What indication is there that the famous census under Quirinius is the first-ever done in the region?

Until the time of Quirinius, Rome certainly had the power to impose a census in Judea, but to have done so would not have made any sense, being a waste of resources and an imposition on King Herod who ruled autonomously on Rome's behalf. After Herod's death, his empire was broken up, in accordance with his will, and Archelaus inherited Judea, Samaria and Idumea. Archelaus proved to be both unpopular and incompetent, so was deposed by Rome in 6 CE, with Rome taking direct control over the former kingdom. Rome now needed to know what taxes could be raised in its new provinceand therefore conducted a first Roman census in Judea. Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian,  reports as follows on Quirinius and his census:

  Jewish Antiquities , XVIII, i, 1: Quirinius, a Roman senator who had proceeded through all the magistracies to the consulship and a man who was extremely distinguished in other respects, arrived in Syria, dispatched by Caesar [Augustus] to be governor of the nation and to make an assessment of their property.  Coponius, a man of equestrian rank was sent along with him to rule over the Jews with full authority.  Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it ...

We can be certain of the date of this census, because Josephus actually mentions the year 6:

  Jewish Antiquities , XVIII, ii, 1: Quirinius had now liquidated the estate of Archelaus; and by this time the registrations of property that took place in the thirty-seventh year after Caesar's defeat of Antony at Actium were complete. Since the high priest Joazar had now been overpowered by a popular faction, Quirinius stripped him of the dignity of his office.

Luke 2:2 says that the census first (πρώτη) took place when Quirinius was governing Syria. The straight-forward reading of this, accepted by most scholars, is that Luke is saying this was the first census in the region.

Luke confuses things a little, by saying (Luke 2:1) that the census was necessary so that the whole world could be registered, thus intimating that the census involved the entire Roman Empire. However, there never was a census of the entire Roman Empire. In any case,  people throughout the Roman Empire, apart from residents of Rome, were already taxed long before the New Testament events.  Judea was being brought into the empire and preparations were being made to tax its population.


Is the commandment to multiply, and replenish the earth in effect today?

A commandment is in effect until it is fulfilled. God has not told us it is fulfilled, so it is in effect unless we believe it to be fulfilled to His satisfaction.

Personally I don't believe it to be fulfilled. All the "over population" we see is simply a mismanagement of resources. There is plenty of livable earth and resources available. Not that replenishment requires exhaustion of resources, but our level of waste is appalling, and better urban planning could improve the living conditions where population is high.

I believe the commandment to have domion over the earth includes a stewardship to care for it, which clearly we can do better. Perhaps that is why the two commandments were given together. As we do better with our stewardship to care for the earth we can do better to replenish the earth.

Searching around for any Christian statements on the commandment to multiple and replenish in modern times I found the following:

  We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.

-The Family: A Proclamation to the World
  The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints September 23, 1995

As well as the Catholic church stance on birth control:

  . . . it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Wikipedia summarizes other Christian views on birth control, which go both directions. Of course Birth control isn't exactly what you asked, but they are related.

No doubt someone could find links to contradict me. I guess it comes down to your personal beliefs.

My personal belieft is we are each to have as many children as we can reasonably support and care for. I have four children. My wife an I believe any more and we would not be able raise and care for them effectively (but that may be a failing on our part). I have friends with 6 or even 8 children who do quite well as taking care of them.

As an aside: It continues to be important that we specifically as Christians multiply and replenish the earth, and raise our children as good Christians to be a force of good in the Lord's work. To stop having children because one believes the world to be flawed is to give up hope of improving the world. Children raised up with good Christian values are the greatest hope for a better tomorrow.


What are the reasons for fasting from midnight before Eucharist?

Prior to the Council decision in 417 CE, Augustine opined in letter 54 in 400 CE that "for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a Christian;".

Augustine recognized that the Lord and apostles ate the Thanksgiving [Eucharist] after eating (Mat. 26:26, etc), but believed that the apostles or successors had the authority to make changes.  This accounted for the variety of observances in churches.

But why midnight?  Augustine says, "As to the question whether upon that day it is right to partake of food before either offering or partaking of the Eucharist,"

In the Roman time frame, a day began and ended at midnight.  So, that day would start at midnight from which no food/water was taken until the sacrament.  Centuries later, Aquinas confirms this understanding.

In addition, there are references to pagans fasting until midnight and then breaking their fasts with revelry.  Christians apparently reacted against this practice not with revelry, but with beginning a fast at midnight.  Again, this would account for the variety of observance as not all the same practices were found throughout the world.

Letter 54 of St. Augustine (A.D. 400)

Summa Theologiae (Question 80): The use or receiving of this sacrament in general

A History Of The Church, from the Edict of Milan, A. D. 313, to the Council of Chalcedon See page 185.


In the tradition of Jehovah's Witnesses, does Romans 6:23 mean that all people who are resurrected have their sins blotted out?

The answer to this question lies in understanding judgement day from the Jehovah's Witnesses point of view.
We do not believe persons are resurrected  and judged worthy of eternal life or eternal anihilation based on their imperfect previous existence. Rather those sins are blotted out or paid for by death.
After resurection all persons righteous  and unrighteousness in their previous existence will be able to fully align themselves with Gods will if they choose to. Naturally those who previously had aligned themselves to the extent possible in their imperfect past life will find it easier to conform to Gods plan during the 1000 year judgement day.
The Awake January 2010  had  an article that explains JWs concepts on judgement day

What Is Judgment Day?

The Bible says that God “has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth.” (Acts 17:31) For many people the prospect of being subjected to any kind of judgment is unwelcome. Is that how you feel?

IF SO, you can find comfort in the fact that Judgment Day is a loving arrangement that will bring great blessings to the human family—including those who have died. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16) Why is Judgment Day necessary? What will actually occur during that “day”?

Judgment Day—Why Needed?
When God placed humans on the earth, he did not intend it to be merely a proving ground for future life in another realm. He created humans to live forever on the earth. Although physically and mentally perfect, the first human couple rebelled against God. As a result, they lost the prospect of eternal life for themselves and brought sin and death to all of their descendants.—Genesis 2:15-17; Romans 5:12.

Judgment Day will be a period of a thousand years during which humans will have the opportunity to regain what Adam and Eve lost. * Notice that Acts 17:31, quoted above, says that Judgment Day will affect those living on “the inhabited earth.” Those receiving favorable judgment will live on earth and will enjoy everlasting life in perfect conditions. (Revelation 21:3, 4) Thus, Judgment Day helps to accomplish God’s original purpose for humans and the earth.

God’s appointed Judge is Christ Jesus. The Bible says that Jesus will “judge the living and the dead.” (2 Timothy 4:1) Who are “the living” that will be judged? How will the dead come to life again on “the inhabited earth”?

Jesus Judges “the Living”
We are now nearing the foretold end of the present system of things, when God will destroy all elements of corrupt human society  and remove the wicked. Survivors of this system’s end are “the living” who will be judged.—Revelation 7:9-14; 19:11-16.

During that period of judgment, which will last 1,000 years, Christ Jesus along with 144,000 men and women resurrected to life in heaven will rule over the earth. They will serve as kings and priests, administering the benefits of Jesus’ ransom sacrifice and progressively elevating faithful humans to physical and mental perfection.—Revelation 5:10; 14:1-4; 20:4-6.

During Judgment Day, Satan and the demons will be restrained from influencing human activity. (Revelation 20:1-3) However, at the end of Judgment Day, Satan will be allowed to test the loyalty of every human living. Those who remain loyal to God will have passed the test that Adam and Eve failed. They will be judged worthy of receiving everlasting life in the restored Paradise earth. Those who choose to rebel against God will be permanently destroyed, as will Satan and the demons.—Revelation 20:7-9.

Judging “the Dead”
The Bible says that during Judgment Day the dead will “rise up.” (Matthew 12:41) Jesus said that “the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28, 29) This is not referring to disembodied souls of those who have died. The dead are totally unconscious and do not have a soul that survives death. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14, 23, 24) Jesus will bring those asleep in death back to life again on earth.

Will the judgment of resurrected ones be based on what they did before their death? No. The Bible teaches that “he who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” (Romans 6:7) So, like those who survive the end of this system, those resurrected to life on earth will be judged “according to their deeds” during Judgment Day. (Revelation 20:12, 13) Depending on the final outcome of their actions, this will turn out to be either a resurrection that results in everlasting life or a resurrection that results in destruction. Many of those restored to life will for the first time come to know about Jehovah God and his requirements for life. They will have the opportunity to live in harmony with God’s will and receive everlasting life on earth.

No Reason for Fear
Judgment Day will be not only a time of instruction from God but also a time for those alive to apply what they learn and enjoy the blessings that result. Just imagine your joy at being reunited with resurrected loved ones and growing to human perfection along with them!

Just imagine your joy at being reunited with resurrected loved ones
God will allow Satan to test the loyalty of human creatures at the end of Judgment Day. But there is no need to be anxious or fearful. By the end of Judgment Day, all living will be fully equipped to face this final test. Judgment Day will thus be a part of the accomplishment of God’s purpose to undo all the effects of the original rebellion against God in the garden of Eden.

So yes all persons resurrected will have a clean slate, as it were,with God. Their eternal salvation is based on how they are judged during the 1000 year  judgement day and their successfully withstanding the final testing period when Satan is released for a short time at the end if judgement day.


Is there a doctrine or Biblical justification that explains why God chose the number 7 to be so significant?

I don't think you'll find dogma from any major tradition insisting that God pre-ordained the number 7, that it's integral to His nature, or anything of the sort. In fact, scripture suggests the contrary.  Consider first God's consecration of 7 as the symbol of perfection. It's the final event (or detail) of the first creation account.

Genesis 2:1-3

  1 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were
  completed. 2 On the seventh day God completed the work he
  had been doing; he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had
  undertaken. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy,
  because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.

So, right off the bat, regardless of whether we assume the creation story is allegorical or literal, we can already start to make a case that God consecrated the number post-creation. He works for six days, and once everything is to His liking, he declares perfection, which just to happens to be on the 7th day. Seven thereby symbolizes perfection. Nowhere else (that I can think of) does God directly reveal 7 as a symbol of perfection; it is seemingly deduced from creation, God's reflection on the 7th day that His work is perfect.

Those preferring the allegorical reading might suggest that the story takes place in 7 days because the Jews already used 7 to symbolize perfection, or because certain prevalent natural harmonies in the universe made 7 significant, etc.. Those preferring a literal reading can start to sense that God didn't pre-consecrate 7; that consecration occurs distinctly after God creates everything. And in either case, the consecration of 7 as perfection occurs at a particular point in time in the story -- in fact, it's the point in time itself, according to the story, that defines the number of perfection, which "ends up" being 7.

Now, one could (and should) object here and suggest that, since God is omniscient and omnipotent, He could simply have planned to make all things in 6 days and declare perfection on the 7th. He was eternally aware of 7's perfection. And that's a fair point.

Thus, we turn to Jesus' own words to weigh in on our speculation. The first story in gospel of Mark wherein Jesus is challenged with a question about the Sabbath is significant. Upon being caught disrespecting Sabbath law, Jesus rebuts with a pretty revealing statement.

Mark 2:27-28

  27 Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man,
  not man for the sabbath. 28 That is why the Son of Man is
  lord even of the sabbath.”

This statement points all the way back to creation. The Jews revere the number 7 as the symbol of perfection on account of God's mandate for a Sabbath. And now Jesus is telling the Jews that God made the Sabbath for them.

The point is simultaneously subtle and glaring. God doesn't need a Sabbath. And God doesn't need 7 to mean anything. We do. Therefore, for our sake, God chooses the number most beneficial and recognizable to our nature to signify perfection and denote cycles of rest and worship.

God choose seven to serve human nature, not His own. More to it, God doesn't need symbols or special numbers. We do. God just gives us what we need (or ask for) to help us stay on track.


Are there any traditions regarding the non-disciple casting out demons in Jesus' name?

The earliest tradition could have been any eye witness To the works of Jesus. Yet as a specific tradition passed down from the non-disciple. I have not read about in any of the apocrypha. However the tradition is explained in both Matthew and Luke (Matthew 5:39). Learning how to cast out a demon, may help you gain perspective on how this non-disciple did this.

First we must really understand what a demon / evil spirit / unclean spirit means. Think about the word possession. In this context the word possess means "To have as a quality, characteristic" [a]. Next one must really understand what your spirit means. In the context of what the New Testament uses the word spirit the definition is "A mood or an emotional state" [b]. For example the three parts of God, his Mind, his Word / Flesh, his mood or an emotional state / his Love.

We all are made in his image. So we also have these three parts of us as well. When a thought is in our mind, we have a choice. This choice is whether or not we will speak that thought. For the word only does what the father tells him. Our mood is a reflection to our thoughts what is being said and what is being heard (1 Corinthians 2:11).

So then what does it mean to be of an evil spirit, the simple answer is a "bad mood". Now if one is in a bad mood, they might say things they don't truly mean these things said are Lies. Lies as we know are evil. Therefore a solid connection between a bad mood and an evil mood can be established. A bad mood without sin would logically be an unclean spirit.

Then what is a demon? In standard Christianity, a demon is defined as a fallen angel. But the Greek definition for the word translated as demon means "to be under the power of a demon." So when you see the translation a "demon possessed man". Another way that could be translated would be "A man that has a quality or characteristic of being under the power of a demon." Or simply someone doing what the devil wants and not what God wants. If that trait can be found on you, then you are in possession of that trait. That trait being evil, doing as that trait desires shows who has the control. If a demon can be identified by its traits of doing evil, and you have that trait as well, then the identity of the demon controlling you can be identified. Yet the control or power is given in free will. So blame can still fall on the man.

But since we are much more accustomed today with the word mood. To learn how to expel demons it will be much easier to explain using the word mood. So recorded in Luke is a man who also cast away someones bad mood. He did this using the name of Jesus. Much confusion on using the name of Jesus is active today. If you asked most people how to use the name of Jesus, you would most likely get "do this in the name of Jesus!" or "In the name of Jesus I command you!"

So next, to really understand how this "non-follower" used Jesus name. We go back in time to the time of Jesus. Doing something in the "old Jewish form of someones name" in today's standards is similar to a job position title. For example we expect a certain persona when we hear the word Waitress. We can tell that there is a lot of difference we we think of a Politician, or a Used Car Sales Man.

Well in those days they did not have a copyright office so specific talents where associated to ones name. Hopefully this helps you understand why the Disciples tried to stop the man because he wasn't one of them (Luke 9:49). Back in those days if you tried to use someones name, it would be similar to copyright infringement. The Disciples truly felt that the man was stealing away Jesus identity, by treating the guy in a bad mood the way Jesus did. That also is why they felt it was important to tell Jesus what they had done. So as to make him aware that his identity was at stake.

The use of someones name would have specific characteristics, for example posture, methods of doing things, fancy sayings, ect. We still have a bit of that today. If I lower my voice and say "I'll be back" you can see that I was impersonating Arnold Schwarzenegger. Or in Jewish days I would have been in the name of Arnold. Luck for us we are all called to impersonate Jesus. By doing this we can be saved.

But he has told us his name, bless those that curse you, turn the other cheek, listen, and love. This is how he got rid of those bad moods. So this non-disciple was pretty smart, he was able to understand the advantages of what Jesus was doing. The question of the traditions should be in the light now. Let us all go and cast out some demons =)

[a] www.thefreedictionary.com/possess
[b] www.thefreedictionary.com/spirit


Concerning a fallen nature:

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any
tree of the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will
certainly die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

One way of looking at God's command is to combine it with this:

For in Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday that passes by,
like a few hours of the night. (Psalm 90:4)

which is repeated here:

Dear friends, don’t let this one thing escape you: With the Lord one
day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. (2
Peter 3:8)

So Adam and Eve did die on the same "day" that they ate of the fruit, if that day is taken figuratively to be a thousand years. A second example of this principle is found in the story of Noah:

6 When mankind began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born
to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were
beautiful, and they took any they chose as wives for themselves. 3 And
the Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain with mankind forever,
because they are corrupt. Their days will be 120 years.” (Genesis 6:1-3)

Biblical genealogies show that people after Noah still live much longer than 120 years, but the maximum ages steadily declined. However, if you follow the chronologies forward 1,000 years from that statement, you get to a point a decade or two after the death of Moses. Moses died at age 120 years. Nobody in the Bible after Moses ever again lived longer than 120 years.
So Adam and Eve went from immortal, to mortal with a lifespan of up to a thousand years, and their descendamts eventually to a lifespan no greater than 120 years. This shows a progressive corruption of the human genome, a physical manifestation of a changed nature, which presumably has a spiritual component as well, as claimed by the Apostle Paul in his writings, when he talks about the "flesh" or "sin nature".
As an interesting scientific aside, consider this command:

Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in
the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the
earth. 5 You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the
Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the
fathers’ sin, to the third and fourth generations of those who hate
Me, 6 but showing faithful love to a thousand generations of those who
love Me and keep My commands. (Exodus 20:4-6)

It has recently been shown that acquired characteristics related to the environment may be passed down from parents to children via "epigenetic" markers. These markers, if not reinforced by the children, fade after three to four generations. So a trait like susceptibility to alcoholism can be passed down to children of alcoholics due to their parent's bad choices, but it will diminish over the generations if the children and grandchildren choose to reject that habit.
As an example of this working out in the Bible, Cain slew his brother Abel; several generations later, Cain's descendant Lamech was also a murderer.
As one final statement about the nature of man, consider what Solomon, the wisest man to ever live (besides Jesus) said:

Only see this: I have discovered that God made people upright, but
they pursued many schemes.” (Ecclesiastes 7:29)

Concerning the "resurrection of the damned".
God cannot contradict himself. He promised to hold a trial for everyone who ever lived:
A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from His presence.
Thousands upon thousands served Him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was convened,
and the books were opened. (Daniel 7:10)

And later:

11 Then I saw a great white throne and One seated on it. Earth and
heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I
also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the
throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the
book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by
what was written in the books.
13 Then the sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their
dead; all were judged according to their works. (Revelation 20:11-13)

Since God promises a trial, everyone must appear in court, and if you are a corpse in the ground, how can you hear the charges? How can you be made aware of the judgment? These two realities - death for sin and a conscious judgment - require that all people be resurrected, prior to sentencing. Trials in absentia are not a thing in the Bible, as Job insisted:
How often is the lamp of the wicked put out?
Does disaster come on them?
Does He apportion destruction in His anger?
18 Are they like straw before the wind,
like chaff a storm sweeps away?
19 God reserves a person’s punishment for his children.
Let God repay the person himself, so that he may know it.
20 Let his own eyes see his demise;
let him drink from the Almighty’s wrath!
21 For what does he care about his family once he is dead,
when the number of his months has run out? (Job 21:17-21)

Job insists that for justice to be properly served, the guilty must see his punishment with his own eyes and see it to come from the hand of God. And when God answered Job, he said:

7 After the Lord had finished speaking to Job, He said to Eliphaz the
Temanite: “I am angry with you and your two friends, for you have not
spoken the truth about Me, as My servant Job has. (Job 42:7)

God agreed with Job about the need for a trial (and many other things).


What was the normal way to cross the Jordan River during first century in Israel?

The first thing I want to do is define this word ford. It is a shallow place with good footing where a river or stream may be crossed by wading. A ford is mostly a natural phenomenon, in contrast to a low water crossing, which is an artificial bridge that allows the crossing of a river or stream when water is low. So with lack of a better term it would be a ford Crossing.

Although there were no bridges until the time of the Romans, there were some 54 fords which were used as a place to cross the Jordan river in ancient times. I will give a couple of examples from scripture of where a ford is used to describe a place of a river crossing, Genesis 32:22 Jacob crossed the ford of Jabbok and Deuteronomy 3:20 where David crossed the fords of the wilderness.

Additionally there is at lest one example from scripture that a ferry boat was used. This should not surprise us because they date back as far as ancient  Egypt as a mode of transportation. All through-out history and scripture we see the use of boats and or ferries. Israel in the first century would not be any different.

  2 Samuel 19 17-23

  There were a thousand men of Benjamin with him, (David) and Ziba the servant of Saul, and his fifteen sons and his twenty servants with him;and they went over the Jordan before the King. 18 Then a ferry boat went across to ferry over the kings household, and do what he thought was right.(NKJV)

In some instances it was just a miracle.

  joshua 3:15-16

  It was the harvest season and the banks of the Jordan were over flowing its banks.But as soon as feet of the priest who were carrying the Ark touched the water at the river's edge (16) the water above that point begin backing up at a town called Adam (NLT)


Are there any non-pacifist traditions that object to military chaplaincy?

In 1918, the Southern Baptist Convention produced a Resolution on Chaplains that called on the US Congress to abolish chaplaincy and allow denominations to serve soldiers independently:

  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, By the Southern Baptist Convention assembled, [...] that the Congress of the United States be memorialized to consider the propriety and rightfulness of abolishing the Army Chaplaincies leaving the religious services to the discretion and election of the different Christian denominations.

They affirm the importance of sharing the gospel with soldiers, but argue that "[r]eligious liberty cannot be absolute where any of its appointments or appropriations are by authority of the state."  They also note the expense incurred by the government by paying chaplains.

They would replace state-sponsored chaplaincy with voluntary provision of religious services by each denomination, claiming that "[t]he different Christian denominations of this republic can and would send voluntarily through their agencies, religious teachers to all departments of the army and navy."

It does not appear that the Southern Baptists prevented or prohibited their members from entering the chaplaincy, so this is simply an example of general objection to military chaplaincy, not necessarily a condemnation of those working as military chaplains.


When did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity?

The idea shows up very early on, dating back to apostolic times.  We see Paul talking about baptisms on behalf of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) as if it were a familiar, non-controversial practice, and in Peter tells how Christ went to preach to "the spirits in prison" while he was dead, (1 Peter 3:18-20) and saying that they were sinners who had been disobedient in their lives.  So it's safe to say that the concept has been around since the beginning of Christianity.


What is the connection between Mardi Gras, Fat Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, Lent, etc?

Lent
Lent is a period of penance in preparation for Triduum (Maundy Thurs. through Easter Sun).  The faithful are encouraged to increase their works of mercy and decrease their self-indulgence. It begins on Ash Wednesday, which is 40 days (minus Sundays) before the Triduum.
Ash Wednesday
So called because it invokes the ancient practice of covering oneself in ashes when in morning. Often it is accompanied by, "Thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return." As a side note: the ashes are generally from (at least in part), the palms of the previous Palm Sunday.
Shrove Tuesday
Well, "Mardi gras" means "Fat Tuesday" in French, so there's that.
Fats and fatty foods are often given up for Lent (at one point abstaining from all meat was a requirement), but fat will go rancid if it is left out for all of Lent. So, instead of letting it go to waste, it would be used for cooking. Often this would mean that there would be a rich supper immediately before Ash Wednesday.
It is called, "Carnevale" because that, originally, was "Carne vale," which means, roughly, "without meat." I believe the relationship with "Fat Tuesday" would be obvious (for more ways of saying the same thing, look up Shrove Tuesday).
Unfortunately, with the rise of secularism, this tradition became bloated and corrupt, and eventually lead to the depravities which can be seen in New Orleans.
Easter
We all know what Easter is... I hope. It is the Teutonic name for an ancient pagan festival, brought to mean the celebration of the resurrection of Christ, apparently because the German speakers were too lazy to use the word pasch, which is what it is called in basically every other language on earth.


According to the Bible how does one receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?

Acts 8:15 actually provides the answer:

  “Who, when they (Peter & John) were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost”

Prayer is the key ingredient that enabled the reception of the Holy Spirit, however, there is more to the story, because there was one there that believed that the laying on of hands was the agent of release of the Holy Spirit rather than prayer and his name was Simon beginning in verse 9 lets focus on Simon and ultimately Peter’s response:

  But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries... Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done… And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.

Simon wanted to subjugate the Holy Spirit to himself.  This is always a sign of a false teaching for then God would be confined to the availability of a man for the laying on of hands. We know that Jesus Christ Himself sends the Holy Spirit.

  Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise

So the answer to this question is that prayer was the effective agent and only Simon the Sorcerer believed that it was subject to the laying on of hands.

When Cornelius and his guests received the Holy Spirit it was without laying on of hands and prior to baptism.

  Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.


Genesis 5:4 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"

https://www.bible.com/bible/1/gen.5.4.kjv

They had children by their sisters.

(Incest was not prohibited at the time since genetic decay had not set in yet)


Besides the LDS church, do any other churches believe there will be a restoration of all things?

This question is premised on a faulty understanding of both Mormonism and Christianity. The clear implication of the way it was asked is that few other churches believe what the Scriptures say.

Such is not the case. The vast majority of Christian traditions hold very strongly that these Scriptures have been, are being, or will be fulfilled. Considerable debate surrounds the exact meaning and the expectations of what this looks like vary considerably, but almost all branches of Christianity hold very core beliefs that Christ is indeed about the work of restoring all things and that such will come to complete fruition and after the last judgment. They also believe, almost universally, that this work has begun already and that the coming of Christ ushered in, at the very least, the start of that restored kingdom being made visible on earth.

The issue here is not whether or not other Christians believe these Scriptures, but what they believe them to mean in the first place. Ironically it is Mormons, not other Christians, that take the larger departure in interpreting them. In my answer about whether Mormons are Protestants I briefly outlined how this departure came to be, but the birds eye view is that they believe in the apostolic succession of priests and that such a secession was completely lost, thus the church being non-existent. Furthermore they believe the Scriptures were unable to be understood apart from an authoritative interpretation of the apostles. The way they believe the church was restored involves new divine revelation separate from that of original Scripture and that succeeds it. They, of course, believe this to be bringing the correct interpretation to light, other Christians would say they are over-riding it as they see these new revelations as being in conflict with what was previously revealed.

Thus the question that must be asked is not whether other Christians believe these verses to be true and accurate, but whether the LDS's commentary on their meaning is correct, or mainstream Christianity's. That is not a question for this site to answer (we don't do truth question) but hopefully this can at least help clarify what the issue actually is and where the groups stand in relation to each-other. For further study it would be appropriate to examine the actual hermeneutics employed by each group to arrive at their respective interpretations.


In the Christian Reformed Churches, who evaluates the pastor's theological beliefs?

According to the CRCNA Church Order 2015, nominations for office are presented by the council.

Article 4 a. In calling and electing to an office, the council shall
ordinarily present to the congregation a nomination of at least twice
the number to be elected. When the council submits a nomination which
totals less than twice the number to be elected, it shall give reasons
for doing so.

The council is "composed of the minister(s),
the elders, and the deacons", Page 71.
The members of the congregation then vote on the nominees.
The classis (representatives from a group of churches within a particular region) also has to approve the ordination or appointment of ministers, as per Article 10.

Article 10
a. The ordination of a candidate for the ministry of the
Word requires the approval of the classis of the calling church and of
the synodical deputies. The classis, in the presence of the deputies,
shall examine the candidate concerning the candidate’s doctrine and
life in accordance with synodical regulations. The ordination shall be
accompanied by the laying on of hands by the officiating minister.
b.
The installation of a minister shall require the approval of the
classis of the calling church or its interim committee, to which the
minister shall have previously presented good ecclesiastical
testimonials of doctrine and life which have been provided by the
former council and classis.

It is not immediately obvious to me what is done in the event of a minister whose opinion on a doctrine changes from orthodoxy to heresy, after his ordination. If anyone knows, please comment and I will update my answer.
In general, I would recommend reading the CRCNA Church Order for more details on ordination and appointment of ministers.
Note: I don't belong to the CRCNA, so I may have misunderstood the application or details of their church order myself. If any discrepancies are found, I will update my answer.


Have any Orthodox clergy expressed a belief in an impending doomsday/judgment?

What @Adam Heeg said.

Matthew 24 is Jesus' description of things to pass before the end times (Ex: [verse 7] "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.").

But these are things that have been happening for a very long time.

And that same chapter (verses 35 - 37) states we won't know until it actually happens: "[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. [36] But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. [37] But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

The point is to be presently alert and keep your soul prepared by doing things in the now that God commanded us to do.

BTW, Orthodox Priests do not read from Revelation as part of the yearly Liturgical readings.  Nor do they discuss their own interpretations of it or "end times" in their homilies (sermons).  Though Revelation may be quoted, or groups may have a bible study on it.


How can Christians reconcile the request to prohibit same-sex marriage and the lawfulness of homosexuality itself?

I don't know anyone who says that he believes homosexual marriage is bad but homosexual sex in general is okay. The nature of the current legal debate is that homosexuals are demanding a change in the laws regarding marriage, which some who believe homosexuality to be a sin are opposing. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you see an inconsistency if someone opposes gay marriage but does not at the same time campaign to make gay sex in general illegal.

But that's the nature of political debate, isn't it? You can't deal with every possible issue at the same time. It's not inconsistent to fight for or against one particular law without simultaneously campaigning for or against every other law that exists on any related topic, plus every law that you can imagine that might be passed. You can't deal with everything at once. You can only fight so many battles at one time.

Suppose during the 1950s someone campaigned against racially segregated schools. Would you say that he is "inconsistent" because he does not also campaign against job discrimination? Maybe he doesn't have the time or resources to conduct both campaigns. You have to pick your battles.

There's also the whole big question of the relationship between law, morality, and religion. Should Christians work to make everything that the Bible calls a sin made illegal? Or, even assuming that that was politically possible, would that be an inappropriate role for government?

I think a case could be made that the government should have laws defining and regulating marriage, because these are relevant to taxation, inheritance, and other things that are routinely considered legitimate functions of government. And if the government must define it, then it cannot escape the question of whether a gay couple can or cannot be considered married. But what gay people do in their own homes does not necessarily impinge on legitimate functions of government. (Personally, I'm not really convinced by this argument, but I think it's reasonable.)


Paul did not explicitly claim to be a Prophet although there were occasions where he acted as one (cf. Acts 13 & Acts 27), however he did claim  to be personally called as an Apostle by the risen Christ Jesus.
The Apostles were specifically set apart by Jesus and given authority to teach and are generally considered by Christians to have either equivalent or greater authority to Prophets in regard to their writings:

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19-20 NIV
And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. - 1 Corinthians 12:28 NIV


A quote from Calvin about all five points?

Given that Calvin died in Switzerland on May 27, 1564, and that what became known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism' were not written down until after 154 sessions of the Synod of Dort called in 1618, the answer has to be that Calvin could not possibly have said all those five points had to be held, as even one being dropped would collapse the whole system. The system was not finalised in that form (of five points) until seven months of deliberation in 1618 had passed.

However, in response to the comment: “Calvin had no idea of the five points since they were created 54 years after his death”, it needs to be said that that is only half true. Calvin had more than a mere ‘idea’ of all of those points, as his massive work, 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' shows. The reason why the Synod of Dort’s conclusions came to be known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism' is because his theology provided the Reformers at that Synod with all the grounds they needed to counter the rise of what became known as Arminianism. Calvin’s written works were based on his study of, and regard for, the biblical scriptures. Though he died half a century before the Synod, he could have agreed with all five points and argued for every single one of them being interlocked and  essential for the unity of the Protestant faith. The situation is not unlike the way the official Trinity doctrine was formed. Long before Councils put down in writing the finished wording (to prevent men like Arius from perpetuating what was seen to be heretical teaching) the subject had been debated and written about. The climax of all that discussion over several hundred years resulted in the official Trinity doctrine. So with the debate raised by James Arminius – he and his followers wanted to change the position of Protestantism subscribing to the Belgic and Heidelberg Confessions of Faith. Upon examination, the Synod of Dort could find no ground on which to reconcile the Arminian viewpoint with that expounded in the Word of God, and Calvin had expertly expounded that Word so that the climax - the conclusions - could justifiably be called Calvin’s five points.

How, precisely, can that be claimed? Consider how Luther’s lack of a systematic theology was handled by other Protestant leaders. The Swiss Reformers were keen to organise and systematise the new Protestant theology. The teaching of Zwingli and Calvin greatly helped to enable this. Calvin’s first edition of his 'Institutes' was published in 1536, when he was aged 25 years, and yet had

  not only given genuine dogmatic form to the cardinal doctrines of the
  Reformation: he had molded those doctrines into one of the classic
  presentations of the Christian faith. [1]

Here is a scholar’s comment on Calvin’s theology, which illustrates how he would have heartily agreed with those ‘five points’:

  Calvin rejected natural theology in favour of God’s Word as the
  surest path to knowledge of God and elevated Scripture, inspired and
  illuminated by the Holy Spirit, as the sole supreme authority for
  Christian faith and practice. Although God is adequately revealed in
  nature and in his Word, sin has so blinded humans that they cannot
  gain a true knowledge of God apart from a special illumination of the
  Holy Spirit that Calvin called the inner testimony of the Spirit,
  which is given only to the elect when they are regenerated (born
  again). Calvin based his doctrinal arguments and beliefs entirely on
  Scripture and seldom appealed to philosophy or Christian tradition as
  absolute authorities, because both err frequently in matters
  pertaining to God and salvation… For Calvin, everything that happens
  redounds to God’s glory, even if we humans cannot see how, and God’s
  glory is the purpose why everything happens, even if we are unable to
  reconcile it with love, mercy or justice… his teaching on
  [predestination] is in all essentials identical to what we have
  already observed in Luther and Zwingli. [2]

We can fairly assume that, because of Calvin’s systematic theology, written down in his 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' 82 years before that Synod of Dort, the Synod could summarise its response to The Remonstrance of the followers of Arminius (the Five Points of Arminianism) presented to the Dutch Parliament in 1610. That is why their response is rightly attributed to Calvin, whose theology was used to counter the five points of Arminianism. The five points of the Synod of Dort have ‘John Calvin’ written all over them!

[1] T.H.L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975) p50

[2] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (USA: InterVarsity Press, 1999) pp410-412


Are the teachers and prophets who laid hands on Saul & Barnabas in Acts13:1-3 ordained Bishops?

”And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. - Acts 13:3”

The passage does not tell exactly what is the laying of hands. Is it a blessing prayer for their journey or a sacramental ceremony? Let’s take a look on what is says in this commentary below.

  Fasting and prayer, imposing their hands upon them. By which is clearly expressed, the manner in which the ministers of God were, and are still ordained bishops, priests, deacons in the Church. (Witham)
  Interpreters are much divided in opinion, whether this imposition of hands be a mere deputation to a certain employment, or the sacramental ceremony, by which orders are conferred. Sts. Chrysostom, Leo are of the latter opinion; nor does it any where appear that St. Paul was bishop before this. Arator, sub-deacon of the Church of Rome, who dedicated in the year 544 his version of the Acts of the Apostles into heroic verse to Pope Virgilius, attributes this imposition of hands to St. Peter:

  -Quem mox sacra it euntem Imposita Petrus ille manu, cui sermo magistri Omnia posse dedit.

  See his printed poems in 4to. Venice, an. 1502. Arator was sent in quality of ambassador from Athalaric to the emperor Justinian.
  Following the practice of the apostles, the Church of God ordains a solemn and general fast on the four public times for ordination, the ember days, as a necessary preparation for so great a work, and this St. Leo calls also an apostolical tradition. See St. Leog, serm. ix. de jejun. and ep. lxxxi. chap. 1. and serm. iii. and iv. de jejun. 7. mensis.
  Nor was this fasting a fasting from sin, as some ridiculously affirm, for such fasting was a universal obligation: nor was it left to each one's discretion, as certain heretics maintained. See St. Augustine, hæres. liii.

  George Leo

  “2. And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them.
  And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. - Acts 13:3”

Here is another commentary that explains further:

  What means, Ministering? Preaching. Separate for Me, it says, Barnabas and Saul. What means, Separate for Me? For the work, for the Apostleship. See again by what persons he is ordained (γυμνοτέρα . Cat. σεμνοτέρα, more awful.) By Lucius the Cyrenean and Manaën, or rather, by the Spirit. The less the persons, the more palpable the grace. He is ordained henceforth to Apostleship, so as to preach with authority. How then does he himself say, Not from men, nor by man? Galatians 1:1 Because it was not man that called or brought him over: this is why he says, Not from men. Neither by man, that is, that he was not sent by this (man), but by the Spirit. Wherefore also (the writer) thus proceeds: So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

  John Chrysostom


How would Biblical Inerrantists resolve perceived tensions between 2 Timothy 3:16 and Hebrews 7:18?

When considering the context of the passage you quoted from Hebrews, one will notice that the the passage is given within a broad discussion spanning several chapters. The focus of the discussion is the contrast between the Levitical Priesthood and the priesthood of Christ. This verse in particular points out that the regulation by which authority is dispensed to the priests is weak and useless. It is not a statement about the Old Scriptures. Consider this commentary by Charles Ellicot,

  The intimate connection between these two verses is obscured by the ordinary translation. They point out with greater fulness and clearness what is involved in the statement of Hebrews 7:16. “For there is an annulling of a preceding commandment, because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God.” (It must be borne in mind throughout that by the “commandment” is meant the ordinance which created the Levitical priesthood, not the Law in general.) That Jesus was not made Priest according to a law of a carnal commandment (Hebrews 7:16) involves the annulling of that commandment; in His becoming Priest according to a power of indissoluble life is involved the introduction of a better hope. This is the general meaning, but each division of the thought is expanded. The appointment of a different priest by the very authority on which the former commandment rested, the divine decree, showed that commandment to be of force no longer: as we have already seen (Hebrews 7:11), this is because the commandment is weak and unprofitable—because the priesthood it creates cannot attain the end of its institution, which is to bring men into fellowship with God.

Let us then consider the immediate context of the passage.

  Hebrews 7:11-16 (NIV) If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.

So, the "former regulation" in the verse you cited refers to the process by which the Levitical priests were chosen- by virtue of their ancestral father, Aaron, and his ancestral father Levi. These priests are men who by nature of their flesh are imperfect and are not immune to weakness wrought by the flesh whether the priest is good or bad. Because of their mortal tendencies, these priests, even when fulfilling their duties perfectly, were powerless to bring lasting atonement to their people. The Biblical narrative, however, presents many opportunities to observe very bad priests.

  1 Samuel 2:12-16 (NIV) Eli’s sons were scoundrels; they had no regard for the Lord. Now it was the practice of the priests that, whenever any of the people offered a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come with a three-pronged fork in his hand while the meat was being boiled and would plunge the fork into the pan or kettle or caldron or pot. Whatever the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. This is how they treated all the Israelites who came to Shiloh. But even before the fat was burned, the priest’s servant would come and say to the person who was sacrificing, “Give the priest some meat to roast; he won’t accept boiled meat from you, but only raw.”

  If the person said to him, “Let the fat be burned first, and then take whatever you want,” the servant would answer, “No, hand it over now; if you don’t, I’ll take it by force.”

  This sin of the young men was very great in the Lord’s sight, for they were treating the Lord’s offering with contempt.

While there were certainly honest Levitical priests who carried out their duties well, the former dispensation was powerless to prevent preists like these. Christ, on the other hand, is not a Priest in the order of Levi, because Levi is not his Father, but Judah is. The priesthood of Christ is not ancestral, and given by the old regulation, but instead by a new regulation. Instead of an oath sworn by a son of Levi, this regulation regarding priesthood is initiated in an oath sworn by God himself regarding his own Son.

  Hebrews 7:16-22 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.  For it is declared:

  “You are a priest forever,
      in the order of Melchizedek.”

  The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

  And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

  “The Lord has sworn
      and will not change his mind:
      ‘You are a priest forever.’”

  Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

One can see that the passage is contrasting the regulations for dispensation of priestly authority. In closing, consider Matthew Henry's commentary on the verse:

  The law which made the Levitical priesthood, showed that the priests were frail, dying creatures, not able to save their own lives, much less could they save the souls of those who came to them. But the High Priest of our profession holds his office by the power of endless life in himself; not only to keep himself alive, but to give spiritual and eternal life to all who rely upon his sacrifice and intercession. The better covenant, of which Jesus was the Surety, is not here contrasted with the covenant of works, by which every transgressor is shut up under the curse. It is distinguished from the Sinai covenant with Israel, and the legal dispensation under which the church so long remained. The better covenant brought the church and every believer into clearer light, more perfect liberty, and more abundant privileges. In the order of Aaron there was a multitude of priests, of high priests one after another; but in the priesthood of Christ there is only one and the same. This is the believer's safety and happiness, that this everlasting High Priest is able to save to the uttermost, in all times, in all cases.


Exodus 4:10 says that when God asked Moses to speak for him, Moses came up with the excuse that he was “slow of speech and tongue.”  Some Bible commentators have suggested that Moses might have suffered from some sort of speech impediment.  However, it’s more likely that Moses was simply resisting God because he was unwilling to return to Pharaoh’s court and stand up for the Hebrew slaves.

What we do know about Moses is that he was brought up as the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter and would have benefitted from the finest education.  That’s why Acts 7:22 says Moses was instructed “in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.”   That is not a contradiction of what Moses said in Exodus 4:10.  The events that led up to the exodus of the Hebrews out of Egypt testify to the fact that God used Moses and his brother in the outworking of His divine plans.  It was God who enabled Moses.  Moses’ feeble excuse that he was “slow of speech and tongue” didn’t work.  In spite of Moses’ failings, God saw fit to use him and to empower him.  Because God was with Moses then no impediment, real or imagined, would stand in God’s way.


Do Catholics subscribe to the "once saved, always saved" doctrine that many evangelical Christians believe in?

A baptized Catholic would understand "accepting Jesus" as meaning professing the (Catholic) Faith; he would interpret "repenting of one's sins" as receiving absolution from a priest in the sacrament of penance, and thus being in a state of grace (the state of not having the stain of mortal sin on his soul). If he were to die in a state of grace, he would either go straight to heaven, or, if he still has temporal punishment remaining for his already forgiven sins, he would go to purgatory for awhile and eventually go to heaven. Since one can fall out of the state of grace by committing mortal sin, or by committing numerous venial sins that predispose one to eventually commit a mortal sin, one is not guaranteed to be saved "once and for ever" just because one once "accepted Jesus and repented of one's sins."


What miracles were performed during the beatification and canonization processes of Mother Teresa?

The first miracle, required for beatification, occurred in 1998 when a cancerous tumour was removed from the abdomen of an Indian woman named Monica Bersa, after a beam of light had emanated from a picture of Mother Teresa contained in a locket. This was recognised by the Church as a miracle in 2002. However the woman's husband disputes whether her cure really was a miracle. He says, "It is much ado about nothing. My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle." However, Mrs Bersa asserts that her cure was miraculous and has sought financial help from the Sisters of Charity, accused the nuns of abandoning her to a life of penury.

The second miracle accepted by the Church, leading  to canonisation as a saint, was the healing in 2008 of a Brazilian man with multiple brain tumours.


How have Calvinist theologians dealt with statements about God repenting?

John Calvin does indeed treat this verse.  He says:1

By saying אולי, auli, “if peradventure,” he made use of a common mode of speaking. God indeed has perfect knowledge of all events, nor had he any doubt respecting what would take place, when the prophets had discharged their duties; but what is pointed out here, and also condemned, is the obstinacy of the people; as though he had said, that it was indeed difficult to heal those who had grown putrid in their evils, yet he would try to do so.
As to God’s repentance, of which mention is made, there is no need of long explanation. No change belongs to God; but when God is said to turn away his wrath, it is to be understood in a sense suitable to the comprehension of men: in the same way also we are to understand the words, that he repents. (Psalm 85:5; 110:4.) It is at the same time sufficiently evident what God means here, even that he is reconcilable, as soon as men truly turn to him: and thus we see that men cannot be called to repent, until God’s mercy is presented to them.

John Frame
also deals with this verse and ones like it.  He says that the Hebrew 'ulay "may be construed anthropomorphically as God's taking their own way of speaking on his own lips." He finds a parallel with Deut 13:3:2

For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

The "finding out" language, he notes, is often associated with God's testing:2

God knows how the test, the search, will come out, but the fact does not make the actual test superfluous.  Scripture stresses the importance of both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.  In some senses, God responds to our responses to him.  So our responses to tests are important to God.  The gospel itself is such a test, and our response to it is crucial to our relationship with God.

Specifically in relation to Jeremiah 26:3, he writes:2

Here let us simply note that God sometimes announces judgment not for the purpose of describing his eternal plan, but to test the response of people.  That test is not complete, of course, until the response actually takes place. Until then, the test is not finished, the results not sealed.  Positive and negative responses are still possible.  So there is an element of uncertainty that God here expresses by the term "perhaps." [emphasis in original]

Regarding the "relent" language, he quotes the Lord's words in Jeremiah 18:7–10:3

7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

Frame explains:3

Here the Lord states a general policy: many prophecies of judgment and blessing [...] are conditional.  God reserves the right to cancel them or reverse them, depending on people's response to the prophet.
We are interpreting [these passages] as expressions of his preceptive will, rather than his decretive: as warnings, not as predictions of what will certainly happen.  So there is no question of his decretive will failing.  His preceptive will, of course, unlike the decretive, can be disobeyed, but at great cost.

Louis Berkhof treats this language generally, saying,4

And if Scripture speaks of His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinner when they repent, we should remember that this is only an anthropopathic way of speaking.  In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man's relations to God.

Calvin, Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations
Frame, Systematic Theology, pages 320–21
Frame, Systematic Theology, pages 370–71
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1.1.6.B, page 59


Was Galileo mentioned during Vatican II?

Yes, during the first half alone he was mentioned explicitly by name three times:

Bp. André Charue of Namur, Belgium, on 17 Nov. 1962, regarding a revision (p. 114-115) of the schema De sacra liturgia, said (p. 145):

Attendite, venerabiles Patres, ad conditionem eorum omnium, qui cum fide catholica componere debent scientificum laborem in universitatibus, in omnibus scientiarum circulis. Exemplum Galilaei et alia exempla recentiora sufficiant! Immaturae declarationes alicuius Concilii, propter earum solemnitatem, onerare possent, dicamus in semisaeculum, conditionem scientificorum.
[Beware, venerable Fathers, of the condition of all those who with catholic faith must compose scientific work in the universities, in all scientific circles. Let Galileo and the other more recent examples suffice! The immature declarations of some in this Council, because of their solemnity, could aggravate—we speak in the mid-century—the condition of the sciences.]

Bp. emeritus of Innsbruck, Austria, Paulus Rusch (1903-1986) explicitly mentioned Galileo during the 22nd meeting, 19 Nov. 1962, in his intervention (p. 356-357) against ch. 2, #12 ("Inerrancy") of the first schema the fathers voted on: De fontibus revelationis. Cdl. Siri's intervention, which mentioned Pope St. Pius X and Modernism, is on p. 38-39. The very next day, 61% of the council fathers rejected the schema (cf. Ratzinger Reader pp. 258 ff.). John XXIII thereafter called upon a mixed commission (incl. Cdl. Frings, whom Fr. Ratzinger advised, and Rahner) to redraft it. Cdl. Frings said (p. 34-35) the original schema was too scholastic and professorial in tone, "nec aedificans nec vivificans" ("neither edifying nor vivifying")!
Here is De fontibus revelationis ch.2, #12 on inerrancy:

Because divine Inspiration extends to everything, the absolute immunity of all Holy Scripture from error [PTC had said "the infallibility and inerrancy"] follows directly and necessarily. For we are taught by the ancient and constant faith of the Church that it is utterly forbidden to grant that the sacred author himself has erred, since divine Inspiration of itself as necessarily excludes and repels any error in any matter, religious or profane, as it is necessary to say that God, the supreme Truth, is never the author of any error whatever. [Pius XII, Divino afflante (EB 539), using the words of Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (D 1950); see also EB 44, 46, 125, 420, 463, etc.]

After giving an example of how Matt. 27:9 allegedly errs by quoting Jeremiah when it apparently was really quoting the prophet Zachary, Bp. Rusch said (p. 357):

Accedit nostram Ecclesiam hac in re iam duram passam esse experientiam. Anno 1633 Galilei sub Urbano VIII damnatus est, quia defendit doctrinam contra Scripturam. Doctrinam autem quam defendit erat, sicut notissimum est, terram circa solem rotare et non viceversa.
[Additionally, our church has already suffered a hard experience in this matter. In 1633 Galileo was condemned under Urban VIII because he defended a doctrine contrary to Scripture. But the doctrine that he defended was, as is well-known, that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.]

Bp. Michel Darmancier (1918-1984), titular of Augurus, commenting on the "De ecclesiæ magistero" section (p. 47-54) of the 23 Nov. 1962 schema De ecclesia (p. 12 ff.), wrote in his "written animadversion" (p. 452):

De illis enim contingentibus elementis sicut in fide et theologia proprie dicta consentire possunt theologi per saecula et per totum orbem catholicum, illa intimius coniungentes cum dogmatibus, quin exinde oriatur quaevis certitudo de illorum veritate, etsi concludi potest fidem ex illis detrimentum non timere. Sic, usque ad saeculum XVI, unanimiter docuerunt theologi terram centrum universorum esse, unde Galileus quidam satis notas difficultates cum sancta Inquisitione expertus est.
[The theologians can agree, throughout the ages and the whole catholic world, on those contingent elements in faith and theology properly speaking which are intimately connected with dogmas, which might not arise from any certainty of their truth, although to fear a loss of faith from them cannot be concluded. Thus, until the 16th century, theologians unanimously taught that the earth was the center of the universe, whence Galileo experienced some well-known difficulties with the holy Inquisition.]

See also the article on Galileo at Vatican II in this book.


Numbers as language

Ordinarily, what a number refers to is more important than the number itself.  153 fish is a lot of fish.  2 small copper coins is a tiny amount of money.  14 years is  a certain period of time.  But to quote Bill James, sometimes numbers "have acquired the powers of language."  When that happens, the numbers themselves begin to have meaning independent of what is being counted.1

God began using numbers literally from the beginning to communicate to humanity—our week is a continual reminder of Who ordered the universe and how.2  The number 12 carries particular significance since it was the number of Israelite tribes.  Moses went so far as to separate out Joseph's inheritance into two half-tribes so that the number of territories was kept at twelve3.  The early church made replacing Judas a top priority in order to bring the number of apostles back to twelve.

Sometime during and after the Exile, a new genre of Jewish writing appeared that is labeled "apocalyptic".  As a genre, it has close links to dream interpretation, such as we see with Joseph in Genesis 37, 40, and 41.  Notice that numbers are of critical significance in each of the dreams and have a significance beyond simply counting things up.  The second half of Daniel, a textbook case of the apocalyptic genre, extends the dream interpretation structure to reveal God's purpose, not just for one person, but for all of humanity.  Revelation, which clearly uses Daniel imagery, tells us to "calculate" 666 in the most famous use of numerology.

Numbers as superstition

Numbers surround us and some of them tell a story.  Unfortunately, not all numbers are meaningful.  We tend to give more credence to ideas that make good stories and so we sometimes assume more about numbers than is warranted.4 If 12 is "good" or "lucky" or "blessed", than it seems reasonable that 13 (or 11) is the opposite.  God uses numbers as language, but not all numbers and not at all times.  When we assume otherwise, we start down the path of superstition.

Numbers for discipline

The question, however, brings up a somewhat different use for numbers: as a discipline or reminder.  To remember that, for instance, Jesus was tempted in the desert for 40 days by observing Lent, seems only fitting.  As long as numbers themselves point to God and do not replace Him, I think they can be worth observing.

Parting shot

Having posted this on Friday the 13th, it's sure to be downvoted and probably will destroy the internet.  I'm sorry you asked.

1. Baseball is a great example of this.  To a fan, the title the movie 61* is completely descriptive.  We know exactly what the story will be about without reading the summary.  SciFi (and humor) nerds don't need to be told the significance of 42 (as pointed out in the comments).  In the US, we all recognize 911, 1776, and 13 as being important symbols, though there might be several interpretations of their meanings.

2. Depending on how literal or not you take Genesis 1, this could be seen as a just-so story, but that does not alter the fact that the number 7 acquired meaning independent of what was counted.

3. Levi received no land for an inheritance.

4. A good place to explore the narrative fallacy is Nassim Nicholas Taleb's The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness.


Why are 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus referred to as the “Pastoral Epistles”?

All three of those letters are written by Paul to people who he mentored in the faith and are now leaders of churches (pastors) in their own right. They also deal largely with instructions and advice  relevant to church leaders - i.e. with 'pastoral' matters. That is why they are called Pastoral Epistles.

The name is not doctrinal matter - it is simply a convenient name for a group of similar letters. As such no denomination either enforces or rejects the label. People use the name if they want, and if it's convenient.


What kinds of supernatural beings are in the Bible?

The definition of supernatural is pretty important here.  If it refers to anything that is not in the physical world, then angels and demons could be considered supernatural.  If it refers to anything outside the scope of common experience to modern society, then the Nephilim could be considered supernatural.

Perhaps a good definition for supernatural would be anything that is outside the physical universe of time, space, and matter.  In that case, only God is supernatural, since even angels and demons seem to exist within the physical universe.  Most often, they are hidden from our view, but not always.

If the definition is expanded to refer to any beings for which earth is not their home, then angels and demons are added to the list.

Witches exist today.  They are people who practice certain rituals and such.  They are not supernatural themselves, but they seek to facilitate demonic powers, which can be considered supernatural.  So, the powers they seek to use are supernatural, but they themselves are natural.

The Nephilim could very well be normal human beings.  It is really speculation to firmly classify them one way or the other, since we just aren't told enough about them.

So, God is supernatural.  Angels and demons could also be considered supernatural, and this would include the Seraphim, Cherubim, and other angelic beings mentioned in Scripture.  Outside of that, I don't really know of any beings that are considered supernatural.


Is the register where the first marriage was registered still available?

The source does not explicitly say the first record of the Christian marriage in Europe, but it does imply that the first Christian marriage occurred during the Middle Ages in France, which fits the asker's timeframe.

Source: McDougall, S. (2013). The Making of Marriage in Medieval France. Journal Of Family History, 38(2), 103-121.

  Twelfth-century Northern France offers important lessons for the
  history of marriage. It is a time and place that has been described as
  when and where modern (western) marriage was made.

  Christian, monogamous, indissoluble marriage as the unique source of
  legitimate offspring was a collaborative creation of the men and women
  at the top of the social hierarchy.

  Prohibitions were a tool to use against the weak, or to bring down the powerful.
  Acceptance of Christian marriage law promised salvation, promised sex without sin, and so much more.

Before that time period, the powerful European families allowed polygamous affairs and divorces. The change sparked the formation of the monogamous, indissoluble Christian marriage. The Christian marriage was well-received, because, as the author states, it served useful for their own interests.

The article lists a couple of early recorded Christian marriages, mostly from upper-class people.

Marie of Boulogne, Abbess of Romsey, married Matthew, younger son of Theoderic, Count of
Flanders.
Prince Henry of England married Princess Margaret of France.

On this website, it says:

  First, parish registers - the most familiar modern source for
  genealogists - should not be forgotten, as in principle they can
  extend as far back as 1538. In practice, few survive this early, and
  the information in early registers can be very brief - for example,
  baptism entries may not name the parents, and marriage entries have
  even been known to leave the wife anonymous.

As you can see, the first Christian marriage during the Middle Ages, your timeframe, may be lost forever. Also, few records survive as far back as 1538, a few centuries past your timeframe. Marriage entries have been known to leave the wife anonymous; compare this to the genealogies in the Bible, where many wives are left out.


Acording to Orthodox Christianity does God know the future?

Eastern Orthodox doctrine holds that "the knowledge of God is vision and immediate understanding of everything, both that which exists and that which is possible, the present, the past, and the future."1
This is consistent with Scripture:

Hebrews 4:13

Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Psalm 138:16 LXX

My being while it was still unformed Thine eyes did see

This understanding of God's omniscience relates to a certain extent to the Orthodox understanding of time, which generally holds that time as we understand it has no meaning for God.  "Foreknowledge of the future is, strictly speaking, a spiritual vision, because for God the future is the present."2
A marginal note in John of Damascus' (676-749) Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (I.XIII) relates God's foreknowledge of the future to the Divine attribute of uncircumscription:

That which is comprehended in place or time or apprehension is circumscribed: while that which is contained by none of these is uncircumscribed. Wherefore the Deity alone is uncircumscribed, being without beginning and without end, and containing all things, and in no wise apprehended3. For He alone is incomprehensible and unbounded, within no one’s knowledge and contemplated by Himself alone. But the angel is circumscribed alike in time (for His being had commencement) and in place (but mental space, as we said above) and in apprehension. For they know somehow the nature of each other and have their bounds perfectly defined by the Creator. Bodies in short are circumscribed both in beginning and end, and bodily place and apprehension.

Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazanski (1888-1988) points out that God's foreknowledge of the future in no way violates our free will. "Just as the freedom of our neighbor is not violated by the fact that we see what he does," he writes, "the foreknowledge of God does not violate the free will of creatures.4

1. M. Pomazanski, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.69
2. Ibid.
3. Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 44
4. Ibid.


Why do some people say that the angels wanted to preach the gospel?

Perhaps I am reading these scriptures wrong, but I draw a different conclusion from these:
1st Peter 1:3 through 12   KJV

3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4  To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5  Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6  Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7  That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8  Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9  Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
10  Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11  Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12  Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Perhaps I misread; but from the preceding Scriptures in which I have highlighted those things to which I believe that statement referes.


How is the Shema of Deuteronomy reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?

YHVH is not one person.
An Examination of Zechariah 2:8-11
In Zech. 2:8, it is written,

For thus said YHVH of hosts, "After glory He sent me to the nations who spoiled you, for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye.
כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אַחַר כָּבֹוד שְׁלָחַנִי אֶל־הַגּוֹיִם הַשֹּׁלְלִים אֶתְכֶם כִּי הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּכֶם נֹגֵעַ בְּבָבַת עֵינוֹ

Notice that YHVH of hosts is speaking, and YHVH of hosts states that "He sent me" (שְׁלָחַנִי). Who can send YHVH of hosts, the Almighty God? Surely no creature has the authority to send YHVH of hosts!
In Zech. 2:9, it is written,

For, behold, I shall shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me.
כִּי הִנְנִי מֵנִיף אֶת־יָדִי עֲלֵיהֶם וְהָיוּ שָׁלָל לְעַבְדֵיהֶם וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחָנִי

YHVH of hosts is still speaking in Zech. 2:9. He states that "YHVH of hosts sent me."
To reiterate, YHVH of hosts is speaking in Zech. 2:8. He states, "He sent me." We ask, "Who sends YHVH of hosts?" In Zech. 2:9, this is answered when YHVH of hosts, who is still speaking, states, "YHVH of hosts sent me."
This is further confirmed in the following verse.
In Zech. 2:11, it is written,

And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you.
וְנִלְווּ גֹויִם רַבִּים אֶל־יְהוָה בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ וְיָדַעַתְּ כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחַנִי אֵלָיִךְ

Again, YHVH is speaking. He states that "many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day," instead of saying that "many nations shall be joined to me in that day." By the speaker, who is YHVH, referring to YHVH in the third person, there appears to be a distinction between YHVH who is speaking and another YHVH to whom the nations shall be joined in that day. Now, it's not unheard of for YHVH to speak about Himself in the third person. However, the last clause confirms that there is more than one YHVH being mentioned in this verse. YHVH, who is speaking, states, "...and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you."
The Hebrew verb שְׁלָחַנִי ("he sent me") is reiterated in three verses:

Zechariah 2:8

For thus said YHVH of hosts, "After glory He sent me (שְׁלָחַנִי) to the nations who spoiled you, for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye.

Zechariah 2:9

For, behold, I shall shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me (שְׁלָחַנִי).

Zechariah 2:11

And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me (שְׁלָחַנִי) to you.

In addition, in Zech. 2:10, it is written,

Sing and rejoice, O' daughter of Tzion, for, lo, I come, and I shall dwell in your midst," said YHVH.
רָנִּי וְשִׂמְחִי בַּת־צִיֹּון כִּי הִנְנִי־בָא וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ נְאֻם־יְהוָה

YHVH states that He will come and dwell in the midst of Israel.
Again, in Zech. 2:11, it is written,

And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I shall dwell in your midst, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you.
וְנִלְווּ גֹויִם רַבִּים אֶל־יְהוָה בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ וְיָדַעַתְּ כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחַנִי אֵלָיִךְ

"And I shall dwell" (וְשָׁכַנְתִּי) is repeated in both verses. YHVH is the subject of the verb in both verses. Notice v. 11. YHVH states, "...and I shall dwell in your midst," and then the same YHVH states, "...and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you."
In conclusion, we have explicit confirmation in the Tanakh that Israel believed there was more than one person named "YHVH" (יהוה). This is later confirmed in the New Testament when the Son is revealed to Israel and dwells in their midst.

Exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:4 in Consideration of Zechariah 2:8-11
If there exist more than one person named YHVH, i.e. the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit), what does it mean when Deut. 6:4 states that "YHVH is one" (יְהוָה אֶחָד)? It is not enough to say "YHVH is one," but we must know, YHVH is one what? Certainly YHVH is not one "person," for that would contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, and of course, Zech. 2:8-11.
Upon much consideration of the Shema in its immediate context, I believe it should be translated as,

"Hear O' Israel! YHVH is our God, YHVH is the only one!"

Moshe is exhorting Israel to understand that:

YHVH is their God
YHVH is the only one (i.e., the only true God, and Israel's only God)

The Shema is thus an affirmation of the monotheistic faith of Israel. This is in contradistinction to the polytheism that Israel witnessed in Egypt by the Egyptians, as well as the nations surrounding Israel (cp. Deut. 6:14).
Can the Hebrew word אֶחָד (echad), which literally means the numeral one, be understood in this sense? I believe there is a basis for it. Wilhelm Gesenius indeed states that אֶחָד can mean "one only of its kind" (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 32). Gesenius cites a few examples, such as Job 23:13, Eze. 7:5, and Song of Songs 6:8.
In Song of Songs 6:8, in which it is written,

אַחַת הִיא, יוֹנָתִי תַמָּתִי--אַחַת הִיא לְאִמָּהּ, בָּרָה הִיא לְיוֹלַדְתָּהּ; רָאוּהָ בָנוֹת וַיְאַשְּׁרוּהָ, מְלָכוֹת וּפִילַגְשִׁים וַיְהַלְלוּהָ.

The Jewish Publication Society (JPS, 1917) translates this as,

My dove, my undefiled, is but one; she is the only one of her mother; she is the choice one of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and called her happy; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

אַחַת is the simply the feminine declension of אֶחָד. Obviously, the dove is not "the one of her mother," but rather, "the only one of her mother." Here we see that אֶחָד can be translated as "only one" with the actual noun being implied from the preceding context. In Song of Songs 6:8, it is the mother's only dove. In Deuteronomy 6:4, YHVH is Israel's only God.

Summary
In conclusion, since the Father and the Son are one in essence, and both the Father and the Son are God (John 1:1), then the Shema is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity which states that there are three persons who are essentially God. Since the name of God is YHVH, then the name of each person of the Trinity is YHVH. The Son, YHVH, is Israel's God, just as the Father, YHVH, is Israel's God, and the Holy Spirit, YHVH, is Israel's God. Each person of the Trinity is co-equal and co-eternal in nature, so there is no distinction of essence, but rather, only of persons.


What kind of baptism is essential to salvation, and what does 'essential' mean in this context? (Catholic perspective)

My take on Catholic teaching is that it is conflicted on the issue, on the one hand wanting to take the stance that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, but also recognizing that there are real problems with that position.

The end result seems to be that it's necessary except where it's either practically impossible, or is prevented by circumstances outside of the believer's control. In other words, baptism is far and away the norm -- "I was going to get around to it one day", won't wash on judgement day.

Specifically, the CCC currently states that:

  1257    The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Holding baptism necessary for those "to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament." This allows for other mechanisms in God's economy of which the church specifically decries knowledge.

  1258    The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

This then allows that the sacrament may be effected without the actual practice thereof, in special cases, where a greater sacrifice for Christ is made, in this case martyrdom.

  1259    For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

This conveys salvation via the genuine intent to be baptized, forestalled by unforeseen circumstance - the baptism of desire.

  1260    “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

This allows that those ignorant of the Gospel, yet obedient to it's precepts according to the revelation granted them may also see salvation.

  1261    As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism

Lastly, this allows that those for whom baptism is physically impossible, the yet unborn children, the church allows for God to work salvation apart from baptism.

For myself, I note that Jesus himself made an exception for the thief crucified with him, which person I suppose falls under the provision of not having the possibility to be baptized before his death.

A note about infallible teachings (ex cathedra doctrine).

The doctrines on Baptism are not accorded this unique ex cathera status. See my answer to another question for more detail, including a link to a Vatican article explaining the ex cathedra exercise of the church's Magisterium. This other answer includes a longer list, for which I cannot find a Catholic source of authority (and it makes the erroneous claim that all Catholic doctrine is considered infallible).


When and why did Protestantism begin moving away from liturgy?

The simplifying or outright dismantling of liturgies has been in train since the beginning of the Reformation, particularly as it started to unfold in Switzerland under Huldrych Zwingli. From the linked Wikipedia article:

  Shortly before Easter (1525), Zwingli and his closest associates requested the council to cancel the mass and to introduce the new public order of worship...The sermon was the focal point of the service and there was no organ music or singing.

They still did describe the order of service as a liturgy, but there was a radically new conception of what that meant.

In many ways, Zwingli was more "Protestant" than Luther - his rejection of the concept of the real presence in the Eucharist and limiting communion services to four times a year was a major step towards a "de-liturgized" service.


What is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments after death?

It sounds like you're referring to the White Throne Judgment and the Bema Seat Judgment, which are typically believed to be different judgments by Evangelical Protestants.

The White Throne Judgment is described in Revelation 20:11-15.  This, to the traditions that believe in the two judgments, is the judgment that everyone faces, where you are judged to be innocent or guilty; whether you will be cast into the eternal lake of fire, or accepted into Heaven.

  Revelation 11-15: (KJV) 11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled
  away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead,
  small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and
  another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were
  judged out of those things which were written in the books, according
  to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and
  death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
  judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were
  cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever
  was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of
  fire.

The Bema Seat Judgment, on the other hand, is believed to be the judgment of rewards to those who are saved, who have in essence, "made it through" the White Throne judgment.  It's based on several scriptures scattered throughout the Bible.

There's an article that describes it here, with Scripture references.  The page has a copyright notice, so I won't copy sections of it, rather a short summary follows:

Several passages in Scripture indicate that we will receive rewards for faithful service.
 - 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20
 - Revelation 22:12
 - Romans 14:10-11
 - 1 Corinthians 3:11-15
 - 2 Corinthians. 5:9-10
 - 1 John 2:28
 - Revelation 3:11-12

Both Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:9 reference a "judgment seat", which is a translation of the Greek word "Bema".  There are arguments from some circles that this term has connotations of rewards coming to athletes competing for a prize.  The article I referenced above states it this way.  Others argue that these explanations are extra-Biblical and contradictory.

Whether or not there are separate judgments is something that's been debated for centuries.  I won't put my own personal beliefs here, as they are flavored heavily by the doctrines I've been immersed in.

However, I will say that from an evangelical protestant perspective, the doctrine  of two separate judgments does reconcile otherwise contradictory passages.

First, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone apart from works would indicate that our good works do absolutely nothing to earn us salvation. (The White Throne Judgment)
Second, we are told in various places in Scripture that we will be judged by our works, and will be rewarded.  If the core doctrine of salvation by faith alone, apart from works is true, then these judgments and rewards must be something other than salvation.

There is the promise of crowns in Heaven (Rev. 3:11, Matt. 6:2, Rev. 4:4)
There is the promise of Heavenly treasure (Matt. 6:20, 1 Pet. 1:4)
There are promises of Responsibility, Authority, and inheritance of God's possessions. (Matt. 19:28; 24:45-47; 25:21, 23; Lk. 19:17-19; 22:29-30; Rev. 2:26).

As to whether the doctrine of two judgments is Biblical depends on the definition of "Biblical".  Scripture does not come out and state directly that there are two judgments, so in that regard, it might be considered "extra-Biblical".  On the other hand, there is a bit of Biblical support for the doctrine.  In that regards, it's as Biblical as the doctrine of the Trinity, and other doctrines not explicitly stated in Scripture.