Jesus' blood saves you. That Holy Spirit Guy? Only Pentecostals and charismatics even know who he is!) - but even there, most Christians realize that Jesus is correct when he says "I and the Father are One."

I can only speak for me when I pray - I see the two fuzzily morphing in and out of oneness together - but I suspect that fuzziness is pretty common.


Are there any Messianic references in the OT apocrypha?

Not part of my definition of apocrypha, but reading Wisdom leaves you with a distinct feeling that that the messiah is coming and he's going to be very badly treated.
I won't post all of Wisdom 2 here, but make sure if you read it, that you don't cut up the verses, these are bad people talking bad things about a righteous Man.

For, not thinking rightly, they said among themselves:

(Wisdom 2:1 NABRE)
But, basically, as some English monks point out, the entire Bible points to Christ in some way:

In Tobit, He is the Messenger of New Life.
In Judith, He is Weakness Turned into Victory.
In Esther*, He is our Advocate.
In 1 and 2 Maccabees, He is the Leader who dies for God’s law.
In Wisdom, He is the emanation of God’s thought.
In Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Jesus is our security.
In Baruch, He is the Mercy from the Eternal One.
In Daniel*, Jesus is the Fourth Man in the fiery furnace.

*I know these aren't 100% Deuterocanonical, but they're in here for completion.


How do deniers of Jesus' divinity explain that the angel at Revelation 22:9 did not include Jesus in the list of beings that can be worshipped?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only Jehovah God should be worshipped. It would not be appropriate to worship any of Jehovah's creations, including Jesus or the angels. (Luke 4:8)
However, the matter is complicated by the fact that the Hebrew and Greek words that denote worship can also be applied to acts other than worship. This means that when translating these words, the Bible translator must be careful to take into consideration the context in order to get the intended meaning.
In the cases of Revelation 22:9, Hebrews 1:6, and Revelation 5:14, the Greek word used is pro·sky·neʹo. This word can be used to express a slave's act of obeisance towards a king (Matt. 18:26). In the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures, this word pro·sky·neʹo is used to denote the acts of obeisance that were done towards the kings of Israel, prophets, and other men.
In all of these situations, many Bible translators use various terms such as "do obeisance to", "do reverence to", "do honor to", "pay homage", or "bow down to" rather than "worship", because the context makes it clear that these are not acts of worship towards these men, which would be idolatry. Rather, they are acts of subjection and respect towards a person in authority.
For this reason, the New World Translation does not use the word "worship" in Hebrews 1:6. Instead, it says:

But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

It would logically be inappropriate for God to command the angels to worship Jesus because it would be in direct contradiction to God's commands against idolatry and giving exclusive devotion to himself. (Exodus 34:14) It would also be in contradiction to when Jesus stated that we must worship only God. (Matt. 4:8-10) So, it becomes clear that the kind of pro·sky·neʹo being expressed in Hebrews 1:6 is one of showing respect to a king, such as bowing down or kneeling. Or even if "worship" is the preferred rendering, it's clear that this worship is still given to God by means of Jesus being God's representative. (Hebrews 1:1-3)
Meanwhile, Revelation 22:9 and Revelation 5:14 are accounts where the worship is being directed towards Jehovah God (see also Revelation 4:10 and its context), so it would be Scripturally consistent to translate pro·sky·neʹo as "worship" in those verses, though the other various meanings of pro·sky·neʹo would also be acceptable.
See also:

"Is It Proper to Worship Jesus?" - Awake! April 8th, 2000; pages 26-27
"Do Angels Worship Jesus?" - Watchtower January 15th, 1992; page 23


What kinds of liquids can Catholics have while fasting?
First of all let us look at the rules for fasting and abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church. Here is what Pope St. Paul VI has to say in his Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini. The Code of Canon Law (1983) in the Latin Rite reflects this completely.

II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast is to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to the various practices of the rites, on the first day of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent) and on Good Friday.

III. 1. The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat.

The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom.

IV. To the law of abstinence those are bound who have completed their 14th year of age. To the law of fast those of the faithful are bound who have completed their 21st year and up until the beginning of their 60th year.
As regards those of a lesser age, pastors of souls and parents should see to it with particular care that they are educated to a true sense of penitence.

For the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches prescribes (Canon 882):

"Can. 882: On the days of penance the Christian faithful are obliged to observe fast or abstinence in the manner established by the particular law of their Church."

What we have thus noticed thus far is that Pope Paul's Paenitemini and Canon Law do not speak on the subject of liquids. Liquids consumed during the course of the major (principle) meal  would simply be part of that meal.

Besides a complete meal, the Church now permits a collation usually taken in the evening. In considering this point proper allowance must be made for what custom has introduced regarding both the quantity and the quality of viands allowed at this repast. In the first place, about eight ounces of food are permitted at the collation even though this amount of food would fully satisfy the appetites of some persons. Moreover, the attention must be paid to each person's temperament, duties, length of fast, etc. Hence, much more food is allowed in cold than in warm climates, more to those working during the day than to those at ease, more to the weak and hungry than to the strong and well fed. As a general rule whatever is deemed necessary in order to enable people to give proper attention to their duties may be taken at the collation. Moreover, since custom first introduced the collation, the usage of each country must be considered in determining the quality of viands permitted thereat. In some places eggs, milk, butter, cheese and fish are prohibited, while bread, cake, fruit, herbs and vegetables are allowed. In other places, milk, eggs, cheese, butter and fish are permitted, owing either to custom or to Indult. This is the case in the United States. However, in order to form judgments perfectly safe concerning this point, the Lenten regulations of each diocese should be carefully read. Finally, a little tea, coffee, chocolate or such like beverage together with a morsel of bread or a cracker is now allowed in the morning. Strictly speaking, whatever may be classified under the head of liquids may be taken as drink or medicine at any time of the day or night on fasting days. Hence, water, lemonade, soda, water, ginger ale, wine, beer and similar drinks may be taken on fasting days outside meal time even though such beverages may, to some extent, prove nutritious. Coffee, tea, diluted chocolate, electuaries made of sugar, juniper berries, and citron may be taken on fasting days, outside meal time, as medicine by those who find them conducive to health. Honey, milk, soup, broth, oil or anything else having the nature of food, is not allowed under either of the two categories already specified. It is impossible to decide mathematically how much food is necessary to involve a serious violation of this law. Moralists as well as canonists concur in holding that an excess of four ounces would seriously militate against the obligation of fasting, whether that much food was consumed at once or at various intervals during the day because Alexander VII (18 March, 1666) condemned the teaching of those who claimed that food so taken was not to be regarded as equaling or exceeding the amount allowed (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, tenth ed. Freiburg im Br., 1908, No. 1129). - Fast (Catholic Encyclopedia)

The key point to notice here is that, unlike the fasting required before Communion, the Lenten fasts were--even in stricter times--regarded as fasts from food only, not from both food and liquid. Therefore: If you’re taking a liquid that has considerable food value, you’re breaking the fast. If you’re taking liquid in the usual sense of “having a drink”, you’re not breaking the fast. Having a glass of wine during the main meal of the days is quite permitted during a fast day. However, enjoying an alcoholic drink outside a meal would definitely not be in the spirit of doing penance on Ash Wednesday or Good Friday.

Rauchbier, or “smoke beer,” is made using malts that have been dried over fire—-thus gaining the smoky taste of cured meats like ham and bacon. At one time all beers malts were produced over fire, but in medieval Bavaria beers of this type came to be associated with Lent when the rich, smoky tones of meat were dearly missed. There is, of course, an official blessing for beer (“Bless, O Lord, this creature beer . . . ”) which one may safely assume is more efficacious in the original Latin: ” Benedic, Domine, creaturam istam cerevisiae, quam ex adipe frumenti producere dignatus es: ut sit remedium salutare humano generi, et praesta per invocationem nominis tui sancti; ut, quicumque ex ea biberint, sanitatem corpus et animae tutelam percipiant. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.” - Rauchbier (First Things)

Bamberg Smoked Beers
I would like to conclude this answer on a personal note. I spent 20 years in a monastery attached to the Old Rite. The community practices the complete Lenten fast (40 days of fasting) for the complete season of Lent. The monks are quite free to drink a glass of wine (it is a French thing) at the principle meal of the day (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday included), but most do not.

“Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!” - Hilaire Belloc


What is the non-abstract definition of love according to the Bible?

The most overlooked topic ever
Love is exactly what the Bible is trying to teach us in my opinion. Too often do we use a very abstract meaning when throwing this word around, almost to the point that it has been completely deflated of it's value.
God recognized this more than two thousand years ago, and thus, gave us this command.

1 John 3:18 NIV
Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions
and in truth.

Love for God is Obedience
The first and the most important commandment is that you Love God. But how can we do that with an abstract definition of the word? We cannot. God has told us to love with actions and in truth. The following commands are how we show God that we love Him.

2 John 1:6
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
1 John 5:3
In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands
are not burdensome,
2 John 1:6
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

It's no wonder why John was considered the Apostle of Love. How does this definition fall into place with the gospel? Love is the capstone of it all.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any
value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through
love.

Some evidence of the power of Love in this context
Love/Obedience Purifies us

1 Peter 1:22
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you
have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the
heart.

Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for

Proverbs 16:6
Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of
the LORD evil is avoided.


Could December 25 as the birthday of Jesus have come from Pagan influences?

From the Bible, we can be pretty sure that Jesus was not born on December 25.

Late September or early October, perhaps even on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, is the most likely time.

Here is an part of an essay written elsewhere, in which I summarized the birth date:

  Though it seldom snows there, December in Jerusalem is a cold and wet time.
  From early Spring to late Fall, it was common for sheep, goats, and cattle to graze on the grassy lands in the area. But after the Fall harvest, animals would be kept close to home where they could eat hay and be sheltered at night.

  That any shepherds would be out in the fields, tending flocks at night in late December is very unlikely.

  The Bible

  While not explicitly condemning the practice, the Bible hardly encourages the celebration of birthdays. The few times that birthdays are mentioned, they are unpleasant events such as the presentation of John the Baptist's head as a birthday present.

  The Bible records the date and time of Jesus's death, but not of his birth. There are sufficient clues that one can make a reasonable estimate though.

  Elisabeth conceived (John the Baptist) immediately after Zacharias finished his Abia priestly duties (Luke 1):

  [5] ... priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia ... [8] ... he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course [23] ... as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. [24] And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived ...

  Her cousin Mary conceived (Jesus) six months later:

  [26] And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth [27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
  [36] And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. [40] And [Mary] entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. [56] And Mary abode with her about three months ...

  The "course of Abia" is defined in the First book of Chronicles:

  [24:10] The seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah
  [24:19] These were the orderings of them in their service ...

  Each priest served for a week, with the cycle beginning on the 1st day of Nisan. But during the week of Passover (Nisan 14) and Pentecost (7 weeks later) all priests served together, so Zacharias, being of the 8th course, would have finished his first course after the 10th week of the year.
  Six months after that (Jesus's conception) would have been around what the Romans called late December, and nine months after that (Jesus's birth) would have been late September or early October.

  That would be around the time of Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles).
  Sukkot is one of three times each year when people made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
  In addition to the normal tithe given to support the priesthood, people were encouraged to save a second tithe to use for their own expenses and celebrations during these times
  (Deuteronomy 14:26): "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household".

  Even today, most people that observe this fall festival travel away from home, or if they can't, they arrange to sleep in a tent or some other location different from their normal home.

  It's by no means a certainty that this is when Jesus was born, but if Jesus had been born during the Feast of Tabernacles, it then confirms why his parents stayed in their family's home town of Bethlehem, just south of Jerusalem.

  Why

  Roman Christianity was developed during the first few centuries after Jesus, and was largely canonicalized during the reign of Emperor Constantine.
  Though he was largely responsible for defining Roman Christianity, throughout this process Constantine remained a Sun worshipper, and didn't formally convert to Christianity until shortly before his death.

  One way for the official Roman religion to subsume the many existing religions and cults, both in Rome and throughout the Empire, was for it to incorporate their more popular practices while requiring nothing more than that the names be changed.
  A single universal religion, regardless of what it believed, would make the Empire stronger and easier to control.

  If people wanted to continue to celebrate December 25, whether in honour of Mithras or of the Sun God Apollo, they could continue to do so, just so long as they now call him Jesus.


Is it moral or immoral for Satan to punish souls for immoral acts?

In Dante's Inferno, that may have been the case, however, in the Bible, that is absolutely not the case.  Satan was never given dominion over hell.  In fact, Revelation 19 and 20 tells us Satan will be bound and thrown into the Abyss for 1000 years.  After his release, he will be cast into the Lake of Fire with Death, the Grave, the Beast and the False Prophet to burn forever.  Satan receives eternal punishment for his actions according to the Bible.  Aside from 14th Century literature, he never gets to take his revenge out on anyone.  In other words, Satan does not ever punish any souls for immoral acts according to the Bible.

As for the morality of "punishing" someone in Hell, I would contest that as well.  I would say a person who rejects God has chosen Hell over Heaven and God forcing a person who wanted nothing to do with Him in life to spend eternity with Him in a relationship they didn't want is tantamount to kidnapping.  Think Jayce Dugard.  That would be the truly immoral thing to do.


Passage in Bible saying: Every morning I wake up a new person?

I believe you're thinking of 2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV)

  17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things
  are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

It's not "every morning" but it is the passage that comes to mind with the teaching that we are made new.  It deals with out new relationship in Christ after salvation.

In the Old Testament, there is Lamentations 3:22-23 (KJV)

  22 It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his
  compassions fail not.

  23 They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.

If neither of these are what you're thinking of, you can search many versions of the Bible at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations+3%3A22-23&version=KJV


Can a female Religious (a nun or sister) be expelled from her order after a hysterectomy?

Can a Religious (a nun) be expelled from her order after a hysterectomy?

The short answer is no.

No religious would be expelled from their Religious Order simple because they got sick and doctors had to perform an hysterectomy. If she developed cancer and the hysterectomy was deemed necessary, there would be no sin in having an hysterectomy. The surgery could  be necessary because cancer is a death sentence, if left untreated.

That said I have known religious to be sent home to their families in order to recuperate from surgery and illness, but returned after a time of convalescence and once their health had improved.

Not at all the same as a hysterectomy, but the amputation of a limb for example would not be a cause for expulsion from a Religious Order.

We see in the life of Brother Anthony Kowalczyk, OMI suffered a grievous accident that made it necessary for the doctor to amputate one of his hands while still a simply professed brother. He eventually went on to become a solemnly professed Oblate of Mary Immaculate.

Caveat:

Most Religious Orders ask that postulants, novices and simple vowed Religious must generally have good health in order to take perpetual vows. Having an hysterectomy in itself is not a reason for permission not to be granted the grace to pronounce solemn vows, but if the cause is of the hysterectomy was simply a bandaid in one’s health (terminal cancer) in order to prolong one’s life, the Religious in question could be asked to leave due to general poor health. Some communities, nevertheless, allow such persons to remain in the community as oblates or internal oblates.


Would God allow all of humanity to be celibate?

The short answer is no.

This goes directly against what God said to Adam:

  28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:28

God would not allow humanity to disappear by such an act to transpire.

Besides man has free will and as such it would be extremely doubtful that every man, woman and child would voluntarily remain celibate for life.

  The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church asserts that "Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will". It goes on to say that "God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."" The section concludes with the role that grace plays, "By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world." - Free will in theology