Was there a time when bishops were not appointed to other sees and did not generally ever relocate?

The simple answer is yes.

In the Early Church, the bishop of a diocese was chosen by the local clergy and not appointed to the diocese by the pope. Thus transfers to other articles sees was extremely rare, if not non-existent.

It was however not unheard of as we see the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter becoming the Bishop of Rome. Since the Prince of the Apostles, under Divine inspiration, decided to move his see to Rome, it was necessary for him to appoint St. Evodius as his successor of the Diocese of Antioch. The Apostolic Church was simply growing that fast.

  Early Church

  It's unclear when the notion of a monarchial bishop emerged, but it is clear that by 200 AD a single bishop in charge of a metropolitan area became a universal norm without much controversy. Initially, bishops were chosen by the local clergy with approval from nearby bishops. "A newly elected bishop was installed in office and given his authority [...] by the bishops who supervised the election and performed the ordination."

  Examples of episcopal election in the early church include such notable figures as Ambrose of Milan. Episcopal election was so taken for granted that by the time of the Council of Nicaea, it is mentioned as the normative method for selecting bishops, with approval of local metropolitans.

  The bishops of the most important sees sought acceptance from Rome. Some early church fathers attest to the fact that the Church of Rome - in effect its diocese - was the central point of authority. They attest to the Church's reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch (ca 1st century) does, that Rome "holds the presidency" among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus (ca 2nd century) explains, "because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree" with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is full communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century) puts it, Rome is "the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source." Most of these references were to the entire Church of Rome as such, not necessarily to the Bishop of Rome in his person, but after the role of the pope emerged, the church and its bishop became interpreted in a synonymous way. - Appointment of Catholic bishops

In 325 AD, the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea forbid bishops from being transferred to another see:

  Canon 15 - Neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon shall be transferred from city to city. But they shall be sent back should they attempt to do so, to the Churches in which they were ordained.

Slowly, but surely the Sovereign Pontiff took more control over the appointments of bishops and the establishments of dooceses.

  By the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the metropolitan bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome had a role of the greatest importance in the selection. Canon 6 of the Council acknowledged and codified an ancient custom giving jurisdiction over large regions to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Nicaea decreed that the consent of the metropolitan bishop was normally required:

  Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail. - Appointment of Catholic bishops

In the 11th century the pope reserved to himself the creation of new dioceses.

  We have noticed above that after the eleventh century the sovereign pontiff reserved to himself the creation of dioceses. In the actual discipline, as already stated, all that touches the diocese is a causa major, i.e. one of those important matters in which the bishop possesses no authority whatever and which the pope reserves exclusively to himself. Since the episcopate is of Divine institution, the pope is obliged to establish dioceses in the Catholic Church, but he remains sole judge of the time and manner, and alone determines what flock shall be entrusted to each bishop. - Diocese (Catholic Encyclopedia)

However it was not until the the 19th century that the Holy See took control over the nominations of bishops and the possibility of episcopal jurisdiction transfer of a bishop from one diocese to another.

  Centralization of papal power

  In the early 19th century, state involvement in episcopal appointment was still so normal that, in spite of the opposition of the Church in Ireland to the proposed royal veto of the appointment of bishops, the Holy See was prepared to grant it to the British king. As late as the 20th century, Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary exercised a power of Jus exclusivae to veto the election of Mariano Rampolla as pope during the 1903 papal conclave. After Rampolla was vetoed, the conclave elected Pope Pius X.

  It was in 1871 that a radical shift in law and practice began to take place. In that year the Law of guarantees gave the pope the right to choose the bishops of the Kingdom of Italy, all 237 of them, appointments that through the unification of Italy had fallen into the hands of King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy. Although the pope denounced the law, he nevertheless profited by it to appoint, within the first seven months that followed, 102 new Italian bishops. Before the unification of Italy the various rulers made the appointments, with the pope doing so only for the Papal States. The 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State had a similar effect for appointing bishops in the territories ruled by France. In the early 20th century papal appointment of Catholic bishops was an almost universal practice except where, in virtue of the Spanish patronato real and the Portuguese padroado, the appointment of Catholic bishops remained in the hands of the civil authorities.

  Thus the 1917 Code of Canon Law was able to finally affirm that, in the Latin Church, the decision rests with the pope. In the course of the 20th century, remaining privileges enjoyed by secular authorities gradually diminished, especially since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), which declared that the right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs per se exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical authority and requested the civil authorities who still had rights and privileges in this field to renounce them voluntarily. - Appointment of Catholic bishops

As a general rule, since Vatican II, archbishops are always chosen from diocesan bishops of the country in question or ecclesiastical region. I can recall, when Bishop Exner was appointed Archbishop of Vancouver and everyone thought it amazing that I predicted his appoint to this see. The fact was much more simple. I followed the logical conclusion that Rome might make. It is not magic, but simply logic that made the intuition possible.

Bishops are still considered to be married to their diocese that is the Church which is the Bride of Christ mystically speaking. Some rules for bishops point this out:

  Must live in the diocese for most of the year, unless on official business in Rome or when attending a Church Council.

  Has a serious duty to be present at his cathedral during the seasons of Lent and Advent, and on the feasts of Easter, Pentecost, Christmas and Corpus Christi.

  Every five years a bishop must send a report to Rome.

  Bishops must visit Rome to meet with the Pope at least once every five years and visit the tombs of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

  Bishops must regularly visit each part of their diocese.

  Bishops must attend Synods (meetings of Bishops) when they are called. -  The responsibilities and role of a bishop


What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally?

There is a spectrum of literal biblical reading, but basically it boils down to the degree to which one believes in the historicity (in the modern sense) of the Bible.
Archeological evidence only goes back as far as a steele mentioning the "House of David," so for modern academics, the historicity of say, Moses, Abraham, and Adam and Eve are all at least suspect.  Opinion varies as to whether, say, a baby boy who should have been murdered was actually set adrift in a boat made of bull rushes. A literalist would say, yes, this literally happened, and a liberal would say that it is a mere birth narrative to set the tone for who Moses would be.  Likewise, a liberal would say that clearly a few Hebrew slaves probably escaped across a "Reed Sea" (a swamp) whereas a literalist would, with no evidence to the contrary, state that in fact 525,000 Israelite men plus their wives and children pass through the Red Sea, with the waves held back on either side and Charleton Heston in front holding a stick.  The same analysis holds for an actual Adam and Eve, whether or not a woman named Tamar really did seduce her father-in-law, and a whole host of other stories.
As one who is probably more literal than most, I would suggest there are a few categories in which to consider the question:

Parables and other stories identified as such:
When Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, he pretty clearly identifies it as such.  Now, I've driven through the West Bank up from Jericho to Jerusalem, and along the way, you can pass the "Inn of the Good Samaritan."  Some people will say that is in fact a real event in history.  This is an extreme form of literalism which negates the possibility of Jesus using metaphor- a stance mostly restricted to ultra-conservatives.

Historical events that have miraculous involvement:
Very few scholars would now argue that there was no King David.  Very few also doubt that there was a big Philistine named Goliath whom he killed.  The question is typically along the lines of, "Was he really just a boy with a sling?"  As a literalist who believes that God does intervene in history, I tend to view this as an actual event that occurs more or less as the Bible describes it.  Could it have been four stones in his pouch instead of five?  For me, that would be an irrelevant detail - for an inerrantist it would be a requirement.  For a liberal, the entire story was probably an embellishment after a real knock down, drag out battle, and the details grew in the retelling.

Prehistorical / Other more figurative:
Genesis 1 -11, parts of Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation are special cases, in that scholars often disagree as to whether or not these were meant to be understood as history or legend.  Along these lines, Job appears in the section of the Old Testament called the "Ketuvi'im" or "Writings" alongside Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.  It may be that the original author intended this as a story all along, or it could be real, or it could be "historical fiction."  As there is no title page on the book of Job, it could be analagous to finding one of Shakespeare's plays - and that could mean anything from Henry V to Romeo and Juliet.  Imagine if you had no historical reference to figure it out.  Likewise, Daniel is not billed as historical (it's in the Nevi'im), and yet it has more historical detail in certain points than many textbooks.

The question with all of this then is the degree to which a reader ascribes historicity to a narrative.  Keep in mind that prior to Thuycidides, even the very notion of a story that attempts to merely describe historical events (while still making a point) wasn't really even an idea, and you'll see why there is controversy.  People can argue hermeneutics (the science of how a text should be interpreted) and archeology all day long - the fact is that there is a choice that must be made a priori, and understanding the implications of that for one's theology is the real heart of the matter.


What religious beliefs did the Galatians hold when Paul first preached the gospel to them?

The Wikipedia article on Galatia states that the Galatians were Celts who invaded the area about 275 BCE, and who were reported to be in the area until about 475 CE, or so. It is likely that the Celts would have been considered "pagans" by the local population as they seem to have taken some time to adopt local ways. However, the Galatians do not seem to have comprised the entire population of the area, but rather only a ruling class. And the reports of Paul's activity refer to "in Galatia", which seems to be the region, and in the absence of other evidence, does not seem to be any to prove that the Galatians were the primary group among which Paul was evangelizing.

Acts 18:23 relates that after spending time in Caesarea and Antioch, Paul traveled through Galatia "strengthening the disciples there" (RSV). The fact that Paul "strengthened", rather than "made" these disciples suggests that some had already been evangelized, but there is not enough information to determine whether the earlier evangelization was by Paul himself, or by someone else. We also don't know whether among those with whom Paul interacted, that there might not have been some who had heard of Jesus Christ, but were not yet believers. However, it is likely that Paul also interacted with non-Christians, and non-Jews in Galatia, so some of the people he evangelized may have not already have heard of Jesus, or if they had heard of him, may not have believed he was the Christ.

Galatians 4:13-14, seems to suggest that when Paul originally traveled through Galatia, he suffered some sort of unspecified infirmity; and seems to be an exhortation to some of the Galatians to maintain steadfast in faith.  We're not given enough information to determine what that infirmity might have been.


Where did Baptists get their name and what do they believe?

The key difference is that in most other denominations (Anglicanism, Methodism, the United Reformed Church, etc) infant baptism is practised. Baptists believe that baptism is a public profession of personal faith - in other words, a public display of a decision someone has made themselves - and the notion of infant baptism is at odds with this.

Most new churches (emergent, or whichever word you prefer - churches that were established in the last few decades) profess to be non-denominational but tend to accord with Baptist theology, at least in the respect of baptism.


According to Catholicism, how did Jesus go in secret (disguise) to the Feast of Tabernacles?

  8 You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” 9 When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee.

  10 But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.- John 7:8-10

It would seem plausible that the term secret in this passage of Scripture simply means some more or less by himself or privately or on his own. Sorry no disguise was needed or used by Our Lord.

Let the Church Fathers speak for the Church!

  Finally, after He had said these words, When His brethren had gone up; the Gospel declares it, attend, read what you have objected to me; see if the passage itself do not solve the difficulty, see if I have taken from anywhere else what to say. This then the Lord was waiting for, that they should go up first, that they might not announce beforehand that He was coming, When His brethren had gone up, then went He also up to the feast day, not openly, but as it were in secret. What is, as it were in secret? He acts there as if in secret. What is, as it were in secret? Because neither was this really in secret. For He did not really make an effort to be concealed, who had it in His Own power when He would be taken. But in that concealment, as I have said, He gave His weak disciples, who had not the power to prevent being taken when they would not, an example of being on their guard against the snares of enemies. For He went up afterwards even openly, and taught them in the temple; and some said, ' Lo, this is He; lo, He is teaching.' Certainly our rulers said that they wished to apprehend Him: 'Lo, He speaks openly, and no one lays hands on Him.' - Sermon 83 of St.Augustine on the New Testament

St. John Chrysostom adds this to your question:

  For, says the Evangelist, Jesus, when He had said these words, abode in Galilee; but when His brethren had gone up, then went He up also unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. The expression, when His brethren had gone up, is that of one showing that He chose not to go up with them. On which account He abode where He was, and manifested not Himself, although they in a manner urged Him to do so. But why did He, who ever spoke openly, do so now as it were in secret? The writer says not secretly, but, as it were in secret. For thus, as I have said, He seemed to be instructing us how to manage matters. And, apart from this, it was not the same to come among them when heated and restive, as to do so afterwards when the feast was ended. - Homily 49 of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of John


Did the early Church fathers see a distinction between Matthias' and Paul's apostleship appointment, considering Paul's peculiar verbiage choice?

[I have edited my previous reply to address the question more directly.]

The very earliest Church Fathers were the Apostles themselves, so I think it is worthwhile first to consider what is stated in the Acts of the Apostles.

I think we must also carefully consider how Paul's ministry began.  I think it is fair to say that everyone who serves Christ does so according to His will and not their own.  This is not to say, however, that the fact that Paul became an Apostle by God's will means that the Church had no role whatsoever.

When the Lord first revealed Himself to Paul and blinded him and responded to his question, What wilt Thou have me do? by telling him to see a certain disciple of the Church and receive further instructions (Acts 9:5-6).  Thenceforth, Paul received all of his direction from the Church, except at the very beginning when, in typical new convert fashion, he went directly to the Jews to point out their errors and had to be rescued in a basket lowered down the city wall (Acts 9:20-26).   I am not completely sure, but I do not think we ever see Paul acting completely on his own in Acts.  He is usually directed where to go and with whom to go.

As you point out, how Matthias is called is much different from how Paul is called, but what the two have in common I think is that when they are called, they serve the Church and do not set out to establish some sort of independent ministry.

Regarding the thoughts of the Church Fathers who followed the Apostles, you ask, in part:

  Did the early church fathers see the appointment of Matthias, perhaps,
  to be hasty and contrary to God's will?

Based on the resources I have access to (Logos, ANF, NPNF, etc.), it seems that none of the Apostolic Fathers nor did any other Church Father up to the 4th century discuss this passage.  The first discussion I found of Matthias appointment was in John Chrysostom's Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, where he makes no indication that he views the appointment of Matthias as something contrary to God's will, but is rather very much in concord with God's will:

  Then after the event [the Ascension], he appositely brings in the
  Prophet, saying, For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his
  habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein” [Acts 1:20;
  Psalm 68:25 LXX]; this is said of the field and the dwelling: And his
  bishopric let another take; that is, his office, his priesthood. So
  that this, he says, is not my counsel, but His who hath foretold these
  things. For, that he may not seem to be undertaking a great thing, and
  just such as Christ had done, he adduces the Prophet as a witness.
  Wherefore it behooves of these men which have companied with us all the time. (v. 21.) Why does he make it their business too? That the
  matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall
  into contention about it. For if the Apostles themselves once did
  this, much more might those. This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the
  beginning he said, Men and brethren. It behooves to choose from
  among you. He [Peter] defers the decision to the whole body, thereby
  both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear
  of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. For such occasions
  always give rise to great evils. Now that some one must needs be
  appointed, he adduces the prophet as witness: but from among what
  persons: Of these,”\ he says, which have companied with us all the
  time. To have said, the worthy must present themselves, would have
  been to insult the others; but now he refers the matter to length of
  time; for he says not simply, These who have companied with us, but,
  all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from
  us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection
  (v. 22): that their college (ὁ χορὸς) might not be left mutilated.
  Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself? What
  was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor.
  And besides, he was not yet endowed with the spirit. And they
  appointed two, Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus, and
  Matthias (v. 23.). Not he appointed them: but it was he that
  introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing
  out that even this was not his own, but from old time by prophecy; so
  that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor (Homily III).

Chrysostom seems to maintain that Matthias appointment was not only proper, but was in a sense extraordinary in that one of the reasons he was appointed was that he had been a personal witness to Jesus, along with the rest of the Apostles


How can I find this letter from Ambrose?

After hours of additional search I found part of the answer in a footnote of Thomas O Loughlin's "Celtic Theology", p. 50. It seems to be the case that the number in square brackets usually refers to the ordering according to the "seventeenth-century Maurist edition". Other numbers mentioned are typified as pertaining to the "ET" or / and "FC series."


What is a Scapular, and what theology is tied to it?

The Scapular was given to St. Simon Stock, a Carmelite monk.

  the Mother of God appeared to Simon Stock with the scapular of the order in her hand. This scapular she gave him with the words: "Hoc erit tibi et cunctis Carmelitis privilegium, in hoc habitu moriens salvabitur" (This shall be the privilege for you and for all the Carmelites, that anyone dying in this habit shall be saved).

Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Simon Stock

It's essentially two small pieces of wool attached by two 18 inch cords with the words (in the vernacular) "Whosoever dies wearing this scapular will not suffer eternal fire".

For this reason, I wear a scapular all the time, except when I take a shower and then I am very careful not to drop the soap.

If you want to associate a theology with the scapular, then I guess it would have to be Carmelite spirituality which is austere, loving and personal.  St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross would be good starting points to know about Carmelite Spirituality.  St. Therese of Lisieux too, but she came along long after the first two and her words are, well they're just amazing.

In any event, I think the priest who answered my question you linked to gave a good explanation of what one needs to do in conjunction with the scapular.  It's a sacramental and a devotion.  It should be blessed by a priest and the prayers should be recited every night.  But it's not magic and by itself will not pull your soul out of hell.  I think it was made as a small mortification, which fits in excellently with St. Therese's little way.  It's two itchy spots on your chest and back that. If you've got a decision that makes you sweat a little, will pull you back in to reality.  It works a bit better than a WWJD bracelet, but in this sense is the same thing.


I can't answer this definitively, but I can tell you what I've come to as a conclusion. The community can vote as to whether or not they agree, and I'm sure someone else would have a different answer, but here goes.

Looking at how God's method of communication has changed over time, it should not be surprising that such "gifts" are not as common as they were.  When it came to the Apostles and the early Church, God was specifically working  to establish His Church. These signs and wonders were accompanied by preaching of the Gospel.

In fact, if you look at the miracles performed by Jesus Himself, you'll see that He performed them as a demonstration of His authority, and if you look at them in total, they display that He is God. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/miracles.htm  In other words, He didn't perform them merely to amaze people, He did them to support His teaching, authority, and claims about Himself.

With the Apostolic miracles, and those of the early Church, the pattern is similar.  The miracles accompany the preaching of the Gospel, or serve to establish the authority of the Apostles, and early Church.  Once the authority has been established, there is no further need for God to "prove Himself".  He's already done so.  He had already revealed Himself, and He did say specifically that if we don't believe in the Scriptures, why would we believe Him. (John 5:46).  How many times does He have to prove Himself before we believe?

A similar pattern can be seen throughout Scripture.  In the beginning, He walked with Adam and Eve and spoke to them personally.  With Moses, He spoke from a burning bush.  Later, He spoke to the people through Moses, and then through the prophets.

Also, God had shown anger several times throughout Scripture towards them that seek after signs, when He had already revealed Himself.  He tolerates it at first, even though He recognizes it for what it is (temping God) (Exodus 17:7) but He is still angered by it.  (Psalm 78:18-20)

Jesus also rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees for the same thing.  (Matthew 16:4)

That said, there are still those around today who believe that these verses are to be taken literally, and that they still apply today.  These would be the snake handlers in a few Pentecostal denominations and sub-groups that so many people love to make fun of.

As for me, personally, I don't dare practice these rituals.  It's not that I don't think that God could protect me from snakes and poisons.  It's more that I know that this would be, to me, a test of whether or not He truly would.  In other words, my actions would be a deliberate tempting of God.  I fully believe that He could do it, but I don't want to make Him angry because He could just as well let me die simply because I had the audacity to test Him.  Who am I to test Him?


Who were the intended audience in the Epistle to Romans?

Here are some excerpts from some study materials I have on this subject, you may find other sources, but this seems to be the most reliable I have found, There is also some information in the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, which you might wish to check out.

When Paul wrote his letter to Christians at Rome towards the end of his third missionary journey, he was communicating with what appears to be a firmly established collection of believers in that city.
Based on a study of relevant biblical and extra-biblical documents, it is generally agreed that non-apostolic Jewish Christians brought the faith of Christ to Rome in the early decades of the church.
After generating both interest and controversy within the synagogues, Christianity was forced to reorganize in the wake of Claudius’s edict against the Jews. The resulting Gentile-dominated church that received Paul’s letter in the late 50’s met in small groups around the city of Rome but maintained communication and held onto a common identity and mission.

apparently Peter was instrumental in the formation of the church in Rome and became the first Pope in that branch of the Orthodox Church which split in 1055 from the Orthodox church in Jerusalem.

Paul and Peter leave their mark on these believers, though they merely strengthen the work that had already begun to flourish in the capital city.
Beyond these main points, scholars still differ on the exact timeline of the birth and growth of the Christian community, as well as on to what degree Roman reactions against Jewish instability stem from disagreements about Christ.
When all is said though, the overall picture of the emergence of Christianity in Rome constitutes yet another significant example of God’s extraordinary work in the early church during the decades following Christ’s death and resurrection.


Are all humans in Heaven equal or is there also a kind of hierarchy? (Roman Catholic perspective)

No, everyone in heaven is not equal because of the diversity of their merits.

The degree of closeness to God in heaven depends on one's merits. The Council of Florence, under the authority of Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447), defined the dogma (DZ 693) that

  the souls of those, who … are immediately received into heaven, … see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another.

Since the Blessed Virgin Mother has the greatest merits, she is the closest to God in heaven.

Also, one cannot merit in purgatory. Since people die with a diversity of merits, so is there a diversity of merit in heaven.


What does the Roman Catholic church teach about those who die having never heard of Christ?

The basic doctrine is "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus:" outside the Church there is no salvation.
This is formulated by St. Cyprian in Epistle 72 (emphasis mine):

But if not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a heretic to salvation, because there is no salvation out of the Church, how much less shall it be of advantage to him, if in a hiding-place and a cave of robbers, stained with the contagion of adulterous water, he has not only not put off his old sins, but rather heaped up still newer and greater ones!

And affirmed by about a dozen Popes in the form of ecumenical councils, encyclicals, and papal bulls. But the line has been prone to misinterpretation, and it's a lot more complicated than it appears.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this on the matter:

846How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

The issue is something called "inculpable ignorance." The Catholic Church is the only path to salvation, but those who do not know its dogmata through no fault of their own are to be held blameless: they will not be punished for that which they do not know is wrong, and can still be saved through the Church:

848"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

But those that do know the Catholic faith and reject it cannot be saved: there is no alternate path to salvation. From the Lumen Gentium (LG), paragraph 14:

In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

But, it's still a little more complicated than that. This doctrine, as explained above, might be interpreted to mean that only non-Christians that are also ignorant of the Catholic faith are held blameless. But it also applies to Christians. From the Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3:

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

That is, what's interesting about this doctrine is that it essentially puts nearly every Christian denomination in partial communion with the Church: nearly all Christians agree with the Roman Catholic Church on some things. If they never learn anything about the things with which they disagree (to give a basic example, the prohibition on the priestly ordination of women), they would be held blameless.
It's only when a Christian is faced with both the Catholic position and the non-Catholic position—and chooses the latter—that it becomes a problem of heresy. They could do this for any number of reasons: misinformation, misinterpretation, reliance on bad actors, etc. It's then the mission of the Church to bring those people back into the fold. From LG., paragraph 16:

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.


Has Christianity ever come down in opposition of arranged marriages?

Yes, in general Christianity has worked against arranged marriages historically.

The Wikipedia article on marriage notes:

  With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties... As Christianity spread during the Roman period and the Middle Ages,
  the idea of free choice in selecting marriage partners increased and
  spread with it.

A History of Marriage in Western Civilization contends that the previous Greek, Roman, and Jewish traditions of arranged marriage were eroded by the Church's role - first, the focus on asceticism and not always being married, and then by the Church's view of marriage as a sacrament and wanting more say in the process (for example by saying they had the power to annul marriages illicit in some way).

This is of course not universal; despite Ethiopia adopting Christianity in 333 AD they are still moving out of the practice.

This makes sense; arranged marriage tends to depend on two things:

Women being seen as undesirable/commodities by the society
Marriage being seen as an economic transaction between two groups

Christianity has eroded the "women are lesser" argument historically (though imperfect in practice, Christianity's view of women is WAY higher than many other culture/religions) because of the insertion of both the concept of the individual's relationship with God resulting in marriage necessarily being a matter of individual choice - "if they want to stay chaste, they don't have to marry" - and the Church as a cultural force wanting part of the say in marriage for both religious and, frankly, political reasons.

Note that there is also a major difference between arranged marriages that still (technically) require the assent of those being married, and forced marriages:

  The Roman Catholic Church deems forced marriage grounds for granting
  an annulment — for a marriage to be valid both parties must give their
  consent freely.

This was reiterated at the Council of Trent but dates from much earlier:

  The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, "If the
  consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should
  the union be consummated, are rendered void", shows the importance of
  a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of
  church teaching through the years.

You can read an extended dance remix of all this in the Summa Theologica.

For this reason forced marriage is largely constrained to parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East that have not had enough Christian influence to affect their laws. So yes, it is a cultural issue, but one that the Christian Church usually strives to influence, and has done so successfully in many cases.


Did adding the Feast of Sts. Mary, Martha and Lazarus clear up anything about the identity of Mary?
The answer seems to be no.
The decree of Pope Francis does not clear up the uncertainty. It simply adds these three saints together in the General Calendar of the Roman Rite.

Decree on the Celebration of Saints Martha, Mary and Lazarus in the General Roman Calendar
In the household of Bethany the Lord Jesus experienced the family spirit and friendship of Martha, Mary and Lazarus, and for this reason the Gospel of John states that he loved them. Martha generously offered him hospitality, Mary listened attentively to his words and Lazarus promptly emerged from the tomb at the command of the One who humiliated death.
The traditional uncertainty of the Latin Church about the identity of Mary - the Magdalene to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection, the sister of Martha, the sinner whose sins the Lord had forgiven - which resulted in the inclusion of Martha alone on 29 July in the Roman Calendar, has been resolved in recent studies and times, as attested by the current Roman Martyrology, which also commemorates Mary and Lazarus on that day. Moreover, in some particular calendars the three siblings are already celebrated together.
Therefore, the Supreme Pontiff Pope FRANCIS, considering the important evangelical witness they offered in welcoming the Lord Jesus into their home, in listening to him attentively, in believing that he is the resurrection and the life, and accepting the proposal of this Dicastery, has decreed that 29 July be designated in the General Roman Calendar as the Memorial of Saints Martha, Mary and Lazarus.
The Memorial must therefore appear under this title in all Calendars and Liturgical Books for the celebration of Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours; the variations and additions to be adopted in the liturgical texts, attached to the present decree, must be translated, approved and, after confirmation by this Dicastery, published by the Episcopal Conferences.
Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 26 January 2021, Memorial of Saints Timothy and Titus, Bishops.

Some of the Sacred Texts do not associate Mary with Magdalena, while others do! Were there one Mary or were there possibly two? The texts must be interpreted and some say one and others say there were more than one Mary. Regardless of this The name of Mary was extremely popular at the time.

“Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair, and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.” —John 12:3
“Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.” —Luke 10:42
“And when Jesus was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on his head as he was at table. And the disciples seeing it, had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste? For this might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always. For she in pouring this ointment upon my body, hath done it for my burial. “Amen I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done, shall be told for a memory of her.” —Matthew 26:10-13
“And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre; and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre...Jesus saith to her: Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, thinking that it was the gardener, saith to him: Sir, if thou hast taken him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning, saith to him: Rabboni (which is to say, Master).” —John 20:1, 15-16

Some associate her with the woman had seven demons driven out of her.
In fact it gets more complicated if we look outside the box and look at the private revelation of Catherine Emmerich. Although Catholics are not obliged to accept the Revelations of Catherine Emmerich, she is the one who ultimate lead us to finding the House of Mary in present day Turkey!
According to Catherine Emmerich, Lazarus and Martha had another sister by the name of Mary, who was not named in Scripture.
It is complicated!

The Family of Lazarus, Martha and Magdalen
The parents of Lazarus had in all fifteen children, of whom six died young. Of the nine that survived, only four were living at the time of Christ’s teaching. These four were: Lazarus; Martha, about two years younger; Mary, looked upon as a simpleton, two years younger than Martha; and Mary Magdalen, five years younger than the simpleton. The simpleton is not named in Scripture, not reckoned among the Lazarus family; but she is known to God. She was always put aside in her family, and lived altogether unknown...Lazarus ...looked much older than Jesus; he appeared to me to be fully eight years His senior. Lazarus had large possessions, landed property, gardens, and many servants. Martha had her own house, and another sister named Mary, who lived entirely alone, had also her separate dwelling. Magdalen lived in her castle at Magdalum. Lazarus was already long acquainted with the Holy Family. He had at an early period aided Joseph and Mary with large alms and, from first to last, did much for the Community. The purse that Judas carried and all the early expenses, he supplied out of his own wealth...The father of Lazarus was named Zarah, or Zerah, and was of very noble Egyptian descent. He had dwelt in Syria, on the confines of Arabia, where he held a position under the Syrian king; but for services rendered in war, he received from the Roman emperor property near Jerusalem and in Galilee. He was like a prince, and was very rich. He had acquired still greater wealth by his wife Jezabel, a Jewess of the sect of the Pharisees. He became a Jew, and was pious and strict according to the Pharisaical laws. He owned part of the city on Mount Zion, on the side upon which the brook near the height on which the Temple stands, flows through the ravine. But the greater part of this property, he had bequeathed to the Temple, retaining, however, in his family some ancient privilege on its account. This property was on the road by which the Apostles went up to the Cenacle, but the Cenacle itself formed no longer a part of it. Zarah’s castle in Bethania was very large. It had numerous gardens, terraces, and fountains, and was surrounded by double ditches. The prophecies of Anna and Simeon were known to the family of Zarah, who were waiting for the Messiah. Even in Jesus’ youth, they were acquainted with the Holy Family, just as pious, noble people are wont to be with their humble, devout neighbors. (Vol. 1, pp. 334-335)

Rome simply seems to desire that St. Mary Magdalen, St. Lazarus and St. Martha be celebrated on the same date within the Latin Rite.


Who do Seventh Day Adventist think the Harlot is in Revelation chaps 17 & 19?

From a Seventh-Day Adventist perspective, and also what many of the reformers believed, the Bible points to the harlot of Revelation as the Roman Catholic system.

A woman in prophecy and in Jesus' parables (10 virgins) represents a church or group of believers. (Revelation 12:1-6, 10 virgins, etc.)
A harlot represents a church that has been unfaithful to the teachings of God.

  Cause Jerusalem to know her abominations. ... You trusted in your own
  beauty, played the harlot” (Ezekiel 16:2, 15).

She persecuted the saints (Rev 17:6).

4.She was dressed in purple and scarlet (Rev 17:4). The pope often wears the royal color
of purple at important functions, and red is the color of the robes of Catholic cardinals.

5.The seven heads of the beast (Rev 17:3) upon which the woman is seated are seven mountains (Rev 17:9). It is well-known that Rome, the headquarters of the papacy, is built upon seven hills, or mountains.

6.The beast is guilty of blasphemy (Rev 17:3), a point that also clearly fits the papacy, if you look at the Biblical definition of blasphemy (claims to forgive sins and claims to be God)

7.She ruled “over the kings of the earth” (Rev 17:18). Alexander Flick says that by the 13th century, the pope was “at least in theory ... the ruler of the whole world in temporal and spiritual affairs.” This point could fit no other earthly kingdom or government. The papacy is described in Revelation 17 too clearly for doubt.

This will likely ruffle some feathers and get down-voted around here, but some people still do believe this, among them are SDAs. Also, pretty much all the reformers of old believed this as well. Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Cranmer, Tyndale, Latimer, Ridley, and many others.

For a in-depth, Biblical study, see The Other Woman.


What happened to the apostle John after the Biblical account of his life ends?

We know from scripture that he was exiled on the Isle of Patmos near the end of his life - reliable understandings of when his epistles and the book of Revelation were penned indicate it was around the year 90 AD.

Where he was between ~50AD and 90AD (with 50 being a plausible time for Paul's early writings, and the original disciples/apostles to still be in Jerusalem), I don't believe we're ever told.

Also, Jesus' mother Mary would have been fairly old by then - she should have been at least mid 40s when Jesus began to preach (if she was ~15 when he was born). By the time of the early church and Paul's appearance on the scene (after his time out of the record when he was apparently studying and learning), she would have been at least in her mid 60s, if not older.


What are the main points of Mormons' teaching that this group of people consider contradictory to the Bible?

I think a simple chart answers this best, so you can look at http://contenderministries.org/mormonism/comparison.php
Here are a couple of Mormon beliefs and their reference. I believe D&C is Doctrines and Covenant, not certain what book Mormon Doctrine is, but this could give at least a small sample of teachings the run smack against what mainstream Christianity teaches.

God the Father has a wife, through whom he procreates spirit children.
"Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children
of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also
the offspring of an Eternal Mother.  An exalted and glorified Man of
Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father unless a Woman of like
glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother"
(Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed., p. 516)
Man was also in the beginning with God.  Intelligence, or the light of
truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be"  (D&C 93:29)
"If there had been no atonement, temporal death would have remained
forever, and there never would have remained forever, and there never
would have been a resurrection.  The body would have remained forever
in the grave" (Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed., p.63)
"Redemption from death, through the sufferings of Christ, is for all
men, both the righteous and the wicked" (Ibid., p. 65)


Has a papyrus been found that was written by a disciple of Jesus?

Nope. The earliest manuscript fragment we have is p52. It dates to about 20 years after John wrote it.

And, while it is likely that the apostles spoke Aramaic, there is nothing to conclusively prove they wrote in it.

In any event, the apostles wouldn't have written it in their own hands. Most writing was done by an amanuensis - a guy who made the paper and ink, and wrote down what he said.

The one exception to the amanuensis is most likely when Paul writes "See what large letters I write in my own hand".


You appear to be misreading the Scripture, in order to understand a verse of Scripture we must also read and understand the other verses before and after the one we want to understand, and sometimes we even have to read and understand the Chapters before and after the one containing our verse. Sometimes we even have to understand what the entire book is about, this is true of this verse.

The Church at Corinth was begun by Paul on his first tour. It was a wealthy city and a large trading center. The Church itself had been going through some confusion due to the fact that there had been several different theologies taught by a diverse group of people.

Paul's letter was sent to help them to discern the true course of following Christ. In 1st Corinthians 2:1-16. Paul’s subject is, Christ crucified, not in worldly, but in heavenly, wisdom among the perfect.

So let's take a look at some verses and see if we can determine just what Paul is saying.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

  1st Corinthians 2:9 through 16 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
  But the natural man Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Lets break this down and analyze what Paul is telling them.

save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Here Paul is saying that mere man in his material state can never know the things that are Spiritual.

God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

What Paul is saying here is that the Holy Spirit converses with our spirit, and even makes us aware of the deep things of God.

what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

He goes on to say that man doesn't even know himself, but his Spirit knows, and no man knows the ways of God, only the Holy Spirit knows.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Now Paul is no longer speaking in general terms he is speaking of himself.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Here Paul is saying in effect listen to me and not those who are not teaching the same things I teach, because what I'm telling you is what the Holy Spirit has taught me.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

So now we get to the verse you asked about, and Paul is no longer talking about himself or any other man. He is talking about God! actually it is the third part of the Trinity which is the Holy Ghost.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Finally what Paul is saying is has any man understood the mind of God so that he is able to judge The Holy Spirit. And he ends by saying that he has come to see things as Christ does.


Satan is a Hebrew word (Ha-Satan) that means The Accuser. In Job 1, we see the Accuser doing what he does best- making accusations against God's chosen.

Because the devil is a created being, and therefore nowhere near being God's equal, he can only accuse people in front of God, and God may allow the Devil to bring about events as a result.

Interestingly, the point of the Gospel is because that there is therefore now No condemnation for those who believe in Christ Jesus, the Devil has lost his one ability over God's elect, namely the ability to accuse the Brethren.


Why is 'putting to death' condoned in the Bible?

To preserve the sanctity of life
Genesis 9:6

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The Lord commands that those who commit certain sins must die because they have despised those made in His own image. It's also worth noting that one of the reasons for the flood (where all but 8 were killed) was the attempt to pollute mankind and introduce a demonic likeness (see Nephilim).
As punishment for a nation
Isaiah 13

1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see. 2 Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles. 3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness. 4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. 5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the Lord, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land

If a nation ignores warnings from God of impending judgment if they fail to repent of their wicked ways then God must then act in judgment, otherwise how could we believe that any of His promises would stand?
In the passage above we also see evidence the God can use a pagan or unrighteous nation as an instrument of judgment. He also used Israel as an instrument of judgment against the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and the Jebusites because of the abominations they had committed.
Rejection of God
Hebrews 10:28

Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

While the physical death might seem severe, the real punishment is reserved until the dead are judged. This is still the case regardless of whether capital punishment is still in occurring. Though "God is not willing that any should perish", those who have rejected His offer of mercy will not only die but be cast into the place "where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched".
Because He is Sovereign
God allowed the sons and daughters of Job to be killed. Our natural inclination might be to protest that God is unjust (like Job's wife), however Job understood that the Lord is sovereign. Despite restoring a larger number of possessions, God blesses Job with exactly the same number of sons and daughters. When we grasp that our existence on this earth is fleeting we may, like Paul, look forward to the day when we can put off this tent.


What is a good beginner reading-level Bible book for adults?

I love the New International Version for easier reading.. Or even the New KIng James is better than the old using ye olde englishe :) Or the "Good News Bible" may be even better!

I also love, even as an adult, some of the Bibles for Children. And as far as sentence structure, would, I think, be good for beginning to learn good sentence structure. And some I'm sure are put out by the King James publishers(?)


In this context, it meant to demand that God prove Himself.

My answer to this question address this, as does the one on the link @Caleb provided in the note above.

The short version of it is that throughout Biblical history, from the Exodus on, God has shown little patience with people demanding He prove that He exist, particularly the Israelites, who had seen His miracles time and time again.

In this context, the conversation could be paraphrased as this, (and this is a rough paraphrase, reading in my understanding of the context):

Satan is tempting Jesus to prove who God is, and who He is.  Satan already knew who He is, so the essence of Satan's asking Jesus to do this is "Oh, yeah, if you're God's son, and God is so powerful, then prove it."  Christ, recognizing Satan's goading as a mockery of God, refused.  In doing so, He showed not only His obedience to God the Father, but also His perfection and inability to be goaded and tempted by Satan.

Satan's temptation was no different than the mocking given to Jesus in Matthew 27:37-42.


What are Anglicans' opinion about Muhammad (founder of Islam)?

Anglican would, for the most part, not disagree with the assessment given by the Catholic church in the linked questions. Islamic teaching - specifically the teaching of Muhammed in the Quran - is explicitly and intentionally contradictory with Christian teaching and Christian scriptures. It would be hard to make the case of Muhammad being a 'true prophet of God', just as it would be very hard for a Muslim to admit that the New Testament was truly the inspired word of God.

A number of Anglicans (like other denominations) regard the historic Christian teachings as as 'of their time' rather than binding historical truths. For them it would be more plausible to accept that Muhammad was a prophet to the same extent as other Jewish prophets. However their number is rather small as a fraction of Christians in general. Of interest might be the writings of Kenneth Cragg, former Anglican Archbishop of Egypt, who has written interesting books on Muhammad from the Anglican (specifically Liberal Anglican) point of view.


According to Reformed Theology, why do unbelievers deserve punishment?

The simple answer is that God has decided that the wages of sin is death. It is entirely up to God as to what punishment sin deserves, and the punishment God chose was eternal damnation.

The Heidelberg Catechism's first section on Sin and Misery speaks about this, in particular question and answer 10:

  Q. Does God permit
  such disobedience and rebellion
  to go unpunished?

  A. Certainly not.
  God is terribly angry
  with the sin we are born with
  as well as the sins we personally commit.
  As a just judge,
  God will punish them both now and in eternity,
  having declared:
  “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey
  all the things written in the book of the law.”

The Westminster Larger Catechism also mentions this, in question 29 in particular but previous questions too:

  Q. 29. What are the punishments of sin in the world to come?

  A. The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire forever.

And also question 89:

  Q. 89. What shall be done to the wicked at the day of judgment?

  A. At the day of judgment, the wicked shall be set on Christ’s left hand, and, upon clear evidence, and full conviction of their own consciences, shall have the fearful but just sentence of condemnation pronounced against them; and thereupon shall be cast out from the favourable presence of God, and the glorious fellowship with Christ, his saints, and all his holy angels, into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torments, both of body and soul, with the devil and his angels forever.

And also question 152:

  Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?

  A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.


According to the LDS Church, what is the purpose or result of proxy baptisms for those who have already died?

To understand the doctrine of baptism for the dead, it's necessary to first understand the doctrine of baptism, and the crucial role it plays in LDS theology.  Baptism is held to be essential for the salvation of everyone with the maturity to be capable of committing sin.  The fourth Article of Faith states:

  4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is consistent with Acts chapter 2, in which, after hearing the Apostles' miraculous teachings:

  37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and
  said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren,
  what shall we do?

  38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you
  in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
  receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The same principle is found in Acts 19:

  1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul
  having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding
  certain disciples,

  2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye
  believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether
  there be any Holy Ghost.

  3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they
  said, Unto John's baptism.

  4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance,
  saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should
  come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

  5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord
  Jesus.

  6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on
  them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

  7 And all the men were about twelve.

This poses a problem, though: if God wishes to have all men be saved and come to a knowledge of him (1 Timothy 2:3-4), and the principles of salvation require all to be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, then what of those who are incapable of meeting this requirement because they are no longer in possession of a physical body?  There have been many people who lived their entire lives and died without ever so much as hearing about Jesus Christ, because of where they lived.  Is it consistent with the idea of a loving God to place His children in such circumstances and then condemn them for it?

The doctrine of baptism for the dead by proxy (and also of the laying on of hands to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, by proxy, which is part of the same process) is the resolution to this problem.  It allows Latter-Day Saints who can obtain proof that a certain person existed, and that they lived and died without receiving the benefits of the Gospel, to receive the ordinances of salvation on their behalf, by proxy.

The doctrine is that this allows (but does not compel) the departed to accept the work that has been done for them, and progress in their understanding of Gospel principles, which are being taught to them (1 Peter 4:6), that they might gain salvation alongside those who were able to accept the Gospel in the flesh.

So in response to the question above, these ordinances are not performed for people who were Mormon, but for people who lived and died without accepting the restored Gospel.  With regard to point #5, I'm not sure what the doctrine is on performing proxy work on behalf of people who chose to leave the church.  If anyone does know, feel free to edit it in here, with a citation.


What is the earliest reference to the notion that we killed Jesus?

There seems to be two distinct issues here. One is that the claim that Jesus' death was for the sins of all men. The other is related to the sense in which all men may have participated in the killing of Christ.
Universal atoning work of Christ
The atoning work of Christ was universal, in that it applied, at least in some way, to all men. There is still some debate over the extent of this topic, which would most clearly be articulated in the debate for an against "Limited Atonement" (one of the five points of Calvinism). Some would believe that the crucifixion was for only for those who would actually believe, and some would believe that it was for all, whether or not they choose to take advantage of it. Regardless, both sides still accept the relevant verses, such as:

Romans 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
1 John 2:2 - And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The death of Christ was the death that was meant for all men, and in that sense. If it were not for our sins, Jesus would not have had to die. Consider this famous passage:

Isaiah 53:5 - But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

and in the same chapter:

Isaiah 53:11 - He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

That is spelled out further in the New Testament:

I Corinthians 5:21 - For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The picture is the same as that of the sacrifices in the Old Testament. Our sin was placed upon our Saviour. Jesus had never sinned. However, he became, in God's eyes, the very sinner that we are as our sins were placed upon him. Because God cannot tolerate sin, He had to punish that man, His own son, with the punishment that rightfully belonged to us. He was reaping the punishment that we purchased through our actions.
Therefore, in that sense, we killed Jesus. When we choose to act contrary to God's law, we are bringing down judgement upon ourselves, which God's great mercy and love demand that Christ take that punishment. So, while we aren't there literally being the executor of that judgement, since the Gospel, it has been known that we are the reason for that judgement.
There is a further sense in which a believer would at first want to accuse those who performed the crucifixion, but it becomes clear upon some reflection that were we there, just as the Jews in their hate and the Romans in their ignorance crucified Christ, we too, are just as hateful and ignorant, and in their shoes, we would have done the same thing. This theme is sometimes approached within Christian literature, but I cannot find an earliest source for this. I am not certain whether this is something that is just a universal understanding upon reflection or whether there were some original source.
Nihilism and death of morality
The author being quoted here, however, brings in another concept, one that specifically originated from a secular source, and then applying that to Christianity. He isn't quoting a terribly old concept, but one of a specific, relatively recent, concept. His approach to it is novel, but making a point that is as old as the Gospels.
The author is bringing up a reference to a work from Nietzsche titled Thus Spake Zarathustra. In it, there was a famous quote stating that God is "dead", but most people seem to miss that this was not, as is taken these days, as a statement about God or a desire for this to happen, but instead as a lament of the dangers of modern philosophies. Nietzsche championed a school of philosophy called Nihilism, which did not believe in God, nor any ultimate goal for humanity. Even though he did not believe in God, his work admitted the problem that without God, we would lack much of what makes us great. He was lamenting the fact that people, in their attempt to find naturalist answers, have removed a great advantage, even if he didn't himself believe that God existed.
From the section labeled The Madman:

God is dead! He remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife, -- who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves?

This isn't particularly speaking about Christianity, but of how this current world of secular reasoning was killing all gods and all morality.
Although this was a completely secular point of view, it seems to understand a bit of the truth of what we believers know from Romans:

Romans 1:18-25 - 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1 deals with the nature of man and his tendency toward sin. This seems to be much of what the author quoted in the question is addressing. As men, we tend to want to fight against the Creator. We want to worship the creation instead. We ignore the very natural and obvious things that we see because we do not want to be ruled the way they tell us we should be ruled, and so we, in a figurative since, attempt to kill God in our own hearts so that we may continue to sin without a conscience.
God is the ultimate moral judge and dictator of our actions. He is the Sovereign master of each person, and when we tell him "No" or refuse to follow His orders, we are in a figurative sense putting that ruler to death in our minds and hearts. The ultimate sin is pride, and this is our tendency, to refuse God to rule as God.
Tying them together
The author is tying these ideas together in a novel way. He is taking the old literal since in which Jesus, as God and God's sacrifice, was killed because of the sin which we commit every day and showing how this is caused by the sin is the figurative sense, in which we try to put him to death in our own hearts and lives. Nevertheless, as the ultimate Lamb of God, he willingly allows this for our sakes. We, in our ignorance and sinfulness, bring death upon the Christ, but in his love and mercy, he willingly takes that death, and in exchange gives us life. We are each one of us committing this wrong, and to each one of us, hope of salvation is offered through Christ's death.
It would seem to me that the idea that Christ died for all humanity is as old as the Gospel, the idea that all humanity killed God figuratively is as old as Nietzsche, and this particular combination of the two is likely new to this article.


The original 12 apostles/disciples of Jesus were all Jewish.  By Jewish I understand you to mean "of the twelve tribes of Israel"/ Israelites.  Since one can interpret Jewish to be the religion, and there are Gentiles who adopt Judaism and are sometimes considered Jewish from a religious perspective, one needs to be careful with the term.  But from a Hebrew/Israelite/race perspective, even the two understood replacements for Judas Iscariot (Matthias replaced by a process of the other 11, and/or Paul as a replacement directly by Jesus) were Jewish.  It isn't until very late into some of Paul's letters that there is any mention of apostles who are not Jewish (mentioned with the title/description of apostle), such as Apollos.
If you go to the Wikipedia entry for the Apostles of Jesus, there is a list of the twelve with a link to a biography of each, but I had trouble finding reference to their Jewish heritage.  It's like all articles on this subject that I found just assumed it was true without showing any evidence.  I do know some of these Scripture declares it directly, but not for all.
I know inherently that this is true - all the 12 disciples were Jewish, but I'm having a hard time finding references to prove it.

Thanks to a comment from Mr. Bultitude, which speaks to the Jewishness of the names of the apostles, assuming that Thaddeus is actually Jude as most scholars believe:

Each of their names has a Hebrew origin, with the exceptions of Andrew (Greek name, but Peter's brother) and Philip (Greek name, but from the same city as Peter and Andrew) and the possible exception of Thaddeus (probably Aramaic name, so still evidence that he's Jewish, and he's also identified with an apostle known as Jude, which is absolutely a Jewish/Hebrew name)

I saw a quote that Judas Iscariot was the only Judean, and the rest were Galilean.  This may be confirmed at Pentecost in Acts 2:

1 Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like a violent wind blowing came from heaven and filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And tongues spreading out like a fire appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.
5 Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven residing in Jerusalem. 6 When this sound occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 Completely baffled, they said, “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that each one of us hears them in our own native language? [ Acts 2:5-8 (NET) ]

If there is some way to show that all 12 (or 11 + Matthias) of the apostles were present at Pentecost (this follows from the narrative...), this may be a proof, though it feels somewhat weak.  The issue is that Galilean may or may not necessarily imply Israelite/Hebrew/Jew.

A completely different way to tackle this may be to look at how the apostles behaved toward the question of spreading the gospel to non-Jews at the start.
While Jesus did bring the gospel to the Samaritan's directly (See the story of Jesus and the Samaritan women in John 4 - which completely surprised the disciples that he even spoke with them) it's not until well after the start of the church in Jerusalem that they even officially consider the possibility of extending the church to the gentiles.  Even though Philip pretty quickly spread the gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:27-40), and others, apparently not the apostles, spread the word to gentiles (Acts 11:19-22):

19 Now those who had been scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the message to no one but Jews. 20 But there were some men from Cyprus and Cyrene among them who came to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks too, proclaiming the good news of the Lord Jesus. 21 The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. 22 A report about them came to the attention of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. [ Acts 11:19-22 (NET) ]

In fact, it was so bad that God had to send Peter a vision and directly send him to Cornelius, a Gentle, and poured out his Spirit on them in order to finally get the point across to the church that the good news was for everyone, even though he told them that directly in the Great Commission.  In fact, this was so against their teaching, that Peter had to go back and defend/explain his actions of even entering into a Gentile house, which was against the purification laws of the Jews:

1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him, 3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them.” 4 But Peter began and explained it to them point by point, saying, ... [ Acts 11:1-4 (NET) ]

Even after this the Gentiles were accepted, but then many started saying that the Gentiles had to essentially convert to Judaism and obey all the Mosaic laws - which leads to "the Jerusalem Council" in Acts 15, where it was decided this line of reasoning was incorrect.  Paul would end up fighting against that position for the rest of his career, with evidence found liberally throughout his letters.
So, what is the point of all this?  If any of the original apostles were not Israelites, how could the infant church adopt a position that excluded Gentiles at the start?


Let's assume a new idea comes. Who validates that the new idea is right or wrong? Is there a vote?

Doctrine comes today as it did anciently-through divine revelations to prophets.1

Revelation may come by:

His own person
His own voice
The voice of the Holy Ghost
Messenger (Moses, Elias, and Elijah)

Revelation [for the church] may come to:

The President of the Church individually
Prophets acting in Council

  Where are these changes published?

Modern doctrine can be found:

  ...in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations2,3, and the Articles of Faith.4 cite-not AoF

Mormonnewsroom will publish any official statements the LDS church makes. These statements are also commonly read in ward (local congregations) meetings. These are not doctrine changes but: official church stances, policies, practices, and/or warnings about certain matters that arise in modern times.

  What are some examples of doctrine changes? I expect to see them reflected in the archives of the conferences (or other official archives).

Word of Wisdom(1833) -the Lord revealed which foods are good for us to eat and which substances are not good for the human body.
Official Declaration 1(1890) -led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.
Official Declaration 2(1978) -removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

Joseph Smith said:

  The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

(Some doctrine is more important than others...there has not been many major doctrine changes within the LDS church since it has been restored.)4

1 https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/09/how-is-doctrine-established?lang=eng

2 http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Proclamations_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles the 4th one is available to watch https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/04/media/session_4_talk_2/2819783447001?lang=eng the first 3 are before the invention of TV

3 https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

4 https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine


Contradiction or translation problem with Moses in Exodus?

What Moses saw is described and defined in Numbers 12:8.

And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

What Moses saw was a 'similitude' (temunah Strong 8544). Such was the importance of all that was to be communicated to Moses, and thence to Israel, and thus to the whole earth, that God spoke through a mechanism, as if face to face.
God spoke to prophets by vision and by dream, previously and thereafter. But to Moses he spoke through a visible means, which gave, to Moses, the likeness of speaking to a man face to face.
But it was only a 'similitude'.
Nor was that similitude ever described. No doubt because, had it been described, people would immediately have fashioned a likeness to it and worshiped it.
Jesus told us that :

God is (a) Spirit.

He has no physical form, as Deity.
But God is 'manifest in flesh' (1 Timothy 3:16 TR) when 'the Word was made flesh' John 1:14 when 'Jesus Christ is come in the flesh' 1 John 4:2.
To draw near to God in prayer, with a sincere heart and with faith, in order to seek his real presence, his true person, is, once successful, once the Lord hears and answers and draws near : this is to see his face, as he truly is.
But it is not the physical eyes which see him who is Spirit, but the 'eye of
faith'.

Those who repent and believe the gospel and continue in the faith shall see God, as he is, when he comes, 1 John 3:2 :

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;

for we shall see him as he is.

All quotations are from the KJV.


What arguments can be made that 1 Corinthians 15 is not about physical resurrection?

If one chooses to explain away 1 Corinthians 15:4-7

  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the a

There is still the matter of 15:36-38

  What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.

The metaphor of the seed dying but coming back with a new tangible substance is made by both Jesus and Paul. It is a nonsensical metaphor if only a spiritual one

Likewise, if death is the same for all, how could death have been overcome, per verse 51?

Finally, the word raised has a very definite meaning of to come back to life. Egerow has a linguistic link to energizing, to rising up, like one does in the morning. It is as fully physical and it is without matter.

As pointed out in your question on Gnosticism, there were those who wanted to make Jesus out to be a spirit, rather than flesh. The difference is that historically, most of these heresies took an all or nothing approach.

Docetists believed that Jesus never was human at all - he only appeared to be. That Gonstics held this is clear:

  The testimony of anti-gnostic writers like Irenaeus to the Docetism of the unholy succession of Gnostics and gnosticizing teachers in the second century (beginning for Irenaeus with Cerinthus and in this respect including Marcion and his followers) is broadly confirmed by the Nag Hammadi gnostic texts (Rudolph, 157–71, Tröger). Thus the Acts of John 97–104 portray Christ, already risen from his temporary body, watching the crucifixion of Jesus taking place

(Dictionary of the New Testament and Latter Developments, "Docetism")

The book of 2 John (7) clearly says this is to be rejected, saying:

  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

(This isn't a rebuttal, just a rejection - otherwise you have seen it in the other question!)

With both Paul and John rejecting this "Jesus only looked like flesh" all along, it would be unreasonable to think that they wouldn't have mentioned something if they thought that after the cross, Jesus' substance was less than flesh.

Indeed, Thomas' touching of Christ, that he ate bread, and other things really make it seem that Jesus' resurrection was physical.

To make 1 Cor 15 merely a spiritual endeavour would be joining up with the Gnostics in the end, and is thus rejected elsewhere in Scripture and Christian practice.


How do Old-Earth Creationists explain Romans 5:12-19?

Death through Sin
The idea of "death through sin" in Romans 5:12 refers to Genesis 2:17, where God warns Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The NIV translation of Genesis 2:17 is questionable, so I'm offering four other translations, because the wording is important for understanding the passage:

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.—Genesis 2:17 (ESV)
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.—Genesis 2:17 (NASB)
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.—Genesis 2:17 (NRSV)
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.—Genesis 2:17 (KJV)

The NIV softens this a little, obscuring the fact that the death is meant to occur on the same day:

but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.—Genesis 2:17 (NIV)

What is a Day?
God explicitly says that they will die on the day they eat the fruit. However, they did not physically die before sunset.
There are a couple ways to make sense of this. Either "day" does not mean a 24-hour day here, or "die" does not mean physical death (or both).
Most of the early Christians, using 2 Peter 3:8 ("But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.") interpreted the "days" of Genesis as 1000-year periods.
For example, second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr wrote in his Dialogue with Trypho, chapter LXXXI:

For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.

You can see more examples in my answer to the How old is old earth creationism? question.
What is Death?
The early Christians also frequently understood "death" to mean not dying physically, but being cut off from the eternal life that Christ brings. Paul, in that very same letter to the Romans, uses it this way numerous times:

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.—Romans 6:23 (NRSV)
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.—Romans 7:9-10 (NRSV)

as well as in his other letters:

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.1 Corinthians 1:18 (NRSV)
For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.—2 Corinthians 7:10 (NRSV)

We can see this usage immediately following the "thousand years" verse in 2 Peter:

The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.—2 Peter 3:9 (NRSV)

and in one of the best-known Bible verses:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.—John 3:16 (NRSV)

This usage continued in the early church. The Didache (the full Greek title translates to "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles") was a late first or early second Christian document summarizing the doctrines of the early church. It explains the difference between life and death as:

There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you.—Didache chapter 1
And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and accursed: murders, adultery, lust, fornication, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, rape, false witness, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boastfulness; persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, not knowing a reward for righteousness, not cleaving to good nor to righteous judgment, watching not for that which is good, but for that which is evil; from whom meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pursuing revenge, not pitying a poor man, not laboring for the afflicted, not knowing Him Who made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from him who is in want, afflicting him who is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from all these.—Didache chapter 5

TL;DR
Romans 5:12 is not talking about physical death but spiritual death, i.e., separation from God. That's what sin does; it separates us from God.


Do Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ returned to Earth in 1914, or has this teaching now been abandoned?

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus returned to Earth in 1914. Rather, they believe Jesus began ruling from Heaven in 1914. There haven't been any adjustments regarding 1914 in recent years.

The significance of 1914 is pretty well known among all JWs. It marks the beginning of Jesus' kingship in heaven over God's Kingdom. The book, What Does the Bible Really Teach? says:

  At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus
  Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King. —Psalm 2:1-6; Daniel
  7:13, 14.

  Just as Jesus predicted, his “presence” as heavenly King has been
  marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes,
  pestilences. (Matthew 24:3-8; Luke 21:11) Such developments bear
  powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of
  God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this
  present wicked system of things.—2 Timothy 3:1-5.

This book is used very commonly to aid in conducting Bible studies, so you can be sure that these are the current beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.

In regard to James 5:8, this "coming" is discussed in more detail at  Matthew 24:3-14. It's clear from this scripture that it represents a period of time, not a single event. The word translated as "coming" is also commonly translated as "presence".

In regard to your comment which mentions that "every eye shall see him" (Revelation 1:7), Jehovah's Witnesses believe there will be a supernatural sign of Jesus' presence as well. It's described in Matthew 24:30 as an event that will occur very shortly before Armageddon. This is an event that didn't occur in 1914. It's still in the future.

For more information see: What Is the Coming of Christ?


In Church History, when and how did The Glory Be (The Doxology) originate?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article for the Doxology, it was used at least as early as the fourth century "as a protest against Arian subordination.

The article goes on to say that in the West, the Latin version was put into a canonical form at the Fourth Synod of Toledo in 633.


How do non-trinitarians interpret Philippians 2:5-8?

There are many possibilities here. As @Dottard notes, 'non-trinitarian' encompasses a large number of views. IMO it is very difficult to maintain a position that Jesus isn't divine ("those who deny the divinity of Jesus in general") while also taking the Gospels seriously - the question rather is whether Jesus is God properly speaking or divine in some significant and unique sense. So it's important to phrase the question correctly, and eliding this difference is creating a 'false dichotomy' of God or (typical) human.
@User47952 makes lots of good points, but my basic approach with this text would be to note the dog that doesn't bark.
If St. Paul thought Jesus was God, why wouldn't he straightforwardly say so? Why would we be straining at passages that talk about how Jesus was 'in the form of God'? Why not just say 'Jesus is God'? Why wouldn't St. Paul say 'God the Son' instead of 'Son of God' (as in Romans 1:4), or something similar?
One answer from a non-trinitarian perspective is straightforward - Jesus is a divine being - privileged as an intermediary and given authority from God, seated at the 'right hand' (such as Matthew 26:64) of God - but not God. Because he is a divine being, he is in some sense equal to God, but the emphasis is put on some sense, and this is exactly why we don't see outright claims that Jesus = God in the New Testament.


What is the Roman Catholic method of salvation?

The Catechism is quite clear. Faith is absolutely necessary.

  161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 'Since "without faith it is impossible to please (God)" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life "But he who endures to the end".'43

The Catholic Church subscribes to the historic creeds, including the Athanasian Creed (see CCC192)

42 Cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:36, 6:40 et al.
43 Dei Filius 3; cf Mt 10:22, 24:13; Heb 11:6; Council of Trent

See also the related questions about works flowing from faith and sanctifying grace. Faith comes first. Everything else comes from that.


Burial of remains following medical research

The Catholic Church issued new instructions for cremations back in 2016:

The Vatican said ashes and bone fragments cannot be kept at home, since that would deprive the Christian community as a whole from remembering the dead. Rather, Church authorities should designate a sacred place, such as a cemetery or church area, to hold them.
Only in extraordinary cases can a bishop allow ashes to be kept at home, it said.
The document said remains cannot be divided among family members or put in lockets or other mementoes. Nor can the ashes be scattered in the air, land or sea since doing so would give the appearance of “pantheism, naturalism or nihilism,” the guidelines said.

In particular, they require that the ashes be held in a sacred place, such as a Catholic Cemetery, and that the ashes kept whole.
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat of Divine Worship has said this about comingling of ashes:

Other practices such as commingling cremated remains or dividing up cremated remains among family members or friends are not acceptable for Catholics.

So, to answer your question, according to the Catholic church, your friend would have to have her great aunt's ashes kept separate from the rest, and interred in a Catholic cemetery in order for it to be a proper Catholic burial.