Why did John the Baptist preach repentance through water baptism and specifically how is that different than repentance through ashes and sackcloth?

What made repentance through baptism unique?

Baptism existed prior to John in the conversion of someone to Judaism and in the ordination of priests. Calls for repentance had existed before John particularly before the Babylonian captivity.

We have from the dead sea scrolls a picture of ascetics forming a religious community apart from what they considered an apostate or secular Israel from a century before to possibly overlapping with John’s time.

The combination of a call to repent (change one’s mind) and take seriously one’s heritage, obligations to God, and course of one’s life and a symbolic cleansing indicative of putting away the old life and becoming faithful to observe the law was an appeal to the individual to make a decision about how he lived his life and to make a public demonstration reflecting his desire to change.

Baptism was symbolic and declarative more than efficacious. It was also preparatory.

  John 1:23  He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,
  Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

What was being "made straight" were the hearts of men called to repent.


Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to handle the uncertainty in their doctrines?

There are uncertainties within denominations and between denominations.  There are also things denominations differ on and yet are each "sure" of.
An Independent Conservative Baptist Church I know of propounds a concept called "truths in tension" regarding uncertainty within the theology of the denomination.  For example, the absolute, universal sovereignty of God is held in one hand and individual human choice is held in the other hand.  These two can not be fully reconciled but neither can either one be released or denigrated since they are clearly revealed in Scripture.
Many eschatological theorems fall into this category.  The pre-millenial, pre-tribulational rapture of the church, for example, might be taught as true within a denomination while at the same time not as necessary to believe for salvation.
Regarding uncertainty within and between denominations another concept is coined "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity".  Under this concept a Baptist could, for instance, have Christian fellowship with an Adventist since those things which are considered essentials to the Baptist are held by the Adventist and the differences reside in the non-essential category.  The Adventist might not be able to reciprocate if some of the differences in the Baptist non-essential category are in the Adventist essential category.
Christian fellowship between a Baptist and a Jehovah's Witness (for example) would be impossible due to sharp divergence on essential doctrine.  These two might enjoy personal or professional friendship as falling into the "in all things charity" slot.
Obviously essentials, non-essentials, Christian fellowship, and a whole host of terms then need definition...resulting in continued uncertainty and disagreement.


Your assumption, that Thomas Aquinas has the final say on what is to be considered man, determines a lot about what my answer to you might be.

If, for example, you instead phrased the question "Assuming Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica to be inerrant: Is android a kind of mankind?" I would say the following:

AI are indeed sensible, as you say.
The definition of rational is vague when it comes to matters like this, and the definition used will determine whether AI can truly fit the category.

If you assumed rationality required an advanced ability to make informed decisions or comprehend relations, then AI can certainly achieve that so yes they would be man.

However, many believe AI will never truly have a true sense of intelligence, understanding or rationality, based on the belief that no matter how "smart" they get, their reasoning will only ever be the result of the observed environment (Of course, many believe that humans are purely reactionary creatures as well, most notably those who believe there is no reality outside of nature, so no supreme being(s). Check out the first few chapters of CS Lewis' Miracles for a better explanation of this than I could provide). This definition assumes rationality requires a sense of understanding or creativity above and beyond natural cause and effect, or divinely provided rationality. It sounds odd, but if you were to think about it, most (if not all) religious people believe this without ever really thinking about it. As a side note, this rationality would also account for the difference seen between man and animal. In this case, I would absolutely say no, they cannot be man as they don't fit this definition of rational.

If, however, you phrased the question as "Assuming the Bible to be inerrant: Is android a kind of mankind?" which is the answer I suspect you're looking for as you are on this site, than I would simply refer you to the following passage.

  So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27

In this case, are androids made in the image of God? Certainly not. Of course, as it is in His power to do anything, He could theoretically breath his spirit into an Android (thus giving it a soul), but whether that fits his plan of creation is pure speculation.


Trying to understand the footnotes in the documents of the Vatican II council

"Denzinger" is the Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, the Handbook of Creeds and Definitions, first compiled by Heinrich Denzinger in the 19th century. This is a summary of sources for the most basic beliefs and creeds of the Church. Unfortunately the most recent version, the 43rd edition published in 2012, is not available online.

Similarly, PL is an abbreviation for Migne's Patrologia Latina, which could be translated The Writings of the Latin Fathers, a collection of (at least in invention) all the major and most of the minor works of Church Fathers, theologians, and other Church scholars writing in Latin through the first millennium or so of Church history.

The abbreviated forms of these names are used in the expectation that most people who have studied Church history will be familiar with the works and by extension with the abbreviations.

Looking at the specific examples you give, I would interpret them:

  cf. [that is, compare] St Augustine, De Catechizandis Rudis [On Pagans to be Catechized], Chapter IV Section 8: [found in] Patrologia Latina Volume 40 page 316.

And

  Council of Trent, session IV, in the place cited, [found in] Denzinger's Enchiridion, point 783 (1501 in the original  numbering)


Are there any positive statements of the golden rule in extra-biblical literature?

Negative statements of the Golden Rule, often known as the Siver Rule, are, for some reason, far more numerous.  Wikipedia identifies several ancient versions of the (positive) Golden Rule:

The Stoic Philosophy of Seneca: Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC–65 AD), a practitioner of Stoicism (c. 300 BC–200 AD) expressed the Golden Rule in his essay regarding the treatment of slaves: "Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you."
Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva (Hindu): By making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.
Sutrakritanga, 1.11.33 (Jain): A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.
Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara (Jain): In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.
Dao de Jing (Daoism): The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.
T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien (Daoism): Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
Mozi (Mohism): If people regarded other people’s states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people’s cities in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own city to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. And so if states and cities do not attack one another and families do not wreak havoc upon and steal from one another, would this be a harm to the world or a benefit? Of course one must say it is a benefit to the world.


According to reformed theology, who or what will the saints reign over in eternity?

Reformed thinkers commonly say that Christians will rule with God, particularly Christ, over all the new creation.  Wayne Grudem references this passage and simply says:

  We shall also have positions of rule over God's entire creation.

Anthony A. Hoekema draws parallels to the early chapters of Genesis, in which Adam and Eve are given dominion over creation, and to the promise of the inheritance of land given to Abraham, arguing that the New Earth will be the ultimate fulfillment of these promises for God's people.  He concludes:

  This will be a reigning over the new creation.  Man will now be able to fulfill in a perfect way the mandate to have dominion over the earth which he could only fulfill imperfectly on the present earth.  In the life to come, in other words, man will for the first time since the fall rule the earth properly.

John Frame argues similarly, and specifically mentions several ways Christians will exercise authority:

  We are to reign with Christ.  That includes judging angels (1 Cor. 6:3), judging Israel (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30), ruling cities (Luke 19:11–27).  God gave to Adam and Eve authority to have dominion over the earth.  Now the saints of Christ receive the authority that Adam forfeited by his sin.

Frame also suggests that the parable of the minas (Luke 19:11–27) may indicate varying degrees of authority among the saints in heaven, though such inequality, he argues, would not lead to unhappiness or jealousy.

Frame, Systematic Theology, 1081
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1163–64
Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 283


Aquinas' understanding of love - is it desire?

The answer is NO!

Explaining the answer

In Summa Theol., I-II, Q. xxiii, a. 4, St. Thomas Aquinas states that there are six passions for the concupiscible appetite: love and hatred, desire and aversion, joy and sadness; and five for the irascible appetite: hope and despair, courage, fear, and anger. [Cf. Appetite | New Advent].

Therefore according to St. Thomas Aquinas, love and desire both belong to the passions for the concupiscible appetite but he does not equate the two.

Endnote

CCC 1765 teaches that love causes a desire for the absent good and the hope of obtaining it; this movement finds completion in the pleasure and joy of the good possessed.

My understanding is that love a passion causes desire another passion, only when the good willed is absent. Once the good is obtained, love continues but the desire now is fulfilled and complete and rests in the pleasure and joy of the good possessed [cf. heaven].


Did Jesus or 'an expert in the law' first share the greatest commandments?

What we today call the "two great commandments" were well-known in Jesus' day

Both commandments had been previously given by Jehovah.

  1st Great Commandment: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (KJV Deut. 6:5)

  2nd Great Commandment: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. (KJV Lev. 19:18)

So it depends on what you mean by "shared."

Jehovah was the first to express the ideas.
Moses was the first to write the ideas down.
Whomever taught the lawyers of the New Testament the doctrine were before Jesus or the lawyers.

As I led off, the two great commandments were well-known doctrines of the day.  They were not introduced first by either Jesus or the lawyers in the New Testament, but were introduced by Moses via Jehovah in the Old Testament and would have been regularly studied in the rabbinical schools.  I believe it is reasonable to assume that both the lawyers and Jesus learned the two commandments as children.

… Which is why Jesus' response to the lawyer in Luke 10:26 makes perfect sense.

However, if what you're asking is, "but in that specific situation (or situations), who introduced the idea first, the lawyers or Jesus?" that I can't help you with.  I hope I was a spiritual observer, but that veil has been drawn and I doubt there's enough historical evidence to be definitive.


100 Year Anniversaries? - Sacred Heart of Jesus

I found this as a source on the miracle of the sun wiki and it might at least lead to the start of an answer.  Not so much in terms of good things happening in centuries, maybe two centuries.

From the perspective of 2017, the timing also seems propitious. The apparitions took place four centuries after the start of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, and two centuries after the founding of the first Grand Lodge of the Freemasons in London in 1717, milestones in the shift from Catholicism to religious indifferentism. On the very day of the miracle of the sun in 1917, the Petrograd Soviet took military control in Russia, paving the way for atheistic communism to begin its ruinous domination of much of the world, persecuting the Church and leading to the cruel deaths of tens of millions of people.
Fr Andrew Pinsent - Fatima at 100 - Catholic Herald

So, that's 1517, 1717, 1917, so I guess we might get another hundred years before something else happens.
Semi-likewise Pope John Paul II published an encyclical called Centesimus Annus which was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's awesome encyclical Rerum Novarum.  But there was also a 40 year commemorative encyclical (named as such) and a 90 year commemorative encyclical (not named for the year).  This could be because 100 and 40 are "important" to Catholics, 90 not so much, or because no one knows the Latin for 90. But one thing is for sure, Pope John Paul II wanted to make it clear that everything Pope Leo XIII said would happen in 1892 did happen if the forces of Capitalism continued unbridled, the servile state became the norm and separate classes of laws were made for the rich and poor.  I don't think anyone particularly looks forward to 2068's told-you-so commemoration of Humane Vitae, but there was a minor hubub at its 40th.
I don't know if you can blend Church commemorations with supernatural events, but the Church is a supernatural force and we are spiritual beings.  It's clear from our physiology that 100 years is a marker in the natural lifespan of man and sociology and the Bible places 40 years as a marker in the natural lifespan of generations.  So the time in which it takes a prophecy to be fulfilled could very well 100 years.
Given the conversion of calendaring systems though, leap years etc..., it seems that things happening to the day would be a bit of a game that we would be making up for God to play.


Were the Jews expecting the Messiah to suffer at all?

It does seem that the Jews hadn't understood that the Messiah would have to suffer, or that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 was the Messiah. Apart from the verse you have quoted, there are other verses which suggest that the Jews didn't understand this.

They understood that the Christ would be the "King of Israel" (Matthew 15:32), they knew that he would be the one to govern the people of Israel (Matthew 2:6), but they didn't understand that his kingship was not of this world (John 18:36). They expected a political Messiah, one who would save them from their enemies in this world, not one who would "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). This is why, King Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him (Matthew 2:3), for he thought that the Christ would come and take his political throne from him.

Even after having the knowledge that he was indeed the Christ (Matthew 16:16), Peter rebuked him for saying that he would have to suffer. Even after he actually suffered and died, two of his disciples seemed to have no clue what was happening and Jesus said to them,

"O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24:25-26)

And then Jesus had to interpret the scriptures for them, to show them all the things in the scriptures about the Christ (Luke 24:27).

So it does seem that to the Jews, it wasn't plain and clear from the scriptures that the Messiah had to suffer and in fact the evidence shows that they were expecting him to rule like a political king and not undergo suffering.


Is there a difference between "co-redeemer" and "co-redemptrix"?

Is there a difference between “co-redeemer” and “co-redemptrix”?
Technically co-redeemer is masculine and co-redeemptrix is female.

Definition of co-redemptrix
A woman whose participation is believed by some Roman Catholics to be essential for the redemption of humanity
Specifically: Virgin Mary

The title of co-redeemer is occasionally applied the the Virgin Mary:

Mary's title of Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer can assist in magnifying our understanding of God's humility. - Teachings Not Yet Declared Dogmas
Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer

Yes, it seems Pope Francis did throw cold water on any hope for a 5th Marian dogma!

At his weekly public audience on March 24, 2021, Pope Francis rejected the claim that the Virgin Mary should be honored as “co-redemptrix,” saying that she should be honored, “but as a mother, not as a goddess, not as co-redeemer.” Noting that he was speaking on the eve of the Annunciation feast day, he pointed out that in Christian iconography, the depiction of Mary is “always in relation to her Son and in connection with Him.. she always points out the center: Jesus.” - Catholic News Headlines

Although Pope Francis was not speaking ex cathedra, he definitively makes a point that he does not favour such a dogma.

Christ is the Mediator, Christ is the bridge that we cross to turn to the Father (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2674). He is the only Redeemer: there are no co-redeemers with Christ. He is the only one. He is the Mediator par excellence. He is the Mediator. Each prayer we raise to God is through Christ, with Christ and in Christ and it is fulfilled thanks to his intercession. The Holy Spirit extends Christ’s mediation through every time and every place: there is no other name by which we can be saved: Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and humanity (see Acts 4:12).
Due to Christ’s one mediation, other references Christians find for their prayer and devotion take on meaning, first among them being the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus.
She occupies a privileged place in the lives of Christians, and therefore, in their prayer as well, because she is the Mother of Jesus. The Eastern Churches have often depicted her as the Odigitria, the one who “shows the way”; and the way is her Son, Jesus Christ. The beautiful, ancient painting of the Odigitria in the Cathedral of Bari comes to my mind. It is simple. The Madonna who shows Jesus, naked; then they put a shirt on him to cover his nakedness, but the truth is that Jesus is naked, he himself, man, born of Mary, is the Mediator. And she indicates the Mediator: she is the Odigitria. Her presence is everywhere in Christian iconography, sometimes very prominently, but always in relation to her Son and in connection with Him. Her hands, her eyes, her behavior are a living “catechism”, always indicating the hinge, she always points out the center: Jesus. Mary is completely directed toward Him (see CCC, 2674) to such an extent that we can say she is more disciple than Mother. The directions she gave at the wedding at Cana: “He: do whatever he will tell you”. She always refers to Christ. She is the first disciple.
This is the role Mary fulfilled throughout her entire earthly life and which she forever retains: to be the humble handmaid of the Lord, nothing more. At a certain point in the Gospels she almost seems to disappear; but then she reappears in the more crucial moments, such as at Cana, when her Son, thanks to her caring intervention, performs his first “sign” (see Jn 2:1-12), and then on Golgotha at the foot of the cross. - General Audience, 24.03.2021

Wikipedia has the following to say about the title of co-redemptrix:

According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. A Fifth Marian Dogma has been proposed including both Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix.
The term Co-Redemptress was used by Pope Leo XIII in 1894. "For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us..."
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix, and the process for further theological clarification and eventual dogmatic definition is ongoing. Pope John Paul II was the most favorable of recent Popes. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture. Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title not be used. - Co-Redemptrix


What is the significance of a double cross?

The "double" cross is known as a Patriarchal cross and is well described in the Wikipedia article. There's no point in reproducing more than a sample here:

The Patriarchal cross is a variant of the Christian cross, the religious symbol of Christianity. Similar to the familiar Latin cross, the Patriarchal cross possesses a smaller crossbar placed above the main one, so that both crossbars are near the top. Sometimes the patriarchal cross has a short, slanted crosspiece near its foot (Orthodox cross). This slanted, lower crosspiece often appears in Byzantine Greek and Eastern European iconography, as well as Eastern Orthodox churches.
The top beam represents the plaque bearing the inscription "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (often abbreviated in the Latinate "INRI", and in the Greek as "INBI").

Incidentally, the figure in the second photograph is Saint Stephen, first King of Hungary: this is his statue in Budapest. He has a halo and is wearing St Stephen's Crown, characterised by its crooked cross. This in itself answers the question!


Reformed Theology, Pentecostalism, and Charismatic Movement on The Holy Spirit

Generally speaking you are correct but I would not say people left their own denominations to join the Pentecostal church, rather like all new denominations just some of the initial founders did, but as it grew it became its own proper denomination with its majority being its own converts.
It is interesting to look at the Holy Spirit under the heads that you have mentioned because if you put a wide-angel lens on the entire history, we could almost say the whole movement should have been expected as well as a kind of expected counter-movement.
Let me explain the high level history as I see it and this will give a good explanation of each of the term in context.
Starting with the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, etc.) it is true they taught the cessation of extra-ordinary gifts. The subject rarely comes up and when it does it is usually under the simple explanation as to why those extra miraculous gifts had ceased.
For example:

In the early Church the Holy Spirit was sent forth in visible form. He descended upon Christ in the form of a dove (Matt. 3:16), and in the likeness of fire upon the apostles and other believers. (Acts 2:3.) This visible outpouring of the Holy Spirit was necessary to the establishment of the early Church, as were also the miracles that accompanied the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul explained the purpose of these miraculous gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 14:22, “Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.” Once the Church had been established and properly advertised by these miracles, the visible appearance of the Holy Ghost ceased. (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians 4:6)
Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in his Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give luster to the gospel, while it was new and in a state of obscurity. It is possible, no doubt, that the world may have been deprived of this honor through the guilt of its own ingratitude; but I think that the true design for which miracles were appointed was, that nothing which was necessary for proving the doctrine of the gospel should be wanting at its commencement. And certainly we see that the use of them ceased not long afterwards, or, at least, that instances of them were so rare as to entitle us to conclude that they would not be equally common in all ages. (John Calvin, Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels)
That they are not communicated unto any by a sudden afflatus or extraordinary infusion, as were the gifts of miracles and tongues, which
were bestowed on the apostles and many of the first converts That dispensation of the Spirit is long since ceased, and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastic delusion; for as the end of those gifts, which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties, is ceased, so is their communication, and the manner of it also. Yet this I must say, that the infusion of spiritual light into the mind, which is the foundation of all gifts, as hath been proved, being wrought sometimes suddenly or in a short season, the concomitancy of gifts in some good measure is oftentimes sudden, with an appearance of something extraordinary, as might be manifested in instances of several sorts. (John Owens Works, Volume 4)

Yet this is not the whole story. Among reformers there is a wide range of emphasis of the spiritual life, awareness of the Spirit, necessity of the Spirit, etc.  Among those who seemed always mindful of the Spirit in the following generations, among the Puritans in the tradition of reformed theology, were men like John Owen. Possibly the most extreme, among 'the reserved Puritans', was Jonathan Edwards, who claimed to experience a revival and outpouring of the Holy Spirit in his own church.  After reading his accounts of that revival it seems very hard to deny it as nothing less than a genuine extraordinary work of God.
We now naturally find the stage for the Pentecostal movement in Los Angeles.   The most insightful thing I have ever heard a preacher say about the Devil is this: First the Devil will do everything to keep you from fully committing your life to God, once you finally give everything to Him, the Devil changes his tactics and he tries to get you into extremes, to make you over-committed to one thing in order to neglect another.  During the birth of the Pentecostal movement you had a few people zealously seeking God in prayer, in hopes that they could experience a revival, like that experienced by Edwards, and this was a good thing.  However to add to this good zeal, a devilish doctrine was added which said no such revival is real unless accompanied by speaking in tongues.  In other words, there was a doctrinal lie inserted into the movement at its root that basically did not recognize the biggest outpouring of the Holy Spirit ever since the gospel times, which was during the reformation!
The problem we face when trying to form an opinions about 'revivals' claimed by people like the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, which gave birth to the Pentecostals, is that we feel they must be fully good or fully bad, but can't be both.  We make this incorrect assumption because with Christ this was true. To deny the 'revival' in Christ and to accuse his works to be of the Devil, was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So it seems to follow that we must not question any 'great work of the Spirit' without putting ourselves under the same risk of danger.  However, this is simply not true, even under the most amazing and genuine outpouring of the Holy Spirit, in the New Testament records, we find both the work of God and the Devil can run side by side.  For example, the Corinthians seemed to have been experiencing the gifts more than any other church, yet the Devil was at work in them more than any other church also. (I am not assuming in the pentecostal revival that it was the work of the Holy Spirit as I was not there, but hypothetically assuming there were a mixture of sincere ad insincere believers, all intently calling upon God, some may have had genuine experiences with the Spirit while others with the Devil, or their own ecstatic psychological state, all at the same location.)
We now naturally expect a Charismatic movement.  Imagine if you will, God meeting the answers of people prayers and truly manifesting his presence to sincere hearts going to Azuza Street. Now comes the cynic.  Contrary to their expectation a minister goes to see what's going on, expecting to find a good reason to reject it, yet to their surprise 'boom' they fall under the presence of God and are amazed to find his love revealed to them and they renew their commitment to him.  What is going on? how can this be? At the same time imagine the Devil pressing people to extremes, adding false teachings.  Also imagine basic weirdos joining in, acting strange, bringing dishonor to God' part in  it.  Well what happens? What happens is some people want the Holy Spirit experience, but start to recognize the Devil, so there is an acceptance plus a backlash.  This is the general charismatic movement.
After the charismatic movement calms down, some balance will be insisted like 'tongues is not the evidence'. Next messages like we must keep Christ the central message, not the Holy Spirit. Then God's sovereign  will decides when there is a revival, you can't always expect it.  Many have prayed for revival for years and it has not come, etc.  All of this avoidance of extremes exists among many mainstream Charismatics.  As the cycle completes, we find we are basically back at Jonathan Edwards as a state of total commitment and eager desire for the Spirit, yet without all the extremes that the Devil is so eager to push us into. However because the whole thing is a kind of theological whirlwind you will find good strong balanced believers scattered across all the denominations among many bad examples also crowding into each denomination.  True some denominations may be far healthier than others, but each and all of us are in a deadly all encompassing war over our souls and faith transcends one's particular station in life and denominational biases.


Is the tripartite God the judge in the Old Testament, and Jesus the appointed only judge in the New Testament?

I draw your attention to the past tense in:

  For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son - John 5:22 KJV (emphasis added)

This said pre-resurrection and glorification; Together with the implications of -

  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. - John 3:17 KJV

ie Judgment was not part of Jesus' mission during his 'first coming' (the incarnation); and also:

  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. - Hebrews 13:8 KJV

It should be fairly clear that the one who is referred to in:

  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. - Acts 17:31 KJV

was, is and will be the judge of all mankind from the very beginning and until the very end of all ages.


Where does the Bible say that nature will speak the word if men don't?

I believe you are thinking of Luke 19:40:

  ‘I tell you [Pharisees],’ he [Jesus] replied, ‘if they [His disciples] keep quiet, the stones will cry out.’

Other passages that refer to the witness of creation include Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20.


According to Reformed Baptist theology when did the Church begin?

Reformed theologians, including Reformed Baptists, typically believe that the church includes all true believers of all time, both Old Testament and New Testament.

This view naturally follows from covenant theology, which argues that there is one covenant, a covenant of grace, that has been in effect ever since the Fall.

Let's review the writings of a few Reformed Baptists from various eras.  We can start with one of the first documents of Reformed Baptists, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith:

  The universal Church, which may be called invisible (in respect of the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) consists of the entire number of the elect, all those who have been, who are, or who shall be gathered into one under Christ, Who is the Head. This universal Church is the wife, the body, the fullness of Him Who fills all in all. (26.1)

Another section makes it clear that the writers of this confession considered the elect to come from both the Old and New Testament periods, since it refers to "true believers under the Old Testament law" (21.1).  A later writer, A. H. Strong (1836–1921), elaborates a bit:

  The church of Christ, in its largest signification, is the whole company of regenerate persons in all times and ages, in heaven and on earth.  In this sense, the church is identical with the spiritual kingdom of God; both signify that redeemed humanity in which God in Christ exercises actual spiritual dominion. (Systematic Theology, VII.1)

Wayne Grudem (1948–) shares the same understanding and specifically calls out the Old and New Testaments:

  The church is the community of all true believers for all time. [...] Even though there are certainly new privileges and new blessings that are given to the people of God in the New Testament, both the usage of the term "church" in Scripture and the fact that throughout Scripture God has always called his people to assemble to worship himself, indicate that it is appropriate to think of the church as constituting all the people of God for all time, both Old Testament believers and New Testament believers. (Systematic Theology, chapter 44)

For more on this, Grudem's book is excellent.  You can also check out online sermons of Reformed Baptists, like John Piper's message called "Israel and Us Reconciled in One Body."


What roles are women allowed to play in LDS Sunday services?

Well, so the big hidden question here is "what comprises an LDS sunday service?".  A related question covers some of this, so I'll just summarize.  In your average "Sacrament meeting", you'll typically have:

1 who presides at the meeting
1 who conducts the meeting (may be the same as the one presiding)
1 who leads the music
1 who plays the piano/organ
2+ who bless the Sacrament (Eucharist)
several who pass the Sacrament to the congregation
2 who say the opening and closing prayers
several who give short talks or sermons

Of these, the only thing women may not do is preside at the meeting, bless the Sacrament, or pass the Sacrament.  Those are duties of people who hold the Priesthood, and only men hold the Priesthood.

It would be very unusual to see a woman conduct the meeting, since that is usually done by the presiding person or one of his counselors.  However, there are some meetings of the Church where women conduct the meetings (for example, the General Relief Society Meeting).  There are also meetings where women preside (again, most meetings of the Relief Society), but that does not happen in a Sacrament meeting.


Which doctrines are based solely on the apocrypha?

There's a few notions, but no doctrine, as the domain of doctrine in the Catholic Church is encompassed entirely by the New Testament insofar as it is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament.

But, here's a sampling off the top of my head:

Tobit

Archangel Rapahel in the heavenly host
Respect for burying the dead as a corporal work of mercy

Maccabees

Understanding of the efficaciousness of praying for the dead.

Judith

Maybe a little to do with Just War Theory?

Wisdom

Deeper understanding of who Christ was/is and how He would be treated

Sirach

Love of wisdom personified (may have something to do with Mary's title "Seat of Wisdom")

Concerning the state of purgatory and Maccabees, Protestants wholly reject purgatory and they do so because they say it's only in Maccabees, which they also reject. But when Jesus says in His parable about repayment to the last penny, that also informs the Catholic understanding of what purgatory is.


What arguments do scholars present for historicity of the fall?

I'm assuming, you're looking for evidence of a transition from unfallen-ness to fallen-ness, not merely evidence of fallen-ness.

If a satisfactory answer to your question requires, in a Young Earth view, something like an archeological artifact (say, a book  that Adam wrote in the few hours/days before he Fell), I think you'll be lacking.

In a philosophical sense, C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity tried to make a "logical" case for the necessity of evil being a corrupted good, rather than an eternally evil bad. But again, this may be more of a view of the "fall" of the devil moreso than mankind.

If one holds to a literalist-old-earth Creation view, there could be some evidence in extinction rates. Reasons to Believe, an old-earth think tank, says:

  Roughly half the bird species alive on Earth when humans appeared no longer exist, and more than a tenth of those that remain face imminent extinction. While evolutionary theory offers no explanation for this change from proliferation of bird species to diminution, the Bible does ....

http://www.reasons.org/articles/extinction-risks-for-birds


What is the Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god?

The core idea behind this doctrine (usually referred to as "Exaltation") is that the LDS church teaches that our spirits are literal children of God.  Offspring are the same species as the parent, and can thus grow and develop to become like the parent.  The idea of God once being a man, or man becoming a god, are extensions of this doctrine.  This is often summarized (as @Narian quotes) via the quip "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."
However, there are requirements that must be met before this can happen.  They are:

having faith in Jesus Christ
repenting of your sins
being baptized by those holding His authority
receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost
(for men) receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood
being "sealed" to your spouse
adhering faithfully to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the rest of your life (which includes paying tithing, etc)

If all those requirements are met, then the LDS church teaches that such people will inherit the highest degree of glory God can offer.  The Doctrine and Covenants (part of the LDS canon) describe this inheritance:
D&C 132:19-20:

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

(updated)
There are places where this doctrine is alluded to in the Bible.  For example:
Rev 3:21 KJV

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Here, Jesus Christ is saying that those who overcome the tribulations of the world will be seated with Him on His throne, just as He received that same blessing from the Father.  A throne here can be symbolic of kingship, government, godhood, power, etc.
Rom 8:16-17 KJV

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

As children of God, we have the potential to inherit everything that Jesus Christ inherited, namely godhood.

The idea of polygamy in Heaven was mentioned in another answer.  This is not official doctrine.  I'm not aware of anywhere it's taught in the LDS "Standard Works" (OT, NT, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price).  I do know that early church leaders (Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? perhaps others) may have taught this, but it is no longer taught and is no longer considered official doctrine (to my knowledge).  The primary answer given to questions like that is "we'll find out when we get there."


Are there equal numbers of male and female Christians?

Here is some ad-hoc information about the church in the US:
http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/
According to these numbers, and if we assume Christian activity is a reasonable estimate of the probability of being a Christian, then there are more Christian women than men and the difference is probably quite significant.
The author's summary/opinion:

You’re not just imagining it. Christianity is short on men.

His statistics are based primarily on church attendance:

The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. >This gender gap shows up in all age categories.
On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s >churches.
This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without >their husbands.
Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants.

Some countries may have an even greater imbalance:

Churches overseas report gender gaps of up to 9 women for every adult man in attendance.

Belief versus commitment:

More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and five out of six call themselves Christians. But only one out of six attend church on a given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.

The significance of that depends on your definition of "Christian". This strongly suggests that there are a lot more active female Christians than active male Christians.


The Christian definition notion of hell itself already assumes in itself a belief in the Christian doctrines. As such, most atheists have exactly zero fear of hell, and it is considered merely an invention, typically either of fear or of control (depending on who you ask). As such, it isn't the atheists desire to exist in an afterlife without God - simply the entire notion of the afterlife is rejected.

So in answer: no, it would not be a "reward"; the mere fact of existing and have been wrong would be enough to make it miserable, even before the torment. But as I stress, atheists (and I include myself in this very completely) have no fears over this hell, or any other by any other religion. For example, I assume most Christians do not fear the hell of Jaunism, Taoism or Zoroastrianism. The atheist merely fears one less hell than most believers. To emphasise: it is not the desire of the atheist to endure an afterlife without God; the afterlife itself is unwanted.

What the atheist expects is simple: to cease to be, on the event of expiration on this world. It doesn't relate to the question, but a common follow-on question to this is "but if there is no afterlife, what reason is there to be ethical in this world?" to which the answer is simple: "there is just this world; and that by itself is plenty of reason to be ethical and face the consequences of our actions in this world that we share". Which usually works out pretty well for everyone.

Of course, if some God is truly fair to all, but ironic, they'll scupper everyone, as proposed by David Mitchell.


The clear and correct answer is simply: God's will. God ensured that it happened.
Now, suppose one rephrased the question as: how could one explain the survival of Christianity in purely athiest terms -- with no mention of God whatsoever -- what is the closest approximation one could do?
Measuring love in units of sacrifice.
There's something fundamentally inspiring about someone willing to die for their beliefs. The following two quotes:

When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.
He is no fool who gives up what he can not keep in exchange for what he cannot lose.

has inspired me infinitely more than all the Prosperity "Gospel's":

Want health / wealth / happiness in this world and heaven in the next? Follow me in praying this little prayer.

The willingness of the Christians to die for their beliefs had the following effects:

it inspired their fellow Christians. If Bob and Alex who I talked to last month decided to be lion's fodder rather than reject Christ -- how can I reject Christ?

it drew the curiosity of not-yet-converted. Their sacrifice / martyrdom could not be explained by the selfish desires of humankind. Thus, their actions must have come from some other source -- and they must have really really believed it, in order to sacrifice their life for it. The more Christians that died -- the more gruesome their death -- the more it drew the curiosity of others to wonder "What did these Christians have that I do not have -- that gave them such a purpose in their life?"

No Written Bibles
We're spoiled in the modern age. I have at least 5 physical copies of the Bible in my room, and quite a few more digital copies. I've only read one copy cover to cover. And when I do read it, I feel it's more of an obligation than an intense desire. Those without the Bible probably had a better understanding of the Bible than I do -- because the verses were precious to them -- they memorized it -- they pondered it -- rather than read it for 15 minutes in a morning quiet time, and forget about it through out the day.
Underground Churches
In personal experiences, I've found it much easier to perceive theological truths during times of solitude + depression ... than times of social happiness. I think the reason is as follows: almost everything in the world exists for one purpose -- to keep us so busy and occupied from birth to death -- that we lack the time to ponder on God.
Because the early Christians had nothing (will I get into university XYZ, who much will company XYZ pay me / year ...), they had no distractions, and this allowed them to a higher understanding of God.
Cultural Isolation / Complaints
I don't think the early Christians complained. Why would they? A perfect Christ died on the cross -- they were instructed to pick up their cross and follow him -- they likely viewed persecution as an honor (to be considered worthy enough) and death to be glorious (yay Heaven!).
Overall Analysis
I think the fundamental problem is that the question looks at "Biblical Christianity" with a modern view of Christianity (i.e. that somehow this life should somehow be enjoyable).
In this sense, I believe that Biblical Christianity -- because it was so heavily persecuted, is a type of Christianity where "conversion = I'm literally ready to be tortured + die for Christ ... because that's what happens to most of the people who convert"
Modern Christianity, is much like "Yeah, these Christians people are pretty nice; they don't drink or do drugs; they hang out every Saturday to sing songs; I'd like to hang out to them."
And because of this, it's hard to us to understand how the Biblical Christians achieved so much ... much like how we struggle to understand how the 300 at thermopylae did what they did.
In summary:
It was really God's work. But if we must attribute it to help qualities, it's because the early Christians actually believed in Christ and were willing to die for Christ, rather than be luke warm christians.


I had already written an answer to the question "What is a person?" on my Trinity group on another Christian forum. I'm copying-and-pasting my answer there with some additions.

The English word "person" is the equivalent of the Greek word πρόσωπον (prosōpon) and the Latin word persona.

Boethius defines the Greek word πρόσωπον and its Latin equivalent persona as "rationabile individuum," or "a rational individual."[1]

In the doctrine of the Trinity, we are accustomed to seeing the Greek word ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) rather than πρόσωπον.

However, these two words are synonyms and may be used interchangeably. Boethius writes,[2]

  Therefore, the Greeks called individual substances (substantias) «ὑπόστασις» since they substand (subsunt) the rest, and they are as if suppositums (suppositæ) and subjects (subjectæ) to certain accidents. Αnd for that reason we also call those substances (substantias), which they [call] «ὑποστάσεις», as if [they are] suppositums (suppositæ). Since they may also call those same substances (substantias), «πρόσωπα», we can likewise call them "persons" (personas).

A "person" is a rational individual. The English word "rational" means "having or exercising reason."[3] Therefore, a "person" is an individual who has or exercises reason. In Greek, the English word "reason" would be translated as λόγος (logos).

Boethius further defines what may be referred to as a "person." He writes,[4]

  Now from all the definitions we have given it is clear that "person"  (personam) cannot be affirmed of bodies which have no life (for no one ever said that a stone had a person), nor yet of living things which lack sense (for neither is there any person of a tree), nor finally of that which is bereft of mind and reason (ratione) (for there is no
  person of a horse or ox or any other of the animals which dumb and unreasoning live a life of sense alone), but we say there is a person of a man, of God, of an angel.

In conclusion, Boethius states that only a man, an angel, or God can be referred to as a "person" because only these possess "reason."

The doctrine of "divine simplicity" says that God is without parts. The doctrine of the Trinity does not contradict the doctrine of divine simplicity. Consider fire. "Fire" is what one would consider an ousia.

Aristotle wrote,[5]

  οὐσία λέγεται τά τε ἁπλᾶ σώματα, οἷον γῆ καὶ πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα, καὶ ὅλως
  σώματα καὶ τὰ ἐκ τούτων συνεστῶτα ζῷά τε καὶ δαιμόνια καὶ τὰ μόρια τούτων: ἅπαντα δὲ
  ταῦτα λέγεται οὐσία ὅτι οὐ καθ᾽ ὑποκειμένου λέγεται ἀλλὰ κατὰ τούτων τὰ ἄλλα.

which is translated by W. D. Ross as,

  We call 'substance' the simple bodies, i.e. earth and fire and water and everything of the sort, and in general bodies and the things composed of them, both animals and divine beings, and the parts of these. All these are called substance because they are not predicated of a subject but everything else is predicated of them.

Now, imagine a fire burning in a particular spot. Imagine now, that a man takes a stick and places it above the fire in order to spread the fire. So, holding it above the fire, the stick now catches on fire. The original fire did not diminish in intensity. It simply spread to another source.

Justin Martyr wrote,[6]

  ...since he was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

θεός, what we translate as "God," is, like the word "man," both a reference to "substance" and "person."

Aristotle wrote,[7]

Οὐσία δέ ἐστιν ἡ κυριώτατά τε καὶ πρώτως καὶ μάλιστα λεγομένη, ἣ μήτε καθ' ὑποκειμένου
τινὸς λέγεται μήτε ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ τινί ἐστιν, οἷον ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος ἢ ὁ τὶς ἵππος. δεύτεραι δὲ οὐσίαι λέγονται, ἐν οἷς εἴδεσιν αἱ πρώτως οὐσίαι λεγόμεναι ὑπάρχουσιν, ταῦτά τε καὶ τὰ τῶν εἰδῶν τούτων γένη οἷον ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος ἐν εἴδει μὲν ὑπάρχει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, γένος δὲ τοῦ
εἴδους ἐστὶ τὸ ζῷον δεύτεραι οὖν αὗται λέγονται οὐσίαι, οἷον ὅ τε ἄνθρωπος καὶ τὸ
ζῷον.

which W. D. Ross translates as,

  Substance (οὐσία), in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance, the individual man or horse. But in a secondary sense those things are called substances
  within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include the species. For instance, the individual man is included in the species 'man', and the genus to which the species belongs is 'animal'; these, therefore that is to say, the species 'man' (ἀνθρώπῳ) and the genus 'animal' (ζῷον), are termed secondary substances.

John of Damascus wrote,[8]

  Now we have often said already that essence is one thing and subsistence another, and that essence signifies the common and general form of subsistences of the same kind, such as "God," "man," while subsistence marks the individual, that is to say, "Father," "Son," "Holy Spirit," or "Peter," "Paul." Observe, then, that the names, divinity and humanity, denote essences or natures: while the names, "God" and "man," are applied both in connection with natures, as when we say that God is incomprehensible essence, and that God is one, and with reference to subsistences, that which is more specific having the name of the more general applied to it, as when the Scripture says, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee, or again, There was a certain man in the land of Uz, for it was only to Job that reference was made.

So, the Son shares the same essence "God" that the Father has. There is no dimunition of nature when the Father begat His only-begotten Son, just as the strength and quality of the fire is not diminished when another object is kindled. The essence of God remains simple and undivided. The Son does not possess 1/3 of the essence, and the Father another 1/3, but each shares the full and perfect essence of God, undiminished and uncompound.

Footnotes:

[1] Boethius. Liber De Persona Et Duabus Naturis Contra Eutychen Et Nestorium, Ch. III.

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational?s=t

[4] Boethius. Liber De Persona Et Duabus Naturis Contra Eutychen Et Nestorium, Ch. II.

[5] Aristotle. Metaphysics, 1080β.

[6] Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. LXI.

[7] Aristotle. Categories, §5, 2a.

[8] John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Ch. IV.


What are Christians trusting God about, when in fallen world circumstance?

What I would get from that (vague) statement is that, in spite of everything that I think is wrong or can't understand, trust that God exists - that I'm not alone.  Trust that as bleak and hopeless as things may seem, that God is still there, even if He doesn't magically make everything perfect.

There is much that I think is wrong and can't understand... but I also believe that God does have bigger plans or has a larger view.  I have to trust that, no matter what my pains, fears, or disappointments here are, on a larger scale or a higher plane or however you want to phrase it, God is still watching (over) and will make things right.

Note, I don't know what form "will make things right" will take... it may be as simple as "Welcome home, I know that was hard, but it's all over now."  And, technically, I don't "KNOW" that it will happen, but I BELIEVE that it will happen.  And that is the "trust" that I put in God.


Wedding after a death in the family in the Eastern Orthodox Church

Generally, Orthodox weddings are prohibited on at least the following days:

Great Lent (variable)
Holy Week (variable)
Pascha (variable)
Pentecost (variable)
The Apostle's Fast (variable-June 29)
The Dormition Fast (August 1-15)
The Beheading of St. John the Baptist (August 29)
Exaltation of the Holy Cross (September 14)
Nativity Fast (November 14-December 25, or until January 7, depending on calendar)
Theophany (January 6)

Some parishes or jurisdictions may also not permit marriages on Saturdays or in the evening before Wednesdays and Fridays.

There are no restrictions about marrying after the death of someone in the family.


Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - who is understood as the fourth person in the fire?

The King said that the fourth person looked like "a son of the Gods."  This is translated as "the son of God" in the King James Version, which has led some people to conflate the fourth figure with Christ, but it's important to remember that the concept of "the son of God (singular)" makes no sense to the King, who was a polytheist.

He calls out to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and calls them servants of "the Most High God," which is to be understood literally.  He saw that their God was higher (more powerful) than the Gods he worshipped, none of whom had ever been known to protect someone from incineration in a furnace.

It's most likely that the fourth figure was an angel, much like the one sent to Daniel to pacify the lions just a few chapters away from this story.


How did the phenomenon of "Megachurches" come about?

Reason #1

Mega Churches can likely be explained in part by the fact that more modern denominations, including Baptist (Even non-denominational) have integrated together with each other a lot. People are starting to realize that on a basic level, everybody is teaching the same thing; the love of Christ and desire to be like/with him.

I've asked several people (most not even from my church) and 90 percent admitted to being non-denominational or passive about where they go on Sunday as long as there is a good christian influence and a love of God. This means that in an example town, there will be one huge church and a handfull of smaller ones, rather than tons of same-size-small churches.

Of course this can't completely explain the phenomenon.

Reason #2

Mass urbanization, along with greater ease when it comes to getting places, as you said in your question, is a very likely factor into why churches of such massive sizes have sprung up. My church started in around 2000-2003 and has several thousand attending every weekend!

I'll bet that if you were to make a map of all of the 'Mega Churches' and overlay it on a political map, the churches would line up pretty closely with cities of population from 400k to around 700k.

Reason #3

Acceptance of 'Non-Believers';
Along with the increase of population at churches came the popularization of 'Christian Contemporary' music. It appeals to people who may not necessarily be christian because of its good vibes and heavy beat more closely matching that of 'Normal" music. I know several people who listen to christian pop and admit to not even believing in Jesus Christ.

Churches are also making a greater effort to have effect on their personal community, not just nations across the globe. This encourages those attending the church to reach out to their neighbors though increased fellowship with them.

My pastor said this sunday

  America has never been more spiritually minded as today.

Then he said something about it  not being christian spirituality necessarily. I've forgotten his exact words.

My point being that the idea of religion has grown in popularity, and simply, christian churches are everywhere, and open for folks to just walk in and here the message. There are a variety of different styles of churches, and people who don't like one style, may like another, so they end up joining a church rather than no church.

I don't claim to know what is happening with these Mega Churches all the way, maybe God has some really big plan for it.


Which faiths are accepted for membership in the Catholic Church?

A candidate for membership in the Catholic church will go through the RCIA (Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults) course as you did. This is the ordinary method for anyone to enter the church. Assuming your husband was not previously married and divorced, unless his earlier wife is still alive, there is not any impediment to your husband joining the Catholic church. Check with your Parish Priest for a more complete answer.


Can a person be baptized against their will, according to Catholicism?

In short, the answer is “no.”

Even for the Catholic Church, according to which Baptism is an instrument through which saving (sanctifying) grace is infused into a person’s soul, a forced baptism or baptism imposed by trickery would not be valid.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his treatise on Baptism (part of the Summa theologiae) explains as follows:

  I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to Rm. 6:4: “We are buried together with” Christ “by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the dead … so we also may walk in newness of life.” Consequently, just as, according to Augustine [Serm. 351], he who has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, “will to repent of his former life”; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament (Summa theologiae, IIIa, q. 68, a. 7).

If the receiver of baptism, then, were opposed to receiving the sacrament, or (as in the case described in the O.P.) it were conferred on him without his consent, then it would be invalid.

(Of course, pretending to receive baptism while internally refusing to allow it to occur, or else—as in the O.P.’s example—forcing or tricking someone into being baptized, is at least objectively a grave sacrilege. Although I am not familiar with the story, it seems as though Ignacio is well-intentioned but misguided.)

Note that, at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, although a person with the use of reason (and hence the ability to make free-will decisions) can prevent Baptism from taking place by an internal act of the will, there is nothing to prevent infants from being baptized. Infants, not having the ability to make free-will decisions, cannot place an obstacle to baptism, and so it takes place in them without fail.

(I will also observe that Ignacio’s attempt at baptism would have been invalid, even if it were not against Steven’s will, because the Trinitarian formula is necessary for validity. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239-1240.)

A note about Aquinas’ notion of intention

In discussing the sacraments, most Catholic theologians use Aquinas’ notion of intention, which would be good to recall. The term intention, which comes from the Latin in (which translates better in this case as “toward” or “into” than the English “in”) and tendere (to tend). Intention, then refers to any tendency toward an end.

In Aquinas, intention gets special attention when he speaks about our faculties and other natural tendencies. When applied to these, intention refers to the actuation of these faculties and tendencies in response to their proper object. For example, the proper object of the intellect is the beings that exist in the world around us, and so the concepts that we form about these beings can be called intentions.

However, intention can also apply to the will (which is the usage most familiar to us nowadays). In the case of the will, it specifically refers to choosing the means so as to obtain an end. I have the intention to go for a walk, as soon as I start to put on by walking shoes and go for the door (which are the means required for me to go for a walk).

That is the precise meaning that Aquinas gives when he says (in the passage I quoted above)

  so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament.

and

  it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament

That means that you can’t just sneak up on a (conscious, adult) person and baptize him without his knowledge. The receiver’s will has to be involved and actually want the baptism (provided, of course, that it is not physically impeded: as is the case in infants, or in comatose or unconscious persons, or mentally handicapped persons).


Do Jehovah's Witnesses object to praying with other Christians?

Your questions 1 to 5 are all about praying with people of other faiths. Jehovah’s Witnesses would not distinguish between Mormons, Catholics, Jews, or Muslims here: all are equally “other faiths”. As such, these all collapse to one question*: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses pray with non-Witnesses? The answer is No, they don’t.

Praying with members of other religions is practising a form of interfaith, which the Witnesses strongly condemn:

“How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses View Interfaith?”, The Watchtower, June 1st, 2010.
“Interfaith—Is It God’s Way?”, The Watchtower, March 1st, 2014.

A clearer deliniation of what does and what does not count as interfaith activity from a Witness perspective is in the article “Would it be a form of interfaith to purchase a building from another religious group and convert it into a Kingdom Hall?” in The Watchtower, October 15th, 2002. While the article is specifically about the situation described in the title, the content does actually clarify their definition of interfaith activity better than anything else I can find from them. (There is no article on Interfaith in the Insight book, for example.)

Certainly, prayer with another religious group would count as interfaith activity, and would therefore be condemned. See also, Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not pray with people of other faith?

* There is one possible exception:

  Would prayer be an option (or recommended) when meeting a Mormon in his home to teach him?

It’s the last few words which give this one a slightly different flavour. Witnesses spread their message to strangers, both on the streets and by working from door-to-door (and in sundry other ways from time to time, but those are the main two). This is initial contact. However, once someone has expressed interest, Witnesses will probably call back. If someone wants to learn, they will establish a “Bible study”. This is a semi-formal arrangement, in which the Witness will regularly (weekly, perhaps, or whatever suits everyone’s schedules) call back to the person and work through some material explaining Witness doctrine.

In the eyes of the Witnesses, at least, this is a one-on-one educational programme. (Well, usually. Sometimes a couple or even a whole family will study together. Often, the Witness will bring another Witness along, but that might be a different person each time, while there’ll be one regular conductor of the study.)

The “interested person” may or may not see themselves in the role of a student. They might see themselves as an opponent in a debate, or merely someone interested in discussing alternative worldviews. Whatever.

Once such a study has progressed a certain amount, the Witness is likely to open it by praying aloud. So once a regular educational arrangement is set up, yes, a Witness would pray in this situation. At this point, though, they’re seeing the person as a prospective convert, not a firm Mormon, so they wouldn’t see it as praying with a Mormon. Furthermore, it’s unlikely they’d be comfortable with the other person leading such prayers, though doubtless they’d encourage them to pray privately (and with their minor children).

That was a long footnote, but I have one further elaboration. There’s a difference, a big difference, between praying with someone and praying for someone. If someone asks a Witness to pray for them, they probably will, maybe even aloud and right there and then. I have heard of Witnesses doing their general door-to-door work, and having the door opened by a distressed person who saw someone religious and asked immediately for a prayer. In that situation, the Witness will probably pray. And if the other person joins in (who knows how a stranger will react? and people praying aloud together, talking over each other, is the norm in some religions, so the person might do that), then that means that, technically, the Witness is praying with someone of another faith.

I don’t know exactly what the theological reasoning is which says that this is acceptable. I do know that I’ve seen anecdotes including such spontaneous prayer on demand described approvingly in Witness publications. If someone asks a Witness to pray, in a private situation, they’ll pray.

Summary

Organised interfaith event: No.
Bible study with someone who’s not a Witness but may be heading that way: Yes, with caveats (the Witness would offer the prayer, generally speaking).
When asked by someone who seems distressed: Sort of (this is praying for, not praying with, but if the other person joined in and converted it into praying with, then the Witness is unlikely to complain (especially if the person is distressed)).


What does it meant that Jesus "breathed on them"?

What means that “(Jesus) breathed on them” in John 20,22

  John 20:20-22  And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands
  and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
  Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath
  sent me, even so send I you.   And when he had said this, he breathed
  on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

This is the first instance where believers in Jesus receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Those who trusted in God in the Old Testament would occasionally receive the Holy Spirit to prophesy or some other specific task. However, the indwelling Spirit was intended for those who receive their new life in Christ.

  Hebrews 11:39-40  And these all, having obtained a good report through
  faith, received not the promise:   God having provided some better
  thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

  John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
  and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
  not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jesus told his disciples that they would also receive a "baptism" of the Holy Spirit.

  Acts 1:4-5  And, being assembled together with them, commanded them
  that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise
  of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.   For John truly
  baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not
  many days hence.

This was an additional dispensation of the Holy Spirit that was prophesied by Joel and was to be a sign as well as a means of establishing the Kingdom.

  Acts 2:16-17  But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out
  of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall
  prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall
  dream dreams:

The idea that the Holy Spirit was given in two steps is not accepted by everyone. However I think we can see that the Holy Spirit was given a second time by the laying on of hands of those who had already professed their faith and been baptized constitutes a second reception of the Holy Spirit.

  Acts 8:14-17  Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that
  Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and
  John:   Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
  might receive the Holy Ghost:   (For as yet he was fallen upon none of
  them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)   Then
  laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

As I understand the Bible, the second reception of the Holy Spirit was consistent with the immanency of the Kingdom of God. Since Israel was not even provoked by jealousy, and did not receive this kingdom offer, today we are left with just the indwelling Holy Spirit as proof of our new life in Jesus.

  2 Corinthians 1:21-22  Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ,
  and hath anointed us, is God;   Who hath also sealed us, and given the
  earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

When a faithful remnant of Israel does finally receive the kingdom, we shall once again see the reception of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands resume.


In the "Creed of Athanasius" does "before all things" mean "sooner" or "most important"?

According to Lewis & Short, on the entry for ante, the phrase ante omnia can mean “before all things,” but I believe the latter is more appropriate to the context of the creed, wherein it means “above all [things],” i.e., above all else; more than anything.

(α).  Before all things, first of all: “alvus ante omnia ducitur,” Cels. 7, 30: “oportet autem ante omnia os nudare,” id. 8, 2: “Ante omnia instituit, ut etc.,” Suet. Ner. 32; id. Calig. 21: “Ante omnia autem, fratres, etc.,” Vulg. Jac. 5, 12; ib. 1 Petr. 4, 8.—
(β).  Comparatively, above all, especially, chiefty: “publica maestitia eo ante omnia insignis, quia matronae annum, ut parentem, eum luxerunt,” Liv. 2, 7; 7, 4: “quae natura multis et ante omnia ursis,” Plin. 8, 35, 53, § 125: “dulces ante omnia Musae,” the Muses pleasing above all things, Verg. G. 2, 475; id. E. 2, 72: “deformem et taetrum ante omnia vultum,” Juv. 10, 191.—

In addition, on the entry for opus, the phrase opus est means “it is necessary.”

Opus est, it is needful, wanting; there is need of, use for: opus est mihi, tibi, etc., I (thou, etc.) have need of, need, want. It is contrasted with necesse est: emas non quod opus est, sed quod necesse est. Quod non opus est, asse carum est, Cato ap. Sen. Ep. 94, 28. Also with indigere: “ait (Chrysippus) sapien. tem nullā re indigere, et tamen multis illi rebus opus esse, contra stulto nullā re opus est, nullā re enim uti scit, sed omnibus eget,” Sen. Ep. 9, 12. The person who needs any thing is put in the dat., and the thing needed in the nom. or abl. (prop. abl. instrum.: opus est mihi, I have work with, i. e. I need), rarely in the gen., acc., inf., acc. and inf., or with ut.

Thus, the phrase ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem would mean “above all else, it is necessary to possess the Catholic belief (faith).”
@WoundedEgo wrote,

The astute will notice that there is no mention of the resurrection.

On the contrary, the astute would notice there is mention of the resurrection of the dead:

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully...rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies...

References
Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. Harper’s Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon. New York: American Book, 1879.


No, not really. While you sometimes find them lumped together they are not a subset of the class.

In popular usage such as among modern secular journalism, the term "Protestant" has come to mean anything that doesn't properly fall under the umbrella of either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. In this sense where there is no "Option D, none of the above", it sort of makes sense to lump in divergent sects with the rest of Protestantism.

There is, however, a fundamental difference: their theological roots are not the same. The LDS church is what is sometimes referred to as a "restorationist movement" — a reference to their theology's claim to be restoring something that was lost. While they agree with Protestants that the Catholic church lost its way, their proposed solution varies radically from that of Protestantism.

The basic tenets of Protestantism as a movement include rejection of a few Catholic doctrines and ultimately the Catholic church's claim to apostolic authority. In rejecting some of the core tenets of Catholicism, it based itself instead on a core set of doctrines (often loosely summarized in the "5 solas") that all require a certain reliance on the Scriptures as authoritative and uncorrupted.

The LDS church on the other hand is fundamentally based on the premise that Apostolic authority was lost (much earlier than even the rise of the Catholic church) and needed to be miraculously restored. This and other revelations are believed to have been given independently (and in opposition to) the existing claims of the Bible and historical Christian churches (whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox).

In other words, while they would also protest against Rome, their basis for doing so is entirely independent of the Protestant reformation and theologically they should be considered a sect (or cult depending on whose definitions you're using) outside of the theological umbrellas of Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant traditions.


How does the Catholic Church explain the addition of the word “died” in the Nicene Creed

the word "crucified” itself implies death

Not necessarily.
"Died" is in the creed to show that not only did He suffer the pains of crucifixion (a form of torture), but He also died from crucifixion.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism), "Article 4: Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried," explains this part of the creed thus:

Christ Really Died

The pastor should explain that these words present for our belief that Jesus Christ, after He was crucified, really died and was buried. It is not without just reason that this is proposed to the faithful as a separate object of belief, since there were some who denied His death upon the cross.3 The Apostles, therefore, were justly of opinion that to such an error should be opposed the doctrine of faith contained in this Article, the truth of which is placed beyond the possibility of doubt by the united testimony of all the Evangelists, who record that Jesus yielded up the ghost. (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30).

Moreover as Christ was true and perfect man, He of course was capable of dying. Now man dies when the soul is separated from the body. When, therefore, we say that Jesus died, we mean that His soul was disunited from His body. We do not admit, however, that the Divinity was separated from His body. On the contrary, we firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulchre and to His soul in limbo. It became the Son of God to die, that, through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death that is the devil, and might deliver them, who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude. (Heb. 2:10, 14, 15).

Christ Died Freely

It was the peculiar privilege of Christ the Lord to have died when He Himself decreed to die, and to have died not so much by external violence as by internal assent. Not only His death, but also its time and place, were ordained by Him. For thus Isaias wrote: He was offered because it was his own will. (Is. 53:7). The Lord before His Passion, declared the same of Himself: I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. (John 10:17–18). As to the time and place of His death, He said, when Herod insidiously sought His life: Go and tell that fox: Behold I cast out devils, and do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am consummated. Nevertheless I must walk today and tomorrow, and the day following, because it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. (Luke 13:32–33). He therefore offered Himself not involuntarily or by compulsion but of His own free will. Going to meet His enemies He said: I am he (John 18:5); and all the punishments which injustice and cruelty inflicted on Him He endured voluntarily.


Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?

I think you're referring to The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG). It was first formulated by Immanuel Kant, but has been refined, disputed and defended over the years.

The argument

One formulation of the argument is,

  Prove A: The Christian God exists.
  Step 1 ~A: (Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove): The Christian God does not exist.
  Step 2 (~A--> B): If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility
  Step 3 (~B): There is intelligible experience (Contradiction!)
  Step 4 (~ ~A): It is not the case that God does not exist (Modus Tollens on 2 and 3)
  Step 5 (A): --> God does exist (Law of negation.)

  Source: Reformed Apologist (blog)

The finer details of whether this argument actually is valid, of course, need a more thorough explanation. The argument isn't fundamentally based on inductive nor deductive, but  transcendental reasoning. Kant describes transcendental as follows:

  I entitle transcendental all knowledge which is occupied not so much with objects as with the mode of our knowledge of objects insofar as this mode of knowledge is to be possible a priori.

Thus to properly examine and understand the argument, I suspect a more in-depth studying is required. I'm not a philosopher and don't claim to understand TAG, so I'll just point you elsewhere:

Further reading

Butler, Michael R. The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence.


What doctrinal value does the Catholic Church place on "Cantate Domino"?

Documents of ecumenical councils receive their authority from the Pope who solemnly approves them. Councils give council to a Pope, and it is by his authority alone that their documents can be infallible.

Conciliarism, which teaches that a general council of the Church has higher authority than the Pope, is a condemned heresy. The First Vatican Council's infallible document Dei Filius, ratified by Pope Pius IX, stated:

  …they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an œcumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

We can judge whether a document is infallible based upon whether the Pope

speaks for the whole Church,
invokes all his authority,
intends to definitively define dogma, and
speaks regarding the faith and/or morals.

These conditions follow from the section of Dei Filius regarding papal infallibility:

  …we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the
  Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in
  discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by
  virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
  regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the
  divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of
  that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his
  Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or
  morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
  irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

The four conditions are indeed satisfied in Cantate Domino (1442) since Pope Eugune IV

speaks for the whole Church: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches…"
invokes all his authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull.
intends to definitively define dogma: In this case, he is not defining anything new; he's only relaying and reaffirming what has been said before him (like in Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam of 1302) regarding the necessity of the Church for salvation.
speaks regarding the faith and/or morals: Yes. In this case, he speaks of both.

Cantate Domino is thus part of the Extraordinary Magisterium, which Fr. Hardon, SJ, defines as:

  The Church's teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or of ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. When the extraordinary magisterium takes the form of papal definitions or conciliar decisions binding on the consciences of all the faithful in matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.

(cf. my answer here)

The famous 20th century Catholic theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, in his 1958 work The Catholic Church and Salvation: In the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See pp. 31-41, considered Cantate Domino an "official pronouncement of the Church" that "simply makes more explicit the lessons brought out in the Fourth Lateran Council and in the Bull Unam sanctam."


What types of signs are given by the "lights in the expanse of the heavens"?

There is a definite difference between trying to foretell an unknown future and seeing things unfold and knowing what's going on.  I don't have to be a meteorologist to know that when dark clouds start gathering overhead there's a chance it might rain.

A good representation of this is in Revelation:

"I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.  Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?'" (Rev 6:12-18 NIV)

Having read this, you would not have to be an astrologer to realize that when the sun goes black, the moon turns blood red and heavenly bodies start crashing to the ground that the sixth trumpet has sounded.  It's already been foretold in the Bible.  You're just recognizing the signs when they come to pass.

Seeing a sign for what it is isn't the same as trying to divine the future.  Divination is trying to see the unknown.  We've already been told in the Bible what to watch for.

We are to be watchful and alert.  Jesus said there would be signs and that "when these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." (Luke 21:7-31 NIV)


What is the logic behind the present arrangement of Seven Sacraments?

The Catholic Catechism is a teaching tool about the Catholic faith. The Teaching Magisterium of the Church could have chosen another sequence for the seven sacraments, but it stayed with the most common and traditional way of listing the sacramennts.

Why this sequencing of the sacraments?

The first three sacraments mentioned are those involved in Christian initiation.

  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the sacraments of Christian initiation — baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist — lay the foundations of every Christian life. ... The faithful are born anew by baptism, strengthened by the Sacrament of Confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life” (No. 1212). The Catechism goes on to say that, “The holy Eucharist completes our Christian initiation” (No. 1322). - Restored order for sacraments a growing trend

Baptism, penance and the anointing of the sick are sometimes referred to as the
sacraments of the dead and as such are at the faithful's disposition when in need. Since we should be in the state of grace before getting married or upon being ordained as a priest these sacraments are placed next in the list.

  Those sacraments which can be validly and fruitfully received when a person is not in the state of grace. They are baptism, penance, and, if needed, anointing of the sick. These sacraments confer or restore sanctifying grace and confer actual graces when received by one who is already in God's friendship. - Sacraments of the Dead

Most of the faithful will eventually choose marriage over Holy Orders and thus marriage is normally listed as the sixth sacrament and Holy Orders as the seventh.

Many Catholics do have a different sequence for the seven sacraments of the Church, such as the following:

  The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church

  I. Baptism

  II. Reconciliation (Confession)

  III. Eucharist (Communion)

  IV. Confirmation

  V. Marriage

  VI. Holy Orders

  VII. Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction)


What is the origin of the word "Nativity" as a title for Christ's Advent?

In Catholic culture it comes from the Latin.

  "Festum Nativitatis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi"  (the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ) and the shorter form,  "Dies Natalis Domini"  (the Birthday of Our Lord).

  From these Latin names most nations obtained their popular terms for the Christmas feast: "Il Natale" in Italy, "La Navidad" in Spain, "Natal" in Portugal, "Nadal" in southern France, "Nadolig" in Wales (and probably the Gaelic "Nollaig," as well). The Greek "Genethlia" means "Nativity," as do the names for Christmas in Hungarian ("Karacsony") and in most of the Slavic languages: "Boze Narodzenie" (God's Birth) in Polish; "Rozhdestvo Khrista" (Christ's Birth) in Russian and Ukrainian.

  The French word Noel can be explained as either coming from the Latin "natalis" (birthday) or from the word "nowel" which means "news." In an old English Christmas verse the angel says:

  I come from hevin to tell
   The best nowellis that ever befell.

  It is possible that both explanations are right. "Noel" and "nowel" may be words of different origin that have become identical in meaning because they are pronounced the same. -  History & Origin: Feast of the Nativity

The year 336 seems to be the first recorded date of Christmas at Rome.

  The Nativity stories of Matthew and Luke are prominent in the gospels and early Christian writers suggested various dates for the anniversary. The first recorded Christmas celebration was in Rome in 336. - Wikipedia

Etymologically the word nativity came into use in the 12th century:

  nativity (n.) c. 1200, from Old French nativité "birth" (12c.), from Late Latin nativitatem (nominative nativitas) "birth," from Latin nativus "born, native" (see native (adj.)). Late Old English had nativiteð, from earlier Old French nativited.  - Dictionary.com, etymonline.com


According to the morality of the Catholic Church are there any organs that are not permitted to be offered in organ transplants?

Yes, the brain and the gonads are not permitted even if the donor is dead.

The general principle regarding the donation of organs is articulated in section 2296 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks incurred by the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Donation of organs after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a manifestation of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or those who legitimately speak for him have not given their explicit consent.
   It is furthermore morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

Distinction is made between

transplants from a dead body
transplants from a living body which would cause the disabling mutilation or death of the donor
transplants from a living body which would not cause the disabling mutilation or death of the donor.

The donation of body parts from a  dead body is approved, and encouraged, but the donation must be explicit, whether by the deceased, prior to death, or by his representative afterwards.

The donation of parts from a living body which would cause the disabling mutilation or death of the donor is not permitted. A heart transplant would, of course, have such an effect.

Transplants which do not result in disabling mutilation are subject to a test of proportionality. This requires balancing the dangers and risks  to the donor against the benefits to the recipient.  Because the human body contains two kidneys, but can function with one, a kidney transplant would ordinarily come into this category.

The Catholic Medical Association(UK) has stated there is no objection, in principle,  to transplants from animals to humans.

Pope Francis has described organ donation as a testimony of love for our neighbour.

In the case of reproductive function section 2376 of the Catechism of the Catholic church reads:

  Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."

The Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance and Healthcare Workers , in 1995, listed the brain and the gonads as forbidden from transplantation:

  The brain and the gonads may not be transplanted because they ensure personal and procreative
  identity respectively. These are organs which embody the characteristic uniqueness of the person
  which medicine is bound to protect.” PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PASTORAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH
  CARE WORKERS, Charter for Health Care Workers (1995) 88.

Transplanting a brain is prohibited because personal identity is held to reside in the brain.

A gonad is either a testis in the case of a gentleman, or an ovary in the case of a lady. The prohibition here is about procreative identity. Children, it is intended,  should be the genetic descendants of the married couple to whom they are born. If Mr A were to receive a transplanted testis from Mr B and then impregnate Mrs A, the resulting child, Master or Miss A,  would not be the genetic child of Mr and Mrs A, but of Mr B and Mrs A. Similarly if Mrs A received an ovary from Ms C, and was impregnated by Mr A, the child would be the genetic child of Mr A and Ms C. This is the issue.

In the case of a prepubescent boy facing chemotherapy, his testis was removed and later transplanted back. This would not be a problem to the Church as it was not a transplant from another person.


What official statements represent Christianity's position on the Gospel of Barnabas?

This is an English translation of the Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipendis et Non Recipiendts.  The Decretum Gelasianum was issued by Pope Gelasius [Pope of Rome 492-96].

One of the apocryphum mentioned is "the Gospel in the name of Barnabas".

Now, the document floating around in the present day is probably a 16th century writing, just based on content analysis.  However, a version that existed in the 5th century was rejected by the Roman Catholic church as apocryphum.


Why is Adam considered the original sinner?

Genesis 3:6 (NIV) reveals that Adam was with Eve when she took the fruit.

  6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and
  pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took
  some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her,
  and he ate it.

Adam had the opportunity and authority to stop Eve from eating the fruit.  While maybe not the best reason, I believe Adam could be considered the original sinner, because he did not act within his power to stop the sin from occuring.

This is something to remember when you are watching someone you have authority over entering into sin.

I still believe Eve sinned, though.  1 Corinthians 8 indicates that even when another causes you to sin, you still own your own sin.

  1 Corinthians 8:9-13 NIV
   9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not
  become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak
  conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s
  temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to
  idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is
  destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way
  and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore,
  if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will
  never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

From a technical perspective, Adam did sin first since his sin was allowing Eve's sin.

Also, for more on causing others to sin:

  Matthew 18:6 NLT
  6 But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall
  into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied
  around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.