What does "God is just" mean according to Calvinists?

You are correct in noting that in Calvinism one's ultimate eschatological end is the result of either God electing one to glory or one to destruction.
However, because Calvinist care about what Scripture teaches, they also hold to the belief that their are varying degrees of punishment (and supposedly varying degrees of glory) rendered individually to each man.
Here are a few obvious passages which strongly suggest gradations of punishment in hell.

[God] will render to every man according to his works. (Romans 2:6)
[This is the conclusion of one of Jesus' parables.] The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:47-48)

One popular Calvinist outlet, Ligonier Ministries, defends this belief with no qualms.

There will be degrees of punishment during the day of wrath. One “trivial” sin makes us guilty of the whole law and liable to eternal torment (James 2:10). Yet some acts are worse than others and deserve harsher punishment (Num. 35:9–29). As bad as Sodom was, her sentence will be lighter on Judgment Day than Bethsaida’s because Sodom never saw Jesus (Matt. 11:20–24). The sinner who never hears of Christ will go to hell, yet his pain will be less intense than those who hear the Gospel each Sunday and refuse to repent.

So then, does the Bible say that, because God is just, both of them will have the same punishment tormented in the lake of fire eternally? The answer is no from a cursory reading of the Bible, and the answer is also no from a normal Calvinistic reading of the Bible.
Though your question seemed to imply that you're wondering what justice means to a Calvinist. I would suggest clarifying exactly what it is that you are asking. For self study on this subject, look into forensic justification and double imputation. Those who fail to have Christ' righteousness imputed to them are left with Adam's sin and their own personal sins left imputed to their own accounts. You ultimately get what's imputed to you, and the more grievous the sin that's imputed to you, the more judgement you receive.
Source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/degrees-punishment/


Patron saints are not, in general, centrally designated by the Vatican. (St Thomas More is a notable exception. He was declared patron saint of statesmen and politicians by the motu proprio E Sancti Thomae Mori, issued by Pope St John Paul II in 2000.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on patron saints discusses only patron saints of churches and locations. Nevertheless, what it says of these patron saints is true in general:

  A patron is one who has been assigned by a venerable tradition, or chosen by election, as a special intercessor with God.

In other words, a saint is  considered by the Church to be a patron saint of a particular cause, group of people, or situation simply because a sizable group of people, either in a single locality or more broadly through the Church, has decided to invoke their help for that purpose, and has done so for a long time. It's a very "organic" sort of process.

In the kind of situation you propose, what might happen is that a small group of people would venerate the second saint as the patron saint of infants, either along with or in place of the first. As the number of people invoking this saint's help grew, both saints might separately be considered the patron saint of infants. It isn't at all unusual to have multiple saints as patrons; for example, both St Valentine and St Dymphna are patron saints of people with epilepsy.

(There doesn't appear, by the way, to be a patron saint of infants, but there are three patron saints of children: St Nicholas of Myra, St Raymond Nonnatus, and St Nicholas of Tolentino.)

Finally, it's not necessarily the case, as you seem to imply, that saints who are invoked more often and produce many miracles are by that fact known to be "holier" in some sense. All saints are glad to intercede for us before God, Who chooses His responses at His Will. Even if a miracle, or the desired result, does not come about, God hears and responds. It is God, not the saint, who is responsible for any result, and it is God's decision, not the saint's holiness, that determines the response.


Did Martin Luther believe the Church needed to be reformed before the Great Schism of 1054AD, or after?

Luther saw the church becoming significantly corrupted much earlier than we might think.  Generally I would say that Luther perceived a split between the 'real' church and the 'false church' basically around the time of St. Augustine, for he always separated the ritualistic ecclesiastical doctrine of religion, from the Augustinian spiritual doctrine of saving grace. To garner direct quotes from Luther in establishing a factual date of the church apostasy, we would do well to start at St. Gregory and the establishment of the papacy, according to Luther, right after at around 603 AD.

While having some respect for Pope Gregory, primarily in that he refused to become a pope in the modern sense of the word, Luther heaps more blame upon St. Gregory (540-604 AD) than anyone before him. In some ways he begins to be a point for galvanizing all the heresies and abominations slowly and gradually building up to that time, making a good first landmark to answer the question.

  Gregory alone is the originator of the fables about purgatory. He also originated the Masses for the dead. Somewhere he tells that there was a certain steward in his monastery who by chance and negligence left three guldens among his papers. When Gregory found these after the man’s death, he had made a terrific uproar about the deceased man and had cried out that the man was accursed because of the crime of thievery and would be subject to eternal punishments, although it was likely that this monk had had greater opportunity to steal in other respects; yet nothing had been pilfered by him, but this money had lain hidden among his papers without his knowledge. Yet Gregory declares that by this example and as a result of his shouting the others were so terrified that from then on no one of them was willing to keep back even a heller. Finally, however, Gregory ordered 30 Masses to be said for the man, and when these had been completed—so he writes—this steward appeared to him and thanked him profusely for the great service by which he had been freed from punishments and the curse of God.

  This was undoubtedly the “strong delusion” referred to in 2 Thess. 2:11, and from this example of Gregory there spread into the whole world that infinite multitude of abominations and the offering of the sacrament for the dead. But the specter which appeared to him was the devil in all his wickedness, who came out of hell to mock the whole human race. For the horrible and rash falsehood of purgatory and Masses for the dead exceeds all understanding and power of speech.  (Luther's Works Vol 7.297)

Another landmark the more direct to the answer would be just after, in Pope Boniface III who Luther technically thought was the first Pope (603 AD) (Unlike the Catholic church of course who assumes the Papacy started way back with Peter).

  It is very easy to prove that the pope is neither the commander or head of Christendom, nor lord of the world above emperor, councils, and everything, as he lies, blasphemes, curses, and raves in his decretals, to which the hellish Satan drives him. He himself knows full well—and it is as clear as the dear sun from all the decrees of the ancient councils, from all the histories, from the writings of the holy fathers, Jerome, Augustine, and Cyprian, and from all of Christendom before the first pope, who was called Boniface III* —that the bishop of Rome was nothing more than a bishop and should still be that. St. Jerome dared to say freely, “All bishops are equal, all together they have inherited the throne of the apostles,” and adds the example, “as the bishop of a small city—like Engubium67 and Rome, Regium and Constantinople, Thebes and Alexandria. (Luther's Works Vol 41.290)

On the topic of the papacy Luther does not speak negatively about Gregory at all, rather he seems to admire him in spite of his other low opinions.

  In addition, St. Gregory, when it [the title “universal pope”] was offered to him by several great bishops, sharply refused it and writes that none of his predecessors had been so bold as to accept or wish to carry such a title,71 although the sixth council in Chalcedon72 had offered it to them; he closes by saying briefly and to the point that no one should call himself the highest bishop or head of the whole of Christendom, as many decrees also say, and furthermore, that the bishop of Rome too, though he is one of the greater ones, is nonetheless not to be called universalis, the head of “all” Christendom. (Luther's Works Vol 41.291)

It is after Gregory that Luther truly pins the fall of the church under the papacy:

  But after Gregory’s death Sabinianus was a bishop for a year and a half; I count him among the popes, for he was a big monster, like a pope is, and wanted to burn the books of St. Gregory, his immediate predecessor—perhaps because in his writings St. Gregory did not want the papacy to be tolerated. Boniface III was elected after him. This is when God’s wrath began. This Boniface persuaded the regicide Phocas that he should be pope, or chief of all the bishops in the whole world. The bell was cast then, and the Roman horror accepted with joy, as the one who was now lord over all the bishops in the world.  (Luther's Works Vol 41.291)

One could trace some of the other streams of perceived corruptions by investigating the origins of many practices Luther opposed but I think starting with St Gregory but absolutely occurring with Pope Boniface III (603 AD) followed by the Popes after him is really where the true church under the Augustinian faith split from the ritualistic ecclesiastical church under the corrupt doctrines of the papacy, according to Luther.


What is the difference between Calvinist "nature" and "nature" in the sense of the Hypostatic union?

Regeneration, initiated by new birth, is the Evangelical belief that when a person believes in Christ they are mystically united into Christ.  Their old nature dies in him and a new nature is born.  Rebirth, or regeneration is when the image of God is restored within a sinner. Calvin thought of it more in the fullest sense of continuing into sanctification and resurrection of the body. Typically Protestants in terms of the doctrinal mechanics of regeneration identify is as the inward renewal beginning with justification by faith and continuing through the process of sanctification.

The two natures we are talking about are simply 'ourselves' sanctified and those aspects of ourselves not sanctified.  These two parts of ourselves war against each other.  That is why, for example, Paul say's:

  So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. (Galatians 5:16-17, NIV)

In a completely absolutely different sense, a human being was assumed into a divine being, so that two fully different natures subsist in the incarnation.  There is no parallel of the incarnation with sanctification, so the question seems to be an identification of a gross ignorance of regeneration. It is actually equivalent to a question someone asked Jesus:

  You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again. ’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
   “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
   “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? (John 3:7-10, NIV)

The best way I can explain it to a person that considers water baptism as the initiation into God's kingdom, rather then personal faith, is to say: 'Imagine everything you think that happens in water baptism happens when a person believes in Christ.' The resulting two natures, sanctified and not sanctified, is the Protestant understanding of the two natures after regeneration initiated by faith in Christ.


Which Lent should someone Baptized in an Eastern Roman Catholic rite follow?

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches codifies common portions of the canon law of all the Eastern Catholic Churches within the (Roman) Catholic Church.

Canon 883 says

  The Christian faithful who are outside the territorial boundaries of their own Church sui juris can adopt fully for themselves the feast days and days of penance which are in force where they are staying.

This shows that someone whose own Church is an Eastern Rite Church,  but who lives in a Western country, is free to observe Lent according to the Latin rite instead of the rite of his own Church.

The question is about someone attending a Latin rite Church, rather than living in  Latin rite territory,  but in practice most Eastern Rite Catholics regularly attending a Latin Rite parish will do so because of where they live, and so I offer this answer.

In years when Easter is the same East and West, Clean Monday  is 2 days prior to Western Ash Wednesday and Eastern Lent ends 2 days before Palm Sunday. This year Eastern Easter is one eeek later. There are obvious disadvantages in fasting according to one calendar but  using the liturgy of another as one could be fasting in preparation for Easter even while celebrating it in church.

Source


When did Joseph Smith first understand the doctrine of eternal progression?

This question is difficult to answer because eternal progression is hard to define. Consider this quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, yet it is fundamental to the LDS worldview. The phrase "eternal progression" first occurs in the discourses of Brigham Young. It embodies many concepts taught by Joseph Smith, especially in his king follett discourse.

If you mean specifically the potential for man to become like God, I can give a fairly specific answer.
A detailed revelation received April 1st, 1832 and recorded in D&C 76 increased Joseph Smith's understanding of the afterlife and man's potential to progress.
LDS Church History states that Joseph Smith and several other men were pondering the significance of John 5:29, which speaks of the resurrection, when he and Sidney Rigdon were shown a vision.
In the original record of the vision, Joseph Smith prefaced the revelation saying how it increased his understanding:

through the power of the spirit our eyes  were opened and our understandings were enlarged

This revelation, among other things, speaks of three degrees of glory that the dead will inherit in the afterlife. Of those who fully follow Christ's gospel, the record says:

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Interestingly, this references earlier scripture. Possibly Ps. 82:6;  John 10:34; or 1 Cor. 8:6.
In any case, this revelation increased Joseph Smiths understanding of eternal progression more than revelations and scripture prior to April 1832.
More specifically, Joseph Smith stated in his preface:

From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.

Regarding Kolob, the earliest reference to it in the Joseph Smith Papers project (which intends to publish all documents written by Joseph Smith) is from circa July to December 1835, the time when Joseph Smith began translation of the Book of Abraham.
Therefore, I think the idea of a place called Kolob was probably not known prior to the translation of the Book of Abraham.


Which books are regarded as puritan spiritual classics?

The ultimate Puritan spiritual classic is The Pilgrim's Progress (1678, 1684) by John Bunyan. It is an allegory for the journey of the individual Christian to God's kingdom, beset by characters like "Mr Worldly Wiseman" and "Lord Hate-good", travelling through places like "Vanity Fair" and "the Slough of Despond". It has had enormous influence in literature and culture. Apparently, it was said that any Puritan household would always possess at least two books: this and the Bible.

Bonus question #1: The idea of 'Praying for the gift of tears' is not original to Puritanism. Evagrius Ponticus, a monk of the fourth century, wrote in his On Prayer (s. 5, trans. Luke Dysinger):

  First of all pray that you may receive tears, so that by means of sorrow you may be able to calm the wildness within your soul; and by confessing your iniquity to the Lord, obtain forgiveness from him.

I don't know the answer to bonus question #2.


What does it mean to “Make a Mission”?

Before going into the what it means to "make a mission", I believe that the modern phrase is to "take part in a mission".

Now let us see what the Catholic Church by teaches with the different term variations of what defines the word: "mission".

  Mission

  The term literally denotes "sending" and covers a variety of meanings, all somehow expressing the idea of a going forth from one person to others in order to effect some beneficial change in their favor. At the highest level are the divine missions of the Trinity: the visible mission of the Second Person, sent by the Father in the person of Jesus Christ, and the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father and the Son. Christ then sent the Apostles to make disciples of all nations. Their mission was to preach the Gospel, baptize, and teach the people "to observe all the commands I gave you" (Matthew 28:19-20). The Apostles, in turn, personally and through their successors have been sending other faithful to continue the work of the Master in evangelizing the human race. Mission, therefore, is the purpose of vocation. All who are called to follow Christ are sent by Christ, in the person of his Church, to extend the Kingdom of God. (Etym. Latin missio, a sending.)

Now, taking this basic definition of what a mission is, let us take a look at the three types of Catholic Missions:

Catholic Missions in pagan or non-Catholic lands
Home Missions
Parish Mission

Ever since the foundation of the Church, the Apostles were sent out as missionaries by Our Lord to all the peoples of the world. In this sense, the Church has always been of apostolic missions, sent to make conversions among pagans and heretics by its very nature. The faithful are encouraged to pray for the evangelization of all who jet to become believers of what the Church professes and as such are also to be considered as missionaries, even if it is only in a passive sense.

  The New Testament missionary outreach of the Christian Church from the time of St Paul was extensive throughout the Roman Empire. - Catholic missions

Home Missions are those missionary activities which take part within a particular diocese or country.

  What Are Home Missions?

  “Home Missions” is the name for dioceses and parishes in the United States, including its territories and former territories, which cannot provide basic pastoral services to Catholics without outside help. Basic pastoral services include Mass and sacraments, religious education, and ministry training for priests, deacons, religious sisters and lay people.

  For many decades, the Church in the United States has sent missionaries overseas to serve the people of Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. The home missions are dioceses and parishes here in the United States that need the same kind of support.

The third type of mission is called the parish mission or parochial mission. This is the type of mission that Dorothy Day was referring to when she stated some Catholics would "take a mission!"

So what is a Parish Mission?

  A Parish Mission is special time in a parish community when the community gathers together to gain further insight into a faith filled life.  It is a time for grace and renewal of the parish through services and talks filled with stories, examples and meaning.

  Every mission will be designed and tailored to the unique needs and requests of the individual parishes. - Why A Parish Mission?

In my home parish we generally have a parish mission that lasts a given by whole week (8 days). Some parishes may have them for 3, 4 or even 5 days. They are usually by a priest from outside the diocese in question are priests that from a Religious Order or who have a great ability to give captivating homilies.

The "missions" are held twice a day (morning and evenings) with the same homilily being preached at both Masses. Generally speaking the sacrament of confession is made available before and after Mass in order to help the spiritual renewal of the parish, both within and outwards. Hopefully the graces received at such a parish mission will manifested themselves through our deeper love and commitment for Christ and his Church.


What Scripture passages do Latter-day Saints use to refute the Trinity?

Joseph Smith History 1:17

  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

In this event, God the Father appeared as one individual introducing Jesus Christ as another separate being. There is no mention of the Holy Ghost but we can be sure he is there. (2 distinct individuals + Holy Ghost)

The Church’s first Article of Faith is:

  “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”

(3 distinct individuals)

Acts 7:55

  But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Holy Ghost within Stephen, Jesus Standing next to God. (3 distinct individuals)

Matthew 3:13-17

  Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
  But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
  And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
  And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
  And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus Christ in the River Jordan, Heavenly Father's voice from Heaven, Holy Ghost descends as a dove (3 distinct individuals)

Other Resources:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/03/comparing-lds-beliefs-with-first-century-christianity?lang=eng

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/godhead


Did God still dwell in the temple while Jesus was on Earth?

If I read this passage in the Book of Exodus correctly, the presence of God was not connected to the Temple, but rather to the Mercy seat, which appears to be the top of the Ark of the Covenant.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  Exodus 25:10  through 22And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about. And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold. And thou shalt put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them. The staves shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it. And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Also if I am reading this passage correctly:

  1st Kings 8:1 through 10  Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion. And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark. And they brought up the ark of the LORD, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up. And king Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel, that were assembled unto him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen, that could not be told nor numbered for multitude. And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims. For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above. And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the oracle, and they were not seen without: and there they are unto this day. There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD,

The Lord's presence in Solomon's Temple began with the Mercy seat upon the Ark of the Covenant being placed in its spot in the Temple, and the exit of the Priests.

As to the question about God being in the Temple during Jesus lifetime the answer is not definitive, but Since that presence appears to be firmly attached to the Ark of the Covenant; and the incidents taking place in the Temple of Baal while the Philistines were in possession of the Ark of the Covenant, seem to validate that; the answer would appear to be no.

The basis for that assumption lies in the fact that the whereabouts of the  Ark of the covenant including the Mercy seat, has not been known since the Ravaging of the Temple, when Israel went into exile in Babylon.

At any rate neither the Ark of the covenant nor the Mercy seat were in the Temple when Jesus was alive, and since if the basic idea that Jesus is a part of the triune God held by many Christian denominations is true there would be no need for the voice of God in the Temple since the word of God was living among man in the form of a man. And since Jesus we have the word of God in the form of the Bible.


Why is Satan called the prince of the power of the air?

I would simply add to Mawia's anwer that the expression "the air" is a way of identifying the evil, sentient beings in the spiritual realm; namely, Satan and his minions, or demons.

The Hebrews believed in, and wrote about, three heavens, and in English we would call them "the firmament," "space," and "the home of God" (or "the highest heaven," as in "God resides in heaven," or "God is enthroned in heaven"; see Isaiah 6:1-7).

Interestingly, the New Testament phrase "in the heavenlies" (or "in the heavenly realms") describes the believers' position or standing IN Christ.  We are seated in the heavenlies with Him by faith at the right hand of God (see Hebrews 8:1; 12:2).  Positionally--that is, in a judicial sense--believers in the eyes of God are IN Christ (see Ephesians 1:3,20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12; and 2 Corinthians 5:17).

By contrast, Satan and his demonic forces, referred to variously in the New Testament as principalities, powers, rulers, authorities, world forces of darkness, and spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places (see Ro 8:38; Eph 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:15; 1 Pet 3:22) occupy, in a sense, the first heaven, although we see the evidence of their work vey clearly on earth, in and through people and perhaps even through some acts of nature (which we sometimes, perhaps mistakenly, call "acts of God"!).

This evidence takes many forms, and not just in obvious ways such as violence, wars, genocide, widespread injustice, and sexual immorality, but also in not-so-obvious ways, as in godless ideologies and worldviews, corrupt and repressive governments, and much more.

Fallen humankind has its own role in the creation and maintenance of wickedness, too.  We cannot claim as comedian Flip Wilson did years ago, "The devil made [us] do it"!  There is an expression "to be in league with the devil," which encapsulates quite well how both Satan (or the devil) and humankind each assumes a degree of culpability, though Satan assumes more, since he instigated the rebellion against God and exerts more influence than we do within the spiritual realm (see Matthew 18:7). Although Satan is a powerful enemy, we are not to fear him (2 Timothy 1:7; 1 John 4:4). We are also to resist him and even on occasions rebuke him in the name of Jesus (see 1 Pe 5:8,9; Jas 4:7; Jude 9).

Moreover, Satan is well organized and systematic in his assault on anything and everything God calls good.  Aided by a hierarchy of demons under his control, the hallmarks of his cosmos--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16)--are evident in every society and culture in the world:  from the blatant consumerism and materialism of the minority world, to the oppressive political and religious regimes in the majority world, the latter of which are manifested in atheistic communism and radical Islam, for example.

Satan is alive and well on planet Earth.  He is organized; his army of demons and unclean spirits is well staffed and well trained, with unwavering loyalty to their "prince; and his mission is clear:  to kill, to steal, and to destroy anything and everything that God has made or is in the process of building, including the universal church of His Son and of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (John 10:10).

Empowered both by Jesus' victory on the cross and by the Holy Spirit's empowering and channeling of the unwavering loyalty of God's ever-expanding family on earth, Satan is a defeated foe (see John 10:10; 1 John 3:8; and Revelation 12:10-12).

In conclusion, we thank God that Satan was dealt a death blow at the cross of Christ, which freed God to "wrap things up" by bringing history as we know it to a close in a way that is consistent with His eternal plan, the counsel of His will, and His holy, righteous, and just character.  In so doing, God will eradicate completely Satan's strongholds in the world and then usher in a new heaven and a new earth where righteousness will reign supreme, where sin will never again intrude, and where Satan will never again spoil what God has called good (see Revelation 20:10 and 21:1).


The messianic community is very diverse and complex, like the various christian denominations.
There is no official body or teaching on how far to apply the mosaic law.
Most of the messianic believers are not that strict orthodox as one might expect (at least not in Israel), to most of them the year of jubilee and the shmitah (every 7th year) does not really apply. However there are some more religious messianics who keep it and for example to not buy fruits and vegetables in the shmitah year from Israel.
This is due to the fact that the laws for the jubilee and the shmitah mostly apply to agricultue, selling and redeeming property (mostly land) and freeing slaves.
Most of these things, except the first one do not apply to the modern society anymore.
However what applies they are trying to keep, due to the understanding that the laws are also give with a reason.


When did the term "New Testament" first come into usage?

It seems that the first written usage of the term "New Testament" comes from the writings of Melito of Sardis (died c.180) and followed by Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 240). The term "New Testament" was coined in the second century.

  Etymology

  The term New Testament is a translation from the Latin Novum Testamentum first coined by the second century Christian writer Tertullian. It is related to the concept expressed by the prophet Jeremiah (31:33), that translates into English as new covenant:

  'The time is coming," declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… '

  This concept of the new covenant is also discussed in the eighth chapter of the Letter to the Hebrews, in which the "old covenant" is portrayed as inferior and even defective (Hebrews 8:7). Indeed, many Christians considered the "old" covenant with the Jews to be obsolete. In Tertullian's day, some even considered the God of the Hebrew Bible to be a very different being than the Heavenly Father of Jesus. Tertullian took the orthodox position, that the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians are one and the same. He therefore wrote:

  "All Scripture is divided into two Testaments. That which preceded the advent and passion of Christ—-that is, the law and the prophets—-is called the Old; but those things which were written after His resurrection are named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New: but yet they are not discordant… (Against Marcion)."

  While Christians have thus come to refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as the Old Testament, Jews prefer the term Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, the latter word being an acronym for its three basic component parts: the Torah (Book of Moses), Nevi'im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). - New Testament (New World Encyclopedia)

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say the New Testament:

  Name

  Testament come from testamentum, the word by which the Latin ecclesiastical writers translated the Greek diatheke. With the profane authors this latter term means always, one passage of Aristophanes perhaps excepted, the legal disposition a man makes of his goods for after his death. However, at an early date, the Alexandrian translators of the Scripture, known as the Septuagint, employed the word as the equivalent of the Hebrew berith, which means a pact, an alliance, more especially the alliance of Yahweh with Israel. In St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) Jesus Christ uses the words "new testament" as meaning the alliance established by Himself between God and the world, and this is called "new" as opposed to that of which Moses was the mediator. Later on, the name of testament was given to the collection of sacred texts containing the history and the doctrine of the two alliances; here again and for the same reason we meet the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. In this meaning the expression Old Testament (he palaia diatheke) is found for the first time in Melito of Sardis, towards the year 170. There are reasons for thinking that at this date the corresponding word "testamentum" was already in use amongst the Latins. In any case it was common in the time of Tertullian. - The New Testament


What are the common arguments against theistic evolution?

The first would be the lack of death prior to the Fall - as recorded in the creation account in Genesis 1-2: God's creation was "very good", and death was a result of the curse on Adam for sinning (Genesis 3:17-19).

If the written account of the Fall is correct (which I would argue it must be for Paul's profuse arguments through Romans (eg 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned") to be sound), then "evolution", as commonly understood with a molecules-to-man transformation, cannot be right.

Romans 8:19-22:

  For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.


What is the history of the "Sunday School publishing industry"?

Sunday School was provided to conscripted labor as a way to become literate on the only day that they had an opportunity. Sunday School was a community service provided by the Churches in Europe, and as an outreach was an effective way to also give children a basis in theology by learning to read from Bible stories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_school is an acceptable summary. Christianity Today adds to this: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/whendidsundayschoolstart.html. Publicly funded schooling in partnership with child labor laws made this outreach take a turn towards the christian education.

To see this kind of Sunday School in action refer to the stories of DL Moody who spent great energy on recruiting street children into pews at the church that he rented in addition to inviting childrent to Sunday School in Chicago.

As an employee of a Sunday School publishing company I can speak to our intent. We provide underequipped and undertrained Sunday School teachers throughout Mexico and Latin America resources to teach with so that the teachers may put more energy and effort into working with the children.

As for the expectations placed on Sunday School teachers I think you may find that many churches only expect their Sunday School teachers to babysit the children so the important adults can be free from distration. I was told several times in one church that my goal was to make kids like church and if they learned some too, that would be ok. Many churches would not be so bold as to say it this way, however their children's ministries budget/volunteers reflect this mindset when compared to the rest of the church budget.

As a reference point consider the following:

Before a child reaches the age of 13 they have made up their mind on all major doctrines and will not change their mind on 90% of them in their entire lifetime.

Children are 5 times more likely to respond to a call to change than an adult.

Children usualy comprise about 30% of the church population.

These claims are pulled from Barna's work on Children's ministries today: http://www.amazon.com/Transforming-Children-Into-Spiritual-Champions/dp/0830732934

Teaching children the Bible in a way that makes them personally applicable, relevant, and meaningful to children is a need that is being met by the Sunday School publishing industry. Group Sunday School Publishing Board


Into how many languages has the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants been translated?

I was going to make this a comment, but it's much too long. I couldn't find official statistics, but I think this is enough to offer as an answer:

Based upon what is currently available, the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants can be purchased separately in the following 11 languages:

Afrikaans
Arabic
Armenian West
Catalan
Croatian
English Braille
Fijian
Greek
Polish
Rarotongan
Tahitian

However, the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants are much more typically combined with The Book of Mormon as the Triple Combination available in the following 33 languages:

Albanian
Armenian East
Bulgarian
Cebuano
Chinese
Chinese (Simplified)
Danish
Dutch
English
Fante
Finnish
French
German
Haitian
Hungarian
Icelandic
Igbo
Ilokano
Indonesian
Italian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Pangasinan
Portuguese
Romanian
Shona
Spanish
Swedish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Vietnamese

By addition, (there are no exact duplicates) both books are currently available from LDS Distribution in 44 languages. By no means does this mean it is not available at least in part in other languages (LDS.org now serves content in your choice of 100 languages, most of which I do not understand).


How many languages has the King James Version been translated into?

In an attempt to obtain a professional answer to this question, I emailed the Trinitarian Bible Society and received the following reply :

  Dear Mr Johnstone,

  Greetings from London. I have never found a valid list or count of translations made strictly from the Authorised (King James) Version. Many people believe that the AV has been translated into multiple languages because of the similarity between it and other translations. However, any translation that is made from the Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text using formal translation principles is going to be very similar to the AV simply because they share these same attributes. In addition, many translations do not state their sources, and some will claim a primary source when that was actually a secondary source—for instance, some claim to be taken from the Greek but instead are translations of an English or other language text using the Greek only as an alternative.

  All the best,

  Debra

  Debra E. Anderson, Ph.D.

  Senior Editor

I fully appreciate this is not a full answer but it seems to me that it is the best answer that anyone is going to be able to give us.


To answer your question, I finally got to reading pope Benedict's spe salvi and it was totally worth it.

First of all, it is "in hope we are saved"

  The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life

-Spe Salvi

A person who hopes has been led out of darkness. Hope gives our works meaning and our life direction. We work to bring about and build up the Kingdom of God here on earth, all the while hoping for a share in it in the next.

The pope relates the story of St Josephine Bakhita, an African saint whose life was almost pure hope.

  She was known and loved and she was awaited. What is more, this master had himself accepted the destiny of being flogged and now he was waiting for her “at the Father's right hand”. Now she had “hope” —no longer simply the modest hope of finding masters who would be less cruel, but the great hope: “I am definitively loved and whatever happens to me—I am awaited by this Love. And so my life is good.” Through the knowledge of this hope she was “redeemed”, no longer a slave, but a free child of God.

Her hope was simply God Himself.  That is Catholic hope, what else could you say the substance of which is Faith?

You do point out some true doctrinal differences between our sects. We don't say that a person can lose their salvation because we don't presume that we had it to begin with.

A person can't become unbaptized, but through intentional evil acts can put themselves outside a state of grace. If one dies outside a state of grace they will go to hell. Don't do this!

But, as Jesus says, the only unforgivable sin is the offense against the Holy Spirit, which is quite simply denying that He has the power to save.  This despair is the virtue which is the opposite of hope.

So I think I wrote enough, maybe someone else will touch on faith and works.  But we believe that if a person has faith they'll show it in the way they live their lives. As the pope says our hope is "performative" not just "informative" it directs our path, it doesn't just fill our brains with lofty notions.  And it is communitive, not individualistic, our hope is to seek the kingdom as a people. Even though we must die alone like Christ, we can help carry each others crosses.  It's not that we do it to earn salvation, we do it in imitation of Jesus and the hope of what lies beyond sends us forth


Jacob and Esau: what is this story all about?

I think that the lesson learned here is essentially the same one as the parenthood dispute in King Solomon's court: regardless of who the blessing actually originally belonged to by birth, it ended up going to the one who could truly appreciate its worth.

We have here the story of Jacob, a man of spiritual sensitivity, contrasted with his brother Esau, who was a hunter.  Hunters are not well-regarded in the Old Testament, (the archetype being Nimrod, the "mighty hunter" who is traditionally equated with the founder of Babylon and the one who directed the construction of the Tower of Babel, and standing in opposition to God and his people,) and we see Esau following the stereotype, caring more for temporal things than for the things of God.

Where his character really shows is in the matter of the birthright.  This was the continuation of the great covenant blessing, given by God to Abraham and then passed down to Isaac, to have a numberless posterity and be the father of many nations, (see Genesis 15 and 17) and, most impressive of all, that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," (Genesis 22:18) which was literally fulfilled by Christ being born through his lineage.

Jacob appreciated these blessings, whereas Esau--who is by this point a grown man able to go out on hunts alone and look after himself--comes across as a petulant child.  You can almost hear the whiny tone in his voice as he says, "who cares about the stupid birthright? I'm starving!" All he cared about in the moment was the needs of the moment, and for that he was willing to sacrifice great eternal blessings.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Esau was his father's favorite.  And as the transaction had occurred between Jacob and Esau in private, with no witnesses, if Jacob were to claim that Esau had sold him the birthright, it would be his word against his brother's.  And as we see from subsequent events, Esau had every intention of taking the birthright that was no longer his, even if it be by force.  Bear in mind, when asking why Jacob used deception to obtain the blessing that was rightfully his, that Esau was willing to use deception (claiming that he was still entitled to it) and worse to obtain it when it was not rightfully his.

As for Isaac's words being powerful enough to change the course of his sons' lives, bear in mind that they aren't ordinary words in this case. They're carrying the weight of a covenant established with the Lord, and the Lord does have the power to change the course of people's lives.


Why is Jesus sitting at "God’s right hand" not "the Father's right hand"?

Since we believe the one God, Yahweh, is triune, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), to refer to any of the persons by simply the word "God," in an unqualified manner is perfectly valid, and even natural.
That is to say, we can mean, for example, "the Son" by 'God' in the phrase "the blood of [God]" (Acts 20:28) without referring explicitly to the Son, of whom it is obviously said, and God understood. Likewise, when St. Peter calls the Holy Spirit "God," but doesn't explicitly say the Holy Spirit, we know that the Holy Spirit is the immediate appositional referent.
"But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. (Acts 5:3-4).
In other words, we rely on context to indicate either which or whether any person in particular is meant by the word.
In John 1, for example, when we hear that God created the world and the Word was He through Whom He made the world, that the first instance of "God" refers to the Father, and the latter to the Son, because the Word is the Son of God, and because of the impossibility of the Father, who is the head of the Trinity (as well as the Spirit who is part of the Trinity) of being excluded from creation where we know the Son was.
Likewise,  in the Old Testament, the Messenger of Yahweh, a mysterious figure who is sent from God, yet is identified as Yahweh himself and himself says he is Yahweh, and is identified as the Saviour. The Fathers of the Church understood this Messenger of the Lord to be Christ before His incarnation, and not an angelic being.
He speaks of God in the third person in the same breath as he says that He is Yahweh, where it is therefore understood to refer to the Father.
So when Jesus is stood on the right side of God, it can only refer to the Father, and so no more specificity is required. In fact, in the New Testament period, to call the Son or Spirit "God" was we do today was a rarity. Instead, in the primitive period in the Church, the Son and Spirit were viewed of with respect to the Father: 'God because from God.' Rather than God 'alongside' the Father as some equally Father-like person, simply because He is co-eternal, or as if there was no actual distinction between the persons. That is, "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God" (Nicene Creed). Even in the Nicene Creed, God is used of the Father here because He is, according to orthodox trinitarian theology, the Source of the Son and the Spirit (meant with respect to relationship - eternal begetting, or eternal proceeding from, not temporality).
For this to be in conflict with the doctrine of the trinity, instances where we do see the Father specified instead of simply saying "God," would have to also conflict with a denial of the Trinity.


How do we reconcile the futility of Ecclesiastes with the reward of heaven?

We reconcile the two by keeping in mind that the "vanity" of Ecclesiastes is being told from the perspective of the world ("under the sun"), and not as a declaration of theological truth.  Ecclesiastes reaches its conclusion in the last two chapters, where we see that, in contrast to all the pursuits of the world which in the end don't amount to anything, lasting value can be found in righteous living, culminating in:

  Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

  13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

  14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

This ending makes it clear that the author does believe in the final judgment, which would be kind of pointless if death was the end of everything.


Why did Jesus not write any scripture himself?

Contrary to what we might think, Jesus did not put teaching at the center of his mission. In fact he spent a lot of effort concealing his message through the use of parables. In fact it was not until close to the end of his days in the flesh on this earth, that he promised to speak clearly by sending the Holy Ghost:

  “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. (John 16:25-26, NIV)

One of the reasons for concealing his message was to keep his enemies in the dark, while giving some explanations to his disciples who would recall them later, after they had received the Spirit to understand. (Mark 4:33-34, John 14:25-26)

It seems that Jesus was more interested in dying and orchestrating the timing of his death than teaching.  His goal with regard to teaching was to be through the Spirit after his death and by the Apostles that he selected. Of couse this does not imply that his words recorded in the gospels are not filled with bottomless gold deposits of wisdom to mine from, but that his actions rather than parables are in the center.

Considering his mission was to die and resurrect and not primarily to teach, except through his Apostles by the Spirit, it seems suitable that he would not write anything.


What are the differences between the translation ideologies of the NASB and ESV?

From the ESV Wikipedia link (emphasis added):

  The result is a translation that is more literal than the popular New International Version, but more idiomatic than the New American Standard Bible.

That's probably the main difference. So ESV is going to be more literal, less figurative and free from exaggeration/embellishment in it's translations and is going to "use, contain or denote expressions that are natural to the native speaker" (idiomatic as defined by dictionary.com).

(My opinion) From what I've read from each of them, the NASB seems to be smoother and more easily understood in modern English. However, with the ESV, it's nice sometimes to get a more clear look at the original meanings/translation.

The most updated version of the NASB was 1995* and the most recent version of ESV is a 2011 edition*.

  "[...] on occasion the ESV translates 'person' or 'one' where previous translations used 'man' [however] it keeps gender specific language [as-is] in the original [text]."*

*from Wikipedia links provided.

Good question, I learned a bit through this short bit of research :)


There is no information on the quality of Jesus' singing

The Catena Aurea includes commentaries on this verse from Origen, Bede, Rabanus, Chrysostom, Hilary, and Jerome and not one of them talk about the quality of Jesus' singing. No other commentaries I found talked about Jesus quality of singing either, nor made reference to any extrabiblical traditions.

On the contrary, Isaiah 53:2 (NIV), which Christians say describes Jesus, says as follows:

  He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

While this passage is referring to his physical appearance being unremarkable, it would follow that "he had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him" also with regards to his singing ability.


Which book of Scripture is most esteemed by the LDS church?

Because Mormons believe in an open canon of scripture (i.e., that God continues to provide scripture through His living prophet), the words of the living prophet (or president of the church) are esteemed more valuable than ancient records. Every six months the leaders of the church formally address the church and their words in these general conferences are considered modern scripture. (see http://gc.lds.org/)

It's important to emphasize that this doesn't devalue the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price. Each is singly taught as the official Sunday School curriculum for a year on a four-year rotation (actually Old Testament; New Testament; Book of Mormon; Church History, incl. Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price; see http://www.lds.org/manual/sunday-school?lang=eng). The words of the living prophet are just considered more timely.

The path to salvation will always be the same (the gospel of Jesus Christ), but present-day temptations like debt and drug use aren't explicitly warned about by Abraham or Noah or Moses because they weren't prevalent during their time. Because they are prevalent today, God speaks His warnings the same way He spoke His warnings in times past, through a living prophet who can and does explicitly condemn things like drug use and excessive consumer debt—modern temptations that can make it difficult to live the teachings of Jesus Christ.

See also: http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng


What is the take of Catholic Church on the dream of Pilate's wife?

There are a few speculations on what exactly this verse means. St. Thomas Aquinas compiled gospel commentaries of Church fathers in the Catena Aurea. I have copied the relevant comments from the Catena below:

  Raban.: It is to be noted, that the bench (tribunal) is the seat of the judge, the throne (solium) of the king, the chair (cathedra) of the master. In visions and dreams the wife of a Gentile understood what the Jews when awake would neither believe nor understand.
  Jerome: Observe also that visions are often vouchsafed by God to the Gentiles, and that the confession of Pilate and his wife that the Lord was innocent is a testimony of the Gentile people.

  Chrys.: But why did Pilate himself not see this vision? Because his
  wife was more worthy; or because if Pilate had seen it, he would not
  have had equal credit, or perhaps would not have told it; wherefore it
  is provided by God that his wife should see it, and thus it be made
  manifest to all. And she not merely sees it, but "suffers many things
  because of him," so that sympathy with his wife would make the husband
  more slack to put Him to death. And the time agreed well, for it was
  the same night that she saw it.

  Chrys., Hom. iii, in Caen. Dom.: Thus then the judge terrified through
  his wife, and that he might not consent in the judgment to the
  accusation of the Jews, himself endured judgment in the affliction of
  his wife; the judge is judged, and tortured before he tortures.

  Raban.: Or otherwise; The devil now at last understanding that he
  should lose his trophies through Christ, as be had at the first
  brought in [p. 942] death by a woman, so by a woman he would deliver
  Christ out of the hands of His enemies, lest through His death he
  should lose the sovereignty of death.

  Chrys.: But none of the foregoing things moved Christ's enemies,
  because envy had altogether blinded them, and of their own wickedness
  they corrupt the people, for they "persuaded the people that they
  should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus."

  Gloss., non occ.: Pilate is said to make this answer, "Whether of the
  twain will ye that I release unto you?" either to the message of his
  wife, or the petition of the people, with whom it was a custom to ask
  such release on the feast-day.


Why is it so much easier to sin than follow Jesus?

Pious Christians tend to overlook a very simple truth about sin.   In the short term, it is fun.

And why is it fun?  Because as Jesus said (John 3:19):

  Men love darkness, rather than the light.

And why do men love darkness rather than light?  Solomon noted (Proverbs 14:12):

  There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death

Simply put:

It is fun to be the one in charge.
It is fun to get your own way.
It is fun to experience sensations that are new - even if they are not what God intended.

But in the end, it's not worth it.

Ultimately, all sin comes down to one question - Will you trust God or yourself?  And tell me - who wouldn't naturally - absent God's direct intervention - choose one's self?

The very first temptation that the Serpent told Eve was that the apple was good.

  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.

In this, and this may be shocking - the Serpent did not lie.  He merely omitted the long term consequences.  In the short term, all sin seems to have a positive reinforcement.

Ecclesiastes 8 says it well:

  11When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong. 12Although a wicked person who commits a hundred crimes may live a long time, I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him. 13Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them, and their days will not lengthen like a shadow.

Finally, it should be understood that sin is not a defect of will - it is a defect of love.  John 14 15 says:

  If you love me, keep my comamndments.


How does one reconcile the idea that physical disability is the result of sin with Exodus 4:11?

In the post that you are referring to, it is possible that when the person says "disability is the sad result of sin in the world" they are referring to the perfect vs. post-perfect world in Genesis with Adam and Eve. God created Adam and Eve in His own image ( Genesis 1:27) and after the fall death entered the world through sin (Romans 5:12); therefore, physical disability must have come from sin eventually because sin entered through us all from Adam and Eve.

However, this might not be of what they were referring when they said "disability is the sad result of sin in the world." I do not think that disability is a direct result of your sin or the inherited sin of your fathers NECESSARILY. I will conclude with two points.

1 God does what He wants.

  For I know that the Lord is great,
      and that our Lord is above all gods.
  6 Whatever the Lord pleases, he does,
      in heaven and on earth,
      in the seas and all deeps.
  7 He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth,
      who makes lightnings for the rain
      and brings forth the wind from his storehouses. - Psalm 135:5-7

2 God is smarter than we are.

  For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
      neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
  9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
      so are my ways higher than your ways
      and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isiah 55:8-9

That's why disability exists, plain and simple. Because God said it does. Because sometimes it brings Him Glory even if we can't see it.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that Mary is the mother of God?

Short answer

There is no usage of the title "Mother of God" in the Bible. The title was used for Mary as early as AD 250-280 and was made official church teaching at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Advocates wanted to use that title, as opposed to the alternative "Mother of Christ", to affirm the doctrine of Incarnation (that Jesus Christ is the second person in the Trinity), which has its own biblical basis (e.g. John 1). In other words, the title "Mother of God" is less about Mary and more about Jesus' divinity.

Long answer

Let's start by working backwards from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which does a decent job of sourcing its theology). All bolded text is my own emphasis.

A few sections after the one you mentioned is an explanation of the devotion of to Mary. CCC §971 explains why she is considered blessed, and why she is given the title "Mother of God"

  CCC §971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517

  515 Lk 1:48; Paul VI, MC 56.
  516 LG 66.
  517 Cf. Paul VI, MC 42; SC 103.

The claim we are interested in is the one that is cited by footnote 516, which cites "LG 66". Looking at the list of abbreviations, we see that this refers to the 66th section of Lumen gentium, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1964. Section 66 shares much of the reasoning we see in the Catechism.

  66. Placed by the grace of God, as God's Mother, next to her Son, and exalted above all angels and men, Mary intervened in the mysteries of Christ and is justly honored by a special cult in the Church. Clearly from earliest times the Blessed Virgin is honored under the title of Mother of God, under whose protection the faithful took refuge in all their dangers and necessities.(21*) Hence after the Synod of Ephesus the cult of the people of God toward Mary wonderfully increased in veneration and love, in invocation and imitation, according to her own prophetic words: "All generations shall call me blessed, because He that is mighty hath done great things to me".(301) This cult, as it always existed, although it is altogether singular, differs essentially from the cult of adoration which is offered to the Incarnate Word, as well to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it is most favorable to it. The various forms of piety toward the Mother of God, which the Church within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine, according to the conditions of time and place, and the nature and ingenuity of the faithful has approved, bring it about that while the Mother is honored, the Son, through whom all things have their being (302) and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell,(303) is rightly known, loved and glorified and that all His commands are observed.

  (21) Sub tuum praesidium
  301 Lk. 1:48.
  302 Cf. Col. 1:15-16.
  303 Col 1:19.

Thus we hit a bit of a dead end as the Catholic Church affirms its usage of the title "Mother of God" not on scripture, but rather the fact that it existed in early works such as Sub tuum praesidium, the oldest surviving hymn to Mary, which has been dated AD 250-280. It was originally written in Greek, with the English text being as follows:

  Beneath your compassion,
  We take refuge, O Mother of God:
  do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
  but rescue us from dangers,
  only pure, only blessed one.

"Blessed one" in the last line is a reference to Luke 1:48: "For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; / behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." This verse was also cited in the CCC and Lumen gentium.

So it's clear from the Catholic Church's lack of scripture on these points in their official doctrines that there is no biblical basis for Mary having the title "Mother of God".

However, we get some insight if we look at when the title "Mother of God" (Greek "Theotokos", alternative translations would be "God-bearer" or "Birth Mother of God") was affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The principal opponent to this view was Nestorius, who argued that Mary should instead be called "Mother of Christ" (Greek "Christotokos").

Basically, Nestorius rejected the idea that a sinful, human mother could give birth to a sinless, divine Logos (today, the Church teaches the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which solves at least part of his claim). His opponents advocated that Jesus is fully God, the second person of the Trinity (based on scripture like John 1), and advocated the title "Mother of God" to affirm this. To be clear, they mean God the Son, and not all three parts of the Trinity. The council resulted in the decree "Anyone who dares to deny the Holy Virgin the title Theotokos is Anathema!" Nestorius refused to recant and was labeled a heretic.

So to recap:

The title "Mother of God" is not used in scriptures
The Catholic Church recognizes that early Christians used the title, such as in a hymn dated AD 250-280
The Council of Ephesus in 431 declared it anathema to deny Mary the title "Mother of God"
The title was advocated for (as opposed to alternatives like "Mother of Christ") to emphasize the doctrine that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity

So Mary being the "Mother of God" is less about Mary's status and more about Jesus being the second person of the Trinity (and therefore Jesus being God). Thus if Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God.


These are excerpts from Psalm 132 (in the Catholic numbering), praising the fact that God chose to make His home in Jerusalem. Alternating the verse text with the psalm (in the New American Bible, Revised Edition translation), we get:

  The Lord swore an oath to David,
  he will not go back on his word:
  'A son, the fruit of your body,
  Will I set upon your throne.'

  The LORD swore an oath to David in truth,
  he will never turn back from it:
  “Your own offspring I will set upon your throne."  (Verse 11)

Next:

  For the Lord has chosen Zion;
  He has desired it for his dwelling:
  'This is my resting place forever,
  Here have I chosen to live."

  Yes, the LORD has chosen Zion,
  desired it for a dwelling:
  This is my resting place forever;
  here I will dwell, for I desire it. (Verse 13–14)

Finally:
.

  There David's stock will flower:
  I will prepare a lamp for my anointed.
  I will cover his enemies with shame,
  But on him my crown shall shine.

  There I will make a horn sprout for David;
  I will set a lamp for my anointed.
  His foes I will clothe with shame,
  but on him his crown shall shine. (Verse 17–18)


Is one who is "least in the kingdom of heaven" still in heaven?

There are several teachings that indicate that there will be rewards in Heaven. Most commonly this is in reference to the Bema Seat. The statement of "least" and "greatest" in heaven is a art of that belief. Being "great" would imply that you've earned it as a reward for meekness, faithfulness, humility, etc.

More here:

http://www.precepts.com/StudyMaterials/Outlines/EndTimes/Our_Rewards_in_Heaven.html
http://www.bible-knowledge.com/rewards-in-heaven/
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/rewards_in_heaven.html

Excerpt from the last:

  This article is essentially a continuation of The Bema or Judgment
  Seat of Christ... Unfortunately many Christians, draw the conclusion
  that since all our sins have been forgiven, our works cannot possibly
  be considered at the judgment Seat of Christ.. Not true according to I
  Corinthians 3:9-13.

  Ips-Bar

  Introduction Rewards [mis-thos'] in the Bible means pay for service…
  literally or figuratively, good or bad…  exemplified by Revelation
  22:12...
   - "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work" (Revelation 22:12).

  The following two verses are one example each of good and bad.

  And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes,
  sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with
  you;  Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin;
  beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous
  practices; cursed children:  Which have forsaken the right way, and
  are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who
  loved the wages of unrighteousness; [2Peter 2:13-15]
  Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. [1Corinthians 3:8].

  The wicked are also ‘rewarded’, but this article concerns itself
  solely with the ‘good’ rewards’.

  Rewards Vs. Salvation It will be well to make it clear from the outset
  that Salvation and Rewards are two totally different things. Salvation
  is a free gift, but rewards are earned by our works after we are
  saved. The Bible clearly teaches good works will not get us into
  heaven. Salvation [forgiveness of sin and entrance to heaven]  is
  based on Jesus’ work on the cross and God shows no partiality
  regarding salvation (Acts 10:34).  [See Salvation].

  However, the Bible also makes it clear that the saved will also
  receive rewards in Heaven over and above forgiveness and eternal life,
  and that the level of reward will be based on works done here on
  earth. Apparently there are those that will make it to heaven, but who
  have earned little or no additional rewards. Right after assuring us
  that salvation is not by works in Ephesians 2, Paul says this, "We are
  God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God
  prepared in advance for us to do".

  It is the consistent teaching of the New Testament that God promises
  to reward believers for their good works… mentioned explicitly in many
  verses!

  "The Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works" (Matthew
  16:27).
  "[God] will render to each one according to his deeds" (Romans 2:6).
  "He who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor" (1 Corinthians 3:8).
  Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding (excelling) in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil
  is not in vain in the Lord. [1 Corinthians 15:58]
  Whatever you are doing, work at it with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not for people, because you know that you will receive your
  inheritance from the Lord as the reward. Serve the Lord Christ.
  [Colossians 3:23-24]

  And implied in many more…

  yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
  Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate
  you from their company, and reproach you, and cast out your name as
  evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice in that day, and leap for
  joy: for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for in the same
  manner did their fathers unto the prophets. But woe unto you that are
  rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you, ye that are
  full now! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you, ye that laugh now! for ye
  shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of
  you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.
  (Luke 6:20-26).
  knowing that whatsoever good thing each one doeth, the same shall he receive again from the Lord, whether he be bond or free. (Ephesians
  6:8).
  whatsoever ye do, work heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that from the Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the
  inheritance: ye serve the Lord Christ. (Col 3:23-25).
  "God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints,
  and do minister" (Hebrews 6:10).

  Some of the good works mentioned in Scripture which will be rewarded
  include

  perseverance under persecution (Luke 6:22-23), caring for the needy (Matthew 25:34-36), treating enemies kindly (Luke 6:35), prayer
  (Matthew 6:6), fasting (Matthew 6:18), and generous giving (Matthew
  19:21).


Do proponents of Federal Vision believe that there is no hope of salvation without baptism?

"That depends." Most FVers define salvation as "the state of being joined to Christ through membership in the Church." If baptism is the event that initiates this, then baptism is the means of salvation defined in this way.
From the Federal Vision Joint Statement:

We affirm that membership in the one true Christian Church is visible and objective, and is the possession of everyone who has been baptized in the Triune name and who has not been excommunicated by a lawful disciplinary action of the Church.
We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church.

So no, I don't think this is an accurate characterization, at least based on official FV statements that I've heard. Lots of disagreement seems to come up because both sides work from different sets of terms.
Also, there can be many abnormal circumstances, such as the thief on the cross, where baptism is not possible.


Has a pope ever been corrected publicly by a non-cleric in the presence of cardinals because of the unclear wording of a papal document?

It has happened to the present Pope.
Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea, Doctor at the Center for Diagnosis and Treatment-Victor Babes and President of the Association of Catholic Doctors of Bucharest (Romania) made the following speech to the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, at which the Pope was present, on Friday 16 October 2015.
The doctor "confronted the pope" regarding his "inversion of priorities" in Laudato Si', saying "Evil in this world comes from sin, not from income disparity or 'climate change'."

Your Holiness, Synod Fathers, Brothers and Sisters, I represent the Association of Catholic Doctors from Bucharest.
I am from the Romanian Greek Catholic Church.
...
Classical Marxism pretended to redesign society, through violent take-over of property.
Now the revolution goes deeper; it pretends to redefine family, sex identity and human nature.
This ideology calls itself progressive. But it is nothing else than the ancient serpent’s offer, for man to take control, to replace God, to arrange salvation here, in this world.
It’s an error of religious nature, it’s Gnosticism.
It’s the task of the shepherds to recognize it, and warn the flock against this danger.
“Seek ye therefore first the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.”
The Church’s mission is to save souls. Evil, in this world, comes from sin. Not from income disparity or “climate change”.
The solution is: Evangelization. Conversion.
Not an ever increasing government control. Not a world government. These are nowadays the main agents imposing cultural Marxism to our nations, under the form of population control, reproductive health, gay rights, gender education, and so on.
What the world needs nowadays is not limitation of freedom, but real freedom, liberation from sin. Salvation.
...
Now we need Rome to tell the world: “Repent of your sins and turn to God for the Kingdom of Heaven is near”.
Not only us, the Catholic laity, but also many Christian Orthodox are anxiously praying for this Synod. Because, as they say, if the Catholic Church gives in to the spirit of this world, it is going to be very difficult for all the other Christians to resist it.
— Reported in LifeSiteNews


Why did Nehemiah need to tell us that the Queen was sitting beside the King?

In this Matthew Henry commentary over on blueletterbible.org (a great research site!), he notes evidence from the book of Esther that it seemed to be uncommon for the queen to be in the king's presence in a Persian court.  Henry suggests that the queen had some interest or motive for being there, whether she was perhaps a false friend trying to hinder Nehemiah's (and God's) purposes, or an honest ally trying to advance them.  Henry notes that either way it's significant and a credit to God:  either He allowed the request to succeed in spite of a troublesome queen, or He aided its success by making sure the helpful queen was there.

Based on my own personal experiences I think that second option is worth considering.  When I find myself in a potentially contentious situation -- say, being rearended by some teenager who had his nose buried in his phone instead of watching the road -- I'm more prone to be temperate and generous in my responses if my wife's with me, vs. if I'm in the car alone.  The king's merciful and generous response to Nehemiah's request might have been subtly prompted in the same way.


If God is omniscient how can he "Forget our Sins"?

The Bible uses many images to express the message it want to convey.

In exemple the Bible uses body part to explain the action of God.

  They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt. 2 And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, 3 and the people of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger."

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ex 16:1–3). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

  6 this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses that the LORD, the God of Israel, had given, and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was on him.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ezr 7:6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

But the Bible maintains that God is a spirit and He does not have body parts like hand in the example above. The is a literary exercise called Anthropomorphism (wiki)

In your question it is the same scheme that is used. The biblical author used and image that we could easily understand "forget" to express that God will not impute the consequences of our sins. Since He decide not to judge us according to our sins it is the same has saying that he does forget them.


According to universalist Christians, is ill-will directed towards the devil virtuous?

Jude 1:8-10 says:

Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.

It is difficult, perhaps even impossible, for a person to harbor hatred, contempt, and ill-will towards another entity without an underlying basis of judgement.  Using the Scriptures as a guide and relying on the sensitivity of the Holy Spirit we are to judge between good and evil (particularly as we examine ourselves) and we are to hate evil and love good but we are never to pronounce judgement upon another entity.
The Scripture is clear:

Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly. - Deut. 32:35

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:19-21

The Lord God Almighty sees and remembers all and He reckons everything rightly without respect of person.  We may resist the devil, we should flee temptation, we should avoid people acting wickedly and work out our own salvation with fear and trembling but when we judge another entity we step into God's purview and this is what makes that sort of judgement blasphemous.
If Michael the Archangel is lauded in Scripture for refraining from such presumption we should stay well clear of it ourselves.


What is the LDS Law of Common Consent and why is it important?

[The Law of Common Consent] is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside.1

Scriptural Basis:

Doctrine & Covenants 20:65-those ordained need the vote of the church
Doctrine & Covenants 26:2-probable first use of 'common consent'
Exodus 24:3-people agree to do what Moses tells them is from God
Numbers 27:19-Joshua placed before the priest and congregation
Acts 15:25-chosen men sent with Paul and Barnabas
Mosiah 29:26- Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right
Alma 29:4-God grant unto us our desires, good or evil

Elder Loren C. Dunn explained the responsibilities that accompany the sustaining process (this answers why it is important):

  When we sustain officers, we are given the opportunity of sustaining those whom the Lord has already called by revelation. … The Lord, then, gives us the opportunity to sustain the action of a divine calling and in effect express ourselves if for any reason we may feel otherwise. To sustain is to make the action binding on ourselves to support those people whom we have sustained. When a person goes through the sacred act of raising his arm to the square, he should remember, with soberness, that which he has done and commence to act in harmony with his sustaining vote both in public and in private

Another good article on this subject is The Law of Common Consent, by Matthew O. Richardson. While it may not be official LDS doctrine it is well written with several citations to scriptures, prophets, and history of this practice.

1 https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng


Did the pre-Christian Greek Bible contain only the five books of Moses?

No, the entirety, more or less,1 of the Old Testament seems to have had a Greek version or translation since the second century at least, based on the translator's Prologue to the Greek version of Ben Sira (a.k.a Wisdom of Sirach and Ecclesiasticus).
In a collection of papers on the Book (from 2006),2 it is taken for granted that the rest of the Books of the Old Testament already existed by the second century B.C., in what we would (loosely) call a Septuagint version, that is, the Greek Old Testament.
Discussing the translator's own feeling that the Greek into which he was translating the original Hebrew did not have "the same force" (ισοδψναμει) (Prologue) as the original language itself (the Hebrew), the author of one paper3 writes:

In [his prologue] the grandson of Ben Sira brings the Biblical books as an example for the difference between original and translation:

ου μονον δε  ταυτα αλλα και αυτος ο μονος και αι προφητειαι και τα λοιπα των βιβλιων ου μικραν εχει την διαφοραν τον εαυτοις λεγομενα ("That is true not only for this book but also the Law itself, the Prophets, and the rest of the books differ no little in the original.")

The way the Hebrew original is introduced at the end of the argument shows that the comparison proceeds from the Greek and not from the Hebrew version of the Law, the Prophecies, and the remaining books. This proves, that the grandson of Ben Sira believed his Greek readers to be familiar with the Greek version of these books, but ignorant of the Hebrew text.

(emphasis mine)
I think from this we have a strong case for the existence of an entire Greek Old Testament, not just the Law or Torah; as well as a readership aquainted with it, and even ignorant of the orginal Hebrew (if not Hebrew itself, then at least the original Hebrew versions themselves). We are left to opine as to who this readership is, although Alexandrian or Diaspora Jews (cf. Jn 7:35; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1) fit the bill quite well.4

1 Unfortunately, based on the following alone as the evidence, we cannot be more specific. In the least, every section of the Old Testament was completed.
2 Studies in the Book of Ben Sira (Géza G. Xeravits, Jószef Zsengellér), 2006.
3 ibid. p. 51. "The Pre-eminence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging Concept of the 'Ideal Text' in Late Second Temple Jerusalem" (a paper by Stefan Schorch)—I had to transcribe the quote myself, so I couldn't include breathing marks and so forth, whereas the original has such. The author seems to have made a typographical error, having "Prophecies" were it should say "Prophets"(especially in concordance with what precedes it, and the fact that the first letter is upper-case. He also omits a what would be a heplful ellipsis after the Greek; the rest of the sentence continues: "[have no small difference,] when they are spoken in their own language."
4 "[I]...using great watchfulness and skill in that space to bring the book to an end, and set it forth for them also, which in a strange country are willing to learn, being prepared before in manners to live after the law" would seem to imply a Jewish readership.


Does the Orthodox Church accept Gay marriage and why?

According to  this article from the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, marriage should be reserved for a man with a woman, and struggle with homosexual desires can have benefit to a person's spiritual growth.

  How is the Christian to understand the appeal for homosexual marriage? Persons with a homosexual orientation are invited to use their struggle as a means of sanctification. In scripture homosexual behavior is not blessed by God and specifically prohibited: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18: 22); and from St. Paul: "... because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men ... " (Romans 1:25-27). This is not the same thing as saying that a person who struggles with same-sex desire has lower value in the eyes of God. The focus is on the behavior, not the person.

this post is an example of gay marriage ceremony with Orthodox Church traditions, but it makes it clear that it was not performed in a non-Orthodox church building, and the church's website confirms that the officiating pastor was not Orthodox.


What's the difference between the Gospel and the Bible?

First, the Bible is the entire collection of Jewish scripture (known by Christians as the "Old Testament") and Christian scripture (which also includes the "New Testament") as recognized by modern Christian groups.  Most Protestant Christian groups recognize 66 "books" (or individual pieces of literature) as their Bible. Greek Orthodox and Catholics recognize 73.  See the Wikipedia entry for Bible for a more in-depth look of what is contained within the Bible, and how various groups have different definitions.

Now, moving on to the term "Gospel."  The term "Gospel" has two meanings within Christianity.

One of the books of the Bible which tells the story of Jesus' life.  The four gospels are Gospels of (or according to) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  In this sense, the term "Gospel" serves to designate these four books (and some groups include additional gospels) as distinct from the other types of books contained in the Bible.

In this sense, the Gospels (plural) are part of the Bible.
"The Gospel" also means simply "The Good News."  So when someone says "Jesus preached the Gospel," they don't mean "Jesus told the story of his life," but they mean "Jesus preached the Good News."  That "Good News" is essentially that God forgives sins.  It can also be considered the entire story of the Bible, including the details of man's rebellion against God, and God's desire and attempt to redeem man.

In this sense, the Gospel (singular) is either:

specifically, the message that Jesus came to redeem man.
generally, the entire message of the Bible.  In this sense, The Bible is to "The Gospel" as Moby-Dick is to "the story of Captain Ahab's quest for the White Whale."   That is, the former is the title of the book, and the latter is a description of the story the book tells.


Where does the Scripture say that you need to be in the state of Divine Grace in order to go to Heaven?

If I am correct, the Catholic Church teaches that you need to be in the state of Divine Grace at the moment of your death if you wish to go to Heaven.

Not only the Catholic Church, but the Bible itself teaches that you must be in a state of grace or status gratiae at the moment of your death if you wish to go to Heaven.

In Rom. 5:1-2, the apostle Paul wrote,

  Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God by our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we also have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

The Greek εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμε, meaning "into this grace wherein we stand," is the basis for the idea of a "state of grace" or Latin status gratiae.1 If you are not in a state of grace, that is, if you do not stand in grace, then you are not saved; you are not justified by faith.

  If you are not, then you are automatically cursed for all Eternity and go straight to Hell.

Actually, this is true. If you do not stand in grace, you will suffer eternal torment in Gehenna ("Hell"). The logical corollary of Rom. 5:2 is that if you do not stand in grace, then you do not have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, for it is "by faith" (τῇ πίστει) that one may have "access" (προσαγωγή) to stand in grace. Ergo, if you do not have faith in order to have access to stand in grace, then neither do you have peace with God, nor are you justified by faith (cp. Rom. 5:1).

If you have faith,

you are justified
you have peace with God
you have access to stand in grace

If you do not stand in grace,

you do not have peace with God
you are not justified
you do not have faith

The consequence of the latter is eternal torment in Gehenna.

All this being said, I think you should also know that one may stand in grace (i.e., a state of grace) yet be a sinner. However, if we sin, we must confess and repent of our sins, and "he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Sin defiles (Mark 7:23), thus the corollary is that if we do not confess and repent of our sins, we are defiled with unrighteousness, but "nothing that defiles shall enter into it" (Rev. 21:27), that is, God's kingdom and New Jerusalem. For those standing in grace who sin without confessing and repenting their sin(s) before death, they must still be purified from the unrighteousness of their sins after death by enduring Purgatory (purification).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1030, states,

  All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

Footnotes

The Latin is in gratiam istam in qua stamus. The word stamus is a verb conjugated from the lemma sto. The word status is a noun related to the verb sto; it means "place; position; state; status."


How can we trust the Bible after it has been translated to another language?

The different between the Quran and the Christian Bible is that the Islam teaches that the Quran was dictated in Arabic and written down - in only one language and thus saying and reading it in this language is deemed more valuable.

The Christian bible was written by men, inspired by God, having their own style, grammar and vocabularly. i.e. the greek of Luke (who was an educated man) is quite different to the greek of Mark (who wasn't educated).

Furthermore, the bible was written in 3 languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

The new Testament writers quoted from a translation of the bible. The Septuagint is a greek translation of the old testament which the N.T writers used as their old testament scriptures, so they were already using a translation.

So it is more the message of what is being said rather than the words themselves that are important.

Yes, some details and nuances of the original are lost in translation, the general gist and message can still be conveyed accurately and authoritatively.


What is the earliest use of the phrase "the Lord's law of health" in reference to the LDS Word of Wisdom?

Probably 1978 for the exact wording though phrases like 'law of health' have been used before.

No where can I find extensive or official reference to "the Lord's law of health" beyond

Brigham Young Journal of Discourses (referenced law of health)(1854-86)
Gospel Principles (1978)
The Lord Has Given Us a Law of Health (Ensign 2012)
The Lord Needs you Now (Ensign 2015)
Gospel Topics: Word of Wisdom (probably after 2000?)

As to why the Word of Wisdom is referred to in this way it has probably nothing to do with the promises you mention but rather the commands to:

Abstain from:

drinking wine or strong drink (v5)
tobacco (v8)
hot drinks (v9) (specifically tea and coffee1)

Good/ordained:

wholesome herbs (v10)
meat, sparingly (v12)
grain, fruit (v14, v16)

I'll also echo OP comment that this was given

  In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation

1 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/08702_eng.pdf?lang=eng 21.3.11