What is the Biblical basis for using the names "Yeshua" and "Yehoshua" (Joshua) for Jesus?

This is, as noted, primarily a question about Semitic languages in the First Century. However, as it happens, there is a Biblical record of the relationship between the Semitic name yĕhôšūaʿ and the Greek Iēsous, the diachronic shift that produced yēšûaʿ, and the equation of yēšûaʿ with Iēsous.1

Background

The New Testament is in Koine Greek. Jesus's name here is written as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous).1 However, it is generally accepted that Jesus spoke primarily Aramaic and/or Hebrew. Determining the precise sounds that Jesus and his friends used to pronounce his name (which is, I suppose, the basis of the preference of the group described in the question) entails speculation about the Hebrew or Aramaic name that corresponds to the Greek name recorded in the Gospels. In this case, whether they were speaking Hebrew or Aramaic is probably not so important. (See below.)

Insights from Septuagint Joshua

As noted in this question and another related question, the name yĕhôšūaʿ is used most frequently in the Bible to the man who served as Moses's "assistant" during the wilderness period and subsequently led the Israelite people into Canaan, as recorded in the eponymous book. This name is transliterated consistently into the Greek of the Septuagint as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous). Yĕhôšūaʿ, though, has an additional syllable compared to yēšûaʿ, so we remain one step away from a full explanation.

Insights from Late Biblical Hebrew

The Biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles provide the link we need. These books were composed during the Persian period (539 - 332 BCE) and so occasionally provide information about the transition between the language of the earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible and the dialect spoken in the first century. In these books, the name yĕhôšūaʿ is used only once, in reference to Moses's assistant (1 Chr 7:27). Otherwise, the name yēšûaʿ is used, most often (only?) to refer to the son of Jozadak, a man referred to in Haggai and Zechariah as yĕhôšūaʿ. This occurs both in Hebrew and in the Aramaic portion of Ezra.2

Starting with Ezra 2:2:

  ESV: They came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah...
  Hebrew: ʾăšer-bāʾû ʿim-zĕrubbāḇel yēšûaʿ nĕḥemyāh...
  Greek: hoi ēlthon meta Zorobabel; Iēsous, Neemias...

Yēšûaʿ, then, is a shortened form of yĕhôšūaʿ that was more commonly used later periods. In addition to being capable of an identical referent, both are translated identically into Greek: Iēsous.3

Notes

1. I use throughout the technical transliteration style set out by the Society for Biblical Literature. The transliterations in "normal" Latin characters offered in this question and others are no less "correct" (š = sh), but this system has the advantage of precisely representing each Hebrew consonant and vowel with 1:1 correspondence.

2. In Hebrew: Ezra 2:2, 6, 36, 40; 3:2, 8-9; 4:3; 8:33; 10:18; Neh 3:19; 7:7, 11, 39, 43; 8:7, 17; 9:4-5; 10:10; 12:1, 7-8, 10, 24, 26; 1 Chr 24:11; 2 Chr 31:15. In Aramaic: Ezra 5:2.

3. As it happens, in the Septuagint the Greek translation of yēšûaʿ (Iēsous) behaves slightly more like the New Testament's Iēsous than does the Greek translation of yĕhôšūaʿ. Although identical in the nominative case, the Greek term is only partly declinable in the NT: the dative and genitive share the form Iēsou. This is also true in the Greek translations of yēšûaʿ in Chronicles, etc. On the other hand, the dative is (usually) distinguished in the book of Joshua (yĕhôšūaʿ) as Iēsoî.


What does "holy thing" refer to in Leviticus?

"Holy" = "Set Apart (for a Special Purpose)"

"Holy" (qodesh, 6944 קֹדֶשׁ ) means "set apart (for a special purpose)." Its synonyms, like "consecrated" and "sacred" mean the same thing.

In the context of Leviticus 22:10, God is speaking of sacrifices.

  be careful with the holy gifts of the sons of Israel, which they dedicate to Me

Many of the sacrifices that the Israelites were to make gave a portion to the priests and Levites. (Ex 29, Nu 18) These were only to be eaten by (ceremonially clean) priests and levites. They were "holy" because they had been given to God.


The Revised Common Lectionary (by far the most common, used by Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, and others) is a three year cycle, and if you attend every Sunday, you are guaranteed to hear selections from every book of the canon, but not necessarily the entirety of each book.

That said, there are several texts you will hear repeated, either for their suitability to certain parts of the church year, or because of their relative importance.

Finally, if you read the daily lectionary (a 2-year cycle), you will cover much more of the bible, but there will still be some parts (1 Chronicles 1-10, I'm looking at you!) that will still be missed.

As a Baptist turned Episcopalian turned back Baptist, I can say that I was surprised at how much more Scripture one hears in a lectionary setting. It is a nice discipline, but it is not exactly the same as reading the Bible through in a year.


What is the difference between Hell and Lake of Fire?

In the commentaries and studies that I'm familiar with, this isn't to be taken as two literally different places,this is merely a literary device. (And this coming from a self-described Biblical literalist.)

For example, from The Pulpit Commentary on the Bible Hub page:

  (2) The sea being a type of the ungodly nations, the sentence may mean
  those spiritually dead, but living on the earth at the time of the
  judgment. The next clause seems to support this view. And death and
  hell delivered up the dead which were in them; death and Hades (see
  Revelation 1:18; Revelation 6:8). As in Revelation 6:8, the two -
  really one - are mentioned separately, the latter being looked upon as
  the guard house of those whom the former has seized. This clause,
  taken in conjunction with the preceding one, may mean - From the
  ungodly nations, those physically living but spiritually dead were
  called up for judgment, and also those who were actually dead, having
  been seized by death and Hades.

Also, from Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  death and hell—Greek, "Hades." The essential identity of the dying and risen body is hereby shown; for the sea and grave give up their
  dead. The body that sinned or served God shall, in righteous
  retribution, be the body also that shall suffer or be rewarded. The
  "sea" may have a symbolical [Cluver from Augustine], besides the
  literal meaning, as, in Re 8:8; 12:12; 13:1; 18:17, 19; so "death" and
  "hell" are personifications (compare Re 21:1). But the literal sense
  need hardly be departed from: all the different regions wherein the
  bodies and souls of men had been, gave them up.

Matthew McGee has a fairly comprehensive teaching on Hell that would seem toagree.

  The English word "Hell" refers to a place of eternal punishment for
  the wicked. Its meaning does not distinguish between the two separate
  places for the wicked to be punished, one temporary for the soul, and
  the other, the Lake of Fire, permanent for the soul and body. Nor does
  its meaning include the place of comfort for saints prior to Christ's
  resurrection. In normal English conversation, "Hell" is used only in
  the negative sense, with no saved people ever going there.


Why did Theodore of Mopsuestia interpret John 20:28 as an exclamation?

It is difficult to judge the motives of Theodore, but his reluctance to say that the Apostle Thomas confessed the divinity of Christ probably stems from his Christology.
Theodore was a sustainer of the Logos-anthropos or Antiochene Christological school, which tried to understand the Incarnation as the union of the Word with a man (Greek: ánthropos). The Antiochene school used this model in order to emphasize the completeness of what (we would call) Jesus’ human nature.
A possible pitfall, however, is emphasizing the completeness of the human nature so much as to affirm that Jesus is (in addition to a Divine Person or Hypostasis) a human person: that is the error of Nestorius.
It is debatable whether Theodore actually intended to teach this error;* nevertheless, that is certainly how the Second Council of Constantinople interpreted his commentary on John 20:28:

If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has said that the Word of God is one person, but that another person is Christ … [and] likewise has said that the profession of faith made by Thomas when he had, after the resurrection, touched the hands and the side of the Lord, viz.: My Lord and my God, was not said in reference to Christ, but that Thomas, filled with wonder at the miracle of the resurrection, thus thanked God who had raised up Christ …: let him be anathema (Acts of the Second Council of Constantinople, Can. 12, Denzinger-Hünermann 434).

The Council here is interpreting Theodore as espousing a Nestorian-like distinction between the Person of the Word and Jesus’ (supposed) human person. If this is the case, Theodore is effectively arguing that the Apostle Thomas cannot call the human Jesus “God,” because the human Jesus is merely a human person (not a Divine Person, as orthodox Christology holds).

* The Antiochene, or Logos-anthropos, model is not necessarily heretical. We still see echoes of it in the Te Deum (a hymn dating from the fourth century, before the Council of Ephesus):

Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem, non horruisti Virginis uterum.
In order to free [man], you took on man; you did not spurn the Virgin’s womb.

Here, however, when we say that God “took on man”, we take “man” to mean what we would call “human nature” today.


Why is wine associated with St John the Apostle?

The reason is:

  The Church provided a special blessing of wine in honor of the Saint.
  According to legend St. John drank a glass of poisoned wine without
  suffering harm because he had blessed it before he drank. The wine is
  also a symbol of the great love of Christ that filled St. John's heart
  with loyalty, courage and enthusiasm for his Master; he alone of all
  the apostles was not afraid to stay close to Our Lord during the
  Passion and Crucifixion.

This is the source

So tradition say:

  St. John’s wine, blessed by a priest or sprinkled with holy water by
  the father of the family, is served with the main meal. In Europe,
  even the children receive a little sip of it after the main course of
  the dinner. The wine is then poured into glasses and passed around to
  the family and guests. As each glass is given, the leader says:  “I
  drink thee the love of St. John.”

  The response to this is:  “I thank thee for the love of St. John.”

This is the source


If God is power beyond this reality, is there an infinite measurement of possibilities?

The classical definition of this would suggest that the difference between God's beauty, goodness, joy, etc., is not merely in quantity or degree but in kind. That is to say, God's goodness is a different kind of goodness to that enjoyed by humans.

This is a common theme throughout patristic and Western scholastic thought, but perhaps the most influential theologian is Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (Denys to his friends). He talked about these attributes in his work On the Divine Names with the word "hyper" attached to them. "Hyper" means "over" in Greek, so God's goodness is hyper-goodness, "over-goodness" or "beyond-goodness". God is not good in the way that we know goodness to be, but in a way that is above and beyond it. Moreover, it is also a kind of pre-goodness, that is to say that God's goodness is in some way causative of the goodness that we know.

There's a decent introductory summary to these ideas in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

A similar (and indeed indirectly derived) way of thinking is that of Thomas Aquinas, whose theology remains enormously influential in the Roman Catholic Church. According to Thomas, when we speak about God we speak in terms of analogy. That is to say, when we say "God is good", we mean it in an analogical sense. It does not mean exactly the same thing, and it doesn't mean something entirely different. There is a relation, but the word is not simply transferrable from the creature to the creation. Again, there are ideas of causality inherent to this.

This is unfolded in question 13 of the first part of the Summa Theologica.

So, again, the classical answer to your question would be that the kind of goodness/sweetness/beauty attributable to  God is to some degree a different kind of goodness/sweetness/beauty to that which we comprehend in our mortal embodied lives.


Why do Pentecostals believe in a closed canon?

Yes, Pentecostals believe that the gift of prophecy continues to the present day.  However, there is a difference between someone exercising the gift of prophecy and the apostles that were divinely inspired to write Scripture.
In the book Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, in the chapter on Bibliology, authors Duffield and Van Cleave discuss the difference between the gift of prophesy today and the inspiration of Scripture:

The Holy Spirit and the Scriptures
Inspiration accounts for inerrancy, and inerrancy proves inspiration.  This miracle of infallible inspiration is said to be the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  This might well be the very greatest ministry in which the Spirit is engaged.  All Spirit-filled believers have known, to some degree, the miracle of Divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit, but never to the extent experienced by the writers of Scripture.
The Pentecostal Movement has been accused of being an experience-centered movement, and indeed it is!  But it is also a Bible-centered movement.  It is beautiful to see how the Holy Spirit and the written Word are always in perfect agreement.  This must be so, because the Word is the result of the inspiration of the Spirit....
If any people should be people of the Word of God, it should be those who believe in the Pentecostal Baptism with the Holy Spirit.  They have an inspirational ministry.  They believe in prophecy, in speaking with other tongues with interpretation, in inspirational revelations.  How can one tell if these come from God or not?  Just because one claims to have a revelation from the Lord does not mean it should be accepted as if it was from God.  There needs to be a norm, a final court of appeal, by which all manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit can be judged.  In fact, the Scripture admonishes the judging of all prophecy, which Paul recognizes as perhaps the greatest of gifts. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge" (1 Cor. 14:29).  "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Is. 8:20).  There is such a "court of appeal" to which one can come.  It is the written Word, which the Holy Spirit inspired.  Peter calls it "a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as a light that shineth in a dark place" (2 Pt. 1:19).  Those who minister, in any capacity whatever, are never so fully "in the Spirit" as when they are doing so in full accord with the clearly revealed teaching of the Bible, the Word of God.  "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches," is an admonition which is given seven (7) times in the book of Revelation (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22) and each time it follows a written epistle from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.


How does the life of Joseph (son of Jacob) foreshadow the life of Jesus the Messiah?

Joseph foreshadows the life of Jesus a few ways, and I'm sure that the list I'm about to give you isn't exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll try to give a brief parallel summaries of both stories, which may help to highlight the similarities between both situations.

Joseph

Joseph says things that seem to claim he has a certain elevated position above his brothers.
Because of these things, his brothers attempt to be rid of him, via selling him into slavery.
Joseph is then gone for a time in Egypt.
He then returns to their lives providing a way to escape the coming famine.
He repays evil with good.
God uses the evil that his brothers intended to do to not only validate Joseph's claims, but also provide good for Joseph's brothers.

Jesus

Jesus says things that seem to claim he has a certain elevated position above others.
Because of these things, people attempt to be rid of him, via crucifixion.
Jesus is then gone for a time in the grave.
He then returns to their lives providing a way to escape the consequences of their sin.
He repays evil with good.
God uses the evil that his brothers intended to do to not only validate Christ's claims, but also provide good for all.

In short, Joseph was a type of Christ in that he saved those who desired to do him harm from themselves being harmed.


In LDS belief, why are eternal families so important?

Eternal families are based in a life in that same organization after the Resurrection and Judgement (cf. Doc & Cov 130:2).

Regarding the resurrection,

  As part of His eternal plan, God has provided a resurrection for everyone.

  Everyone who has lived will be resurrected (see 1 Corinthians 15:21–22; Alma 11:41; D&C 29:26; 2 Nephi 9:22).
  Resurrection is the reuniting of the physical body and the spirit after death (see D&C 88:14–17; Alma 11:43; 40:23; 2 Nephi 9:12).
  We cannot receive a fulness of joy when the spirit and the body are separated (see D&C 93:33–34; 45:17; 138:50).
  Resurrection is brought about by the power of God (see John 5:21; Acts 26:8; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Nephi 9:12).
  Resurrection restores every limb and joint to its proper and perfect frame (see Alma 11:43–44; 40:23; 41:2).

  Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual; Chapter 32: The Resurrection and the Judgment

While the eternal intelligences inhabit the spirits created by our Eternal Parents (cf. Doc & Cov 93:29 and Abraham 3:21-22), our spirits will, in turn, inhabit the physical bodies which were created for us in this life by our earthly parents (cf. Doc & Cov 88:15).

Our sons and daughters will be organized in a grand family with Adam and Eve at the head of those from this earth.  This grand family is all organized within the Eternal family that includes all of the spirit children of our heavenly parents—including those from the innumerable worlds which God has created. Both lineages are important as they signify the various stages of our eternal progression and through the estates which we have kept (cf. Abraham 3:26).

This lineage is not a "ranking" system of "best to worst," rather it is a system of organization based upon the basic family unit.  Only those in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom will be a part of this grand family and are those who are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ"(Romans 8:17).


Why is being gay considered more sinful than being divorced or commiting adultery?

It is worth noting that while divorce was not part of God's original intent / design, for those who were determined to divorce, God made a provision (through Moses) for them to do that in a respectful way.
This is in stark contrast with homosexuality, which, throughout the entire Christian canon is characteristic of deep depravity (cf. Sodom, Rom. 1), and leads to the severest condemnation and judgment from God -- every time it is mentioned.
Sin is sin, but one is tolerated (cf. polygamy), and one is severely, consistently condemned (cf. idolatry.)

Regarding the alleged distinction between orientation and practice, we should probably consider Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, where He explicitly refutes such thinking and defines even perverse thoughts as sin.
So what is a "homosexually-oriented" person to do?

those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. -Galatians 5:24
we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ -2 Corinthians 10:5
Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. -Colossians 3:2
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. -Philippians 4:8

...which, incidentally, is good advice in general for any such struggle with the flesh.


What are the differences between the different millenialisms?

As you note, the different "millennialisms" are based on different interpretations of the "thousand year reign" mentioned towards the end of Revelation. Unfortunately, answering this question is not as easy as simply stating the different views on the millennium itself. Each of the different views only make sense inside their respective theological frameworks. For example, you cannot transplant the amillennial view of the thousand years and into a dispensational theological framework. Thus, in order to properly answer this, we must include bits of subjects other than just the millennium itself and one must be aware that you cannot simply choose one of these views on their own, you must arrive at one of these understandings based on your hermeneutic for understanding the rest of Scripture.

As you noted, there are several main views on eschatology. Your question mentioned three. While no set of boxes will suffice to accurately categorize these views, I think it's unfair to not include a fourth, namely historic-premillennialism. The modern view called premillennialism is radically different from what was known as premillennialism just a few hundred years ago. The radical shift of views under the same name makes it confusing, so one must delineate.*

How each of these views addresses the what and when of the millennium is also tied up in their views of the church, what the kingdom of God is and the timelines of both world history and individual lives.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism identifies the millennium as a future event in this world where Christians triumph over this world and the Kingdom of God is visible (as opposed to the church-invisible). Of all the views I understand this one the least, but I believe there is some variance of opinion on when the millennium starts. Some say it will be a gradual event where the church sets right all the wrongs of the world step by step until eventually we reach a golden age. Another view is that Christ will dramatically intervene at some point in the future to bring this about.

The thousand years of the millennium are generally considered to be figurative -- meaning a long period of time but not necessarily exactly 1000 years as we know them. Satan is bound during the millennium both spiritually and physically so he can't wreak his normal havoc. After the thousand years, Jesus will return. Those believers living will be caught up to be with Him in heaven and the dead will be raised, either to life with him or eternal death.

Amillennialism

Like post-millennialism, amillennialism believes that the thousand years is a figurative number indicating a long period of time and that Jesus will return after the thousand years is over. Unlike the other views, amillennialism believes that the thousand years has already started. Beginning with the first coming of Jesus and the establishment of the NT church the reign of Christ in victory through the invisible church has already begun. Satan is currently bound in that his power to stop the spread of the Gospel is limited. The kingdom is growing and reigning victoriously through true believers in the world today. However the world as a whole is also still inhabited by evil and good and evil grow side by side and in contrast to each other until Jesus returns for his own. This is the period of tribulation, and the church experiences but is preserved through it. Jesus second returning ends the millennium and marks the second judgement.

Premillennialism

The modern iteration of premillennialism is based on dispensational theology and is sometimes knows as Dispensational Premillennialism, although if someone gives no qualification as to which premillennialism is being referenced, it is is generally assumed to be this one.

The dispensational premillennial timeline is the hardest to describe. The millennium is a future event in which the nation of Israel is restored and all the promises about her are fulfilled. Before the millennium starts however, Jesus returns two more times, once privately to rapture the gentile believers out of the world and again publicly at the start of the millennium. In between these two returns is the tribulation, a 7 year period of disaster and judgement on earth. There are three views on when the church is raptured in relation to the tribulation, pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation and post-tribulation. Evil in the world will generally increase until the start of the tribulation, at which point all hell breaks loose in a time of satanic dominance. After that time is over and Jesus has come (the third time if you are counting from time he came for the cross) Satan's power will be entirely bound and a new kingdom will be established on earth where the Jewish people are restored to their place as God's chosen people and reign on earth. When that's over eventually the church already raptured out of the world and the restored faithful remnant of Israel will be reconciled in heaven.

Historic Premillennialism

Also known as "Classic Premillennialism", is actually more similar to Amillenialism than it's modern name-sake. The period of tribulation for the church began with its establishment after the resurrection and will end when Christ returns to earth a second time. Evil will increase in the world along side of good. The church invisible will be sorely tried but always be victorious as protected and strengthened by Christ along the way. There are different views on the great tribulation and whether all of the prophecies are spread out throughout this church age or whether some of them are concentrated into a special great-tribulation period during the last seven (literal or figurative) years at the end. Either way, Christ returns once when the tribulation period is over both to collect his church out of the world, resurrect the dead, and to judge evil. Where historic pre-millennialism differs from amillennialism is what happens after that. Amillennialism sees the thousand years as overlaid on top of the tribulation, parallel tracks as it were or different perspectives on the same event. Historic pre-millennialism believes that the tribulation is now but that after the second return there will be a time of earthly reign in which all things are made new, Christs power to restore is demonstrated on the same turf on which the rest of history was played out but with him physically present and Satan bound. This time can be interpreted as either figurative for a long period of time or a literal thousand years.

*For full disclosure in case my bias comes through somewhere: I am historic-premil.


Does sin hinder one's ability to speak God's word?

Your question is a little more complicated than one might think at first blush!

"Bad people" are the operative words, in my opinion. Bad people may attempt to preach and teach God's Word, but they do so for base motives, which could include (but are not limited to) the following:

money
fame
power
lust for any of the above, and/or lust for sexual immorality, such as the "man of God" who takes advantage of his female followers

The Bible calls bad men (and bad women) who attempt to preach and teach God's Word with their own particular and sinful slant "false teachers." The task of mature Christian believers, such as elders, deacons, pastors, ministers, priests, and so on, is to be on guard for false teachers and to protect the flock from these predators, whom Jesus called "ravenous wolves" in Matthew 7:15; 10:16; and Luke 10:3.

The important word in the last sentence is, I suggest, mature. Spiritual maturity in a church leader means in part that he or she is able to confront and refute false teachers with sound doctrine and teaching.

  "[Elders] must pay attention to the reliable message as it has been taught to them so that they can encourage people with healthy instruction and refute those who speak against it" (Titus 1:9 CEB).

Is it possible for an ungodly man or woman to benefit spiritually a hearer or two now and then? Yes, I believe so. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that God's word is

  "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword . . . [and] able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12, excerpts, NASB Updated).

False teachers may even lead with truth (in the sense of starting with the truth), and then follow up with a partial truth or a distortion of the truth. The truth with which  they "lead" might be straight Scripture. The simple quoting of a Scripture could make all the positive difference in the life of a person, particularly if he or she extracts themselves from the false teacher soon enough!

Interestingly, the apostle Paul had an interesting perspective on preachers and teachers who preach and teach with the wrong motives. Paul said,

  "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one [do it] of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel; but the other proclaim Christ of faction, not sincerely, thinking to raise up affliction for me in my bonds. What then? only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Philippians 1:15-18 ASV).

Is there a difference between "bad people" (i.e., false teachers) and preachers who are perhaps correct doctrinally but are in need of an attitude adjustment? Yes, I think so. Nevertheless, we need to adopt Paul's perspective in this matter and rejoice because Christ is being preached. Competition, even among preachers, can be a good thing!

Addendum:

Quite simply (but not to derogate your question), communicating the Word of God requires a clean vessel. Yes, even a person who is harboring and hiding a besetting sin can still preach and teach, but the hypocrisy of attempting to preach the truth while living a lie will eventually catch up with him or her, and the result could be his or her exposure, and with exposure comes (for example) losing one's ministry. Even with repentance, the person may not be able to return to a fruitful ministry, partly because of personal factors, and/or partly from people's lack of trust in the messenger.

Marshall McLuhan was definitely onto something when he said, "The medium IS the message." You cannot separate one from the other. In Christian terms, a sinful messenger is lacking in spiritual power, spiritual insight, and spiritual sensitivity. Perhaps most serious of all is the sinner's failure to glorify God as much as he could have had he not lingered in unconfessed sin.

While we all sin, and we "all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2), to glorify God we need to keep short accounts with God by confessing our sin, particularly before attempting to spread the word. Jesus condemned hypocrisy. A hypocritical spreader of the Word can do more harm than good, both to himself and to others, especially when his sin is "found out" (see Numbers 32:23).


Was the temple built in 46 years or was it 46 years old during Jesus' time?

It means it took that long to build. This is apparent from the fact that they were challenging Christ's claim that He would build it in three days, when it's taken 46 years of work thus far.

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  Forty and six years ... - The temple in which they then were was that
  which was commonly called "the second temple," built after the return
  of the Jews from Babylon. See the notes at Matthew 21:12. This temple
  Herod the Great commenced repairing, or began to rebuild, in the
  eighteenth year of his reign - that is, sixteen years before the birth
  of Christ (Jos. 'Ant.,' b. xv. Section 1). The main body of the temple
  he completed in "nine years and a half" (Jos. 'Ant.,' xv. 5, 6), yet
  the temple, with its outbuildings, was not entirely complete in the
  time of our Saviour. Herod continued to ornament it and to perfect it
  even until the time of Agrippa (Jos. 'Ant.,' b. xx. chapter viii.
  Section 11). As Herod began to rebuild the temple sixteen years before
  the birth of Jesus, and as what is here mentioned happened in the
  thirtieth year of the age of Jesus, so the time which had been
  occupied in it was "forty-six years." This circumstance is one of the
  many in the New Testament which show the accuracy of the evangelists,
  and which prove that they were well acquainted with what they
  recorded. It demonstrates that their narration is true. Impostors do
  not trouble themselves to be very accurate about names and dates, and
  there is nothing in which they are more liable to make mistakes.


Is it true that Luther didn't consider anyone of the Catholic clergy to be a member of the true Church of God?

As an Augustinian monk himself who tried desparately not to leave the church, but rather only to reform it, I think this would be a hard claim for someone to make of Luther.

That said, the "invisible church" or what we moderns would probably call "real Christians" is always a subjective term.  I'm sure he thought many clergy weren't truly Christian, but I also know that he thought there were Catholics who were as well.  At the very least, Augustine would have been a Catholic clergyman that Luther would have seen as part of the invisible Church, albeit 1000 years predating himself.


What is an overview of early church opposition to authorities?

To be clear, the Church Fathers were specifically against rebellion. This being said however, some Church Fathers have in fact rather bluntly suggested that the affairs of the state and the power struggle involved in such activity is often times contrary to the Christian faith.
Tertullian

I owe no duty to the forum, the election-ground, or the senate-house; I keep no obsequious vigil, preoccupy no platforms, hover about no praetorian residences; I am not odorant of the canals, am not adorant of the lattices, am no constant wearer out of benches, no wholesale router of laws, no barking pleader, no judge, no soldier, no king: I have withdrawn from the populace.  My only business is with myself: except that other care I have none, save not to care.1
But as those in whom all ardour in the pursuit of glory and honour is dead, we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings; nor is there aught more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state.2
All the powers and dignities of this world are not only alien to, but enemies of, God; that through them, punishments have been determined against God’s servants; through them, too, penalties prepared for the impious are ignored.3

Origen

We are to despise ingratiating ourselves with kings or any other men, not only if their favour is to be won by murders, licentiousness, or deeds of cruelty, but even if it involves impiety towards God, or any servile expressions of flattery and obsequiousness.4
Celsus also urges us to “take office in the government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion.” But we recognise in each state the existence of another national organization founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over Churches. Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject; but we constrain those who, through excess of modesty, are not easily induced to take a public charge in the Church of God. And those who rule over us well are under the constraining influence of the great King, whom we believe to be the Son of God, God the Word. And if those who govern in the Church, and are called rulers of the divine nation–that is, the Church–rule well, they rule in accordance with the divine commands, and never suffer themselves to be led astray by worldly policy. And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God–for the salvation of men. And this service is at once necessary and right. They take charge of all–of those that are within, that they may day by day lead better lives, and of those that are without, that they may come to abound in holy words and in deeds of piety; and that, while thus worshiping God truly, and training up as many as they can in the same way, they may be filled with the word of God and the law of God, and thus be united with the Supreme God through His Son the Word, Wisdom, Truth, and Righteousness, who unites to God all who are resolved to conform their lives in all things to the law of God.5

Clement of Alexandria

Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. [...] For he that is made good by compulsion of another is not good; for he is not what he is by his own choice.  For it is the freedom of each one that makes true goodness and reveals real wickedness.6

Criticisms of Tertullian
Obviously Tertullian was perhaps the most anti-state mainstream Church Father there was. His teachings also included an anti-military stance, as seen in the following quote:

Inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file [...].  But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? [...] The Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.7

It is for this reason among others that, in the influence of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas who both supported the idea of 'just war theory' and the idea that certain acts of violence and control are necessary in order to secure the greater good, Tertullian has not been made a saint by the Church to this day (it should be noted also that Origen as well has not been made a saint by the Church, for similar theologically-based reasons).
Martyrdom of the early Church
All of these examples so far are of sketchy theology alone, but we must also recall that many early Christians expressed an unwillingness to participate in government mandate through their martyrdom. The following are just two examples of the words spoken by certain Church fathers before their martyrdom.
Polycarp

Eighty and six years I have served Him, and He has done me no wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour? Bring forth what thou wilt.8

These words were spoken before Polycarp was burned at the stake for refusing to offer incense to the Roman emperor at the time, being Caesar.
Ignatius of Antioch

I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me.  I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me.  Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God.  I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.9

Here we see the Church fathers willing to die for God rather than live in order to please the mandates of man. So the nature of rejecting a government's authority (insofar as such means living rather for the Divine Authority) is not only present in several Church father's thoughts but also within the very deeds of the Church fathers.
Augustinian Minimalism
Besides the preceding examples of early Church fathers either stating radically 'anti-state' philosophies and/or directly behaving in contrast to the wishes of government through martyrdom, the more common sentimentality of St. Augustine has also indicated an underlying tension between church and state. St. Augustine proposed and lived according to a politically minimalist view of the government himself, bordering even on a criticism of certain actions of rulers in such indirect ways as the following anecdote:

When [Alexander the Great] asked [a captured pirate] what he meant by infesting the sea, he boldly replied: ‘What do you mean by warring on the whole world. I do my fighting on a ship, and they call me a pirate; you do yours on a large ship, and they call you Commander.10

Augustine's general dislike and distrust of the government stemmed from a theological understanding that is deeply held within Church teaching, namely that the striving for power is an essentially empty journey that leads only to sin and further self-empowerment.

God did not intend that man should have power over his fellow man.11

Augustine's famous book 'The City of God' distinguishes between two cities, namely the City of God and the City of Man. For Augustine, the City of God belongs to those who orient themselves firstly to the Highest Good. The City of Man belongs to those who orient themselves to lesser goods. Augustine firmly believed that often times government power was unjustly thought of and acted upon as the Highest Good. Unlike our system of life today, in which all things are in subjection to the individual's judgement, Augustine lived in a time when anti-theistic philosophers stressed the idea that man's workings in politics and rhetoric were for the common good, and thus for the Highest Good, and more drastically that such practices were nearly outside of the criticisms offered by religion and/or any individual. It is for this reason that St. Augustine, as a truly impassioned and devout Christian man took such a disliking of what we consider to be 'government'.
It is this Augustinian minimalism that has still managed to thrive within Christian politics throughout the long years, and although our roots of 'obedience to government without trust to government' sentiments have perhaps 'dummed down' since we have experienced the blessing of having our morality sanctioned within law itself, it is easy to see where so many of our Church fathers were coming from in their general and sometimes specific dislike of government. It is a dislike that is likely to resurface in the Church in the government-empowered years to come.

Citations:

Tertullian, On the Pallium, Chapter 5. Translated by S. Thelwall. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, page 11.
Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 38. Translated by S. Thelwall. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, page 45.
Tertullian, On Idolatry, Chapter 18. Translated by S. Thelwall. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, page 73.
Origen, Against Celsus, Book 8, Chapter 65. Translated by Frederick Crombie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, page 664.
Origen, Against Celsus, Book 8, Chapter 75. Translated by Frederick Crombie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, page 668.
Clement of Alexandria, Fragments. Translated by William Wilson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, page 581
Tertullian, On Idolatry, Chapter 19. Translated by S. Thelwall. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, page 73.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 9. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, page 41.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 4 (Shorter version). Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, page 75.
St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 4, Chapter 4 (alternate).
St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 19, Chapter 15 (alternate).

References:

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1-4. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)
St. Augustine, The City of God, trans. G. Walsh, D. Zema, G. Monahan, D.
Honan, ed. Vernon J. Bourke (New York: Image Books, 1958), IV:4.


What did early Christians say about apostolic succession?

To answer the question, no the early church did not reject "apostolic succession".  But to understand the answer, it is necessary to define exactly what the question is; what precisely is "apostolic succession"?  For the early church, it meant "teach the same as apostles".  It did not mean, what it came to be later redefined as, some sort of sacerdotal succession.

CLASSIC APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

The classic (earliest) definition of apostolic succession was to "teach the same" as apostles.  Thus you might find apostolic succession in a church from Judea to Great Britain to India; all teaching the same as the apostles.  It was the binding to "the faith once delivered".

  It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about
  Irenaeus AH Book III, III, 1 (bold mine)

In other words, Irenaeus is contrasting the false teachers who taught things unknown with and apart from what apostolic churches were teaching, which was handed down in succession.  There was no room for innovation or tradition.

  [Polycarp] departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.
  -ibid, 4

Again, the definition of "apostolic succession" is detailed as handing down that truth which was learned from apostles.  Those teachings alone are true.

REDEFINED APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

The Catholic Church (CC) now defines apostolic succession in this way.

  1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.
  -Catechism CC-

In other words, even though Catholics and Orthodox differ on major theological doctrines, CC may still define itself and Orthodox as having "apostolic succession" by virtue of a claim to a type of sacerdotal priesthood.

There's no need to delve into which denomination accurately teaches what the apostles taught because the point is made; that is, "apostolic succession" has been redefined from "teach the same as apostles" to having some type of "physical continuity as priests".

SUMMARY

  Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth.
  Irenaeus Book IV, XXVI, 2

Somewhere along the historic line, the shift was made from adhere to those who teach the same apostolic truth to obey your priest and bishop who can offer a continuous sacrifice for you.

To have "apostolic succession" as it was defined and practiced in the earliest Christian years, one simply must "teach the same" as apostles.


What's the proof for the existence of Angels as well as angelic hierarchy?

St. Thomas's angelology based on Holy Scriptures
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., discussing St. Thomas Aquinas's sources in Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought ch. 22, writes:

It is sometimes thought that the treatise of St. Thomas on the angels is an a priori construction, having as its sole foundation the book of Pseudo-Dionysius, called De coelesti hierarchia. This is a misconception. Scripture itself is the foundation on which St. Thomas rests.

Pohle, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural: A Dogmatic Treatise, pt. 2, ch. 3, §1, Article 1 "Existence & Nature of the Angels":

The existence of Angels is a truth so obviously founded in Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching of the Church that it seems superfluous to undertake a formal demonstration of it. We therefore merely indicate some of the many Scriptural texts in which it is expressly taught: Ps. 90:11; 102:20; 148:2; Matth. 4:11; 18:10; 22:30; 25:31; John 1:51; Heb. 1:4.

Proofs he's not a "pseudo"
Mgr. Darboy famously argued, in the beginning of his Œuvres de Saint Denys l'Aréopagite (1845), that "pseudo-"Dionysius is the actual St. Dionysius that St. Paul baptized in Acts 17:34:

Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

Mgr. Darboy has so much data, both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, in support of his position that the author whom for centuries councils (even heretics!), doctors of the Church, etc., considered authentic is not a "pseudo".
Opponents of his being St. Dionynius base their arguments on one data-point:According to Stiglmayr's Catholic Encyclopedia entry Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, Stiglmayr & Koch (end of 19th cen.), after Mgr. Darboy (1845), allegedly discovered some Proclus verbatim in On the Divine Names! Well, how do they know Proclus (6th cen.) didn't plagiarize St. Dionysius?


Which churches today send the most missionaries?

Currently The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has over 82,000 full time proselytizing missionaries and another 10,000 service or humanitarian missionaries. All serve on a volunteer basis and are required to pay most of their expenses. Financial assistance is also available for those who have limited resource. See here for more info Aside from full time missionary service, all members are taught to be missionary minded in their everyday lives and always look for opportunities to share the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Was Pilate also the father of the son who was healed by Jesus in John 4?

No. The Pilate of John 18:28 was the Roman procurator of Judea in Jesus' day. Pilate was the civil authority who thought he had the power to turn Jesus over to the Jews to be crucified. A procurator was any of various imperial officials with fiscal or administrative powers. The equivalent today might be a governor.

Regarding the "nobleman" in John 4:46-54, from the NET Notes comes the following:

  Although βασιλικός (basiliko) has often been translated “nobleman” it almost certainly refers here to a servant of Herod [Antipas], tetrarch of Galilee (who in the NT is called a king, Matt 14:9, Mark 6:14-29). Capernaum [the town where the sick son was] was a border town, so doubtless there were many administrative officials in residence there [, and this unnamed nobleman was one of them.]

Jesus healed this man's son "long distance," so to speak, because He knew this nobleman had the faith to believe Jesus would do as He said He would. There was no need for Jesus to leave what He was doing and walk about 20 miles or so from where He was (viz., Cana) to Capernaum, where the sick boy was.

In our day, Pilate would be the equivalent of the governor of, say, Pennsylvania. The nobleman would be the equivalent of the Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and Taxation; in other words, a high-level bureaucrat.

If on the other hand the nobleman was a military man (and this is a distinct possibility), he would be, approximately, the equivalent of a lieutenant, major, or even a colonel, whereas Pilate would be a general.


How closely the movie is to Scripture depends on which Translation and which Denomination you are asking about.

The producers of the film are a Catholic couple and the movie compares quite closely to the Doughy Rheims translation. There are some striking differences between the Bible canons of Catholicism and Protestantism, but as far as the story of Jesus death and resurrection there are very minor disagreements.

I have made a dedicated study of the Scriptures of the Holy Bible for more than a decade, and I found no major complaints about the depictions in the Movie.

It must be considered that to take words on a page and turn that into something visual is going to be flavored by the imagination of the person making the depiction, and their concept may vary widely from other conceptions. Just take for instance the background, what you may have pictured is a semi desert scene while I may have imagined a wooded area.

The story lines are as far as I can tell very close to the scriptures. I personally feel that it is an excellent movie for someone wanting to learn about the Bible, and particularly the story of the Gospel. The portrayal of the Gospel is closer to the Book of Mark than the books of the other three Gospels.

You also might explore some of the Biblical movies presented on You tube. There are some excellent presentations available there and they can be downloaded free so that you can watch them at your leisure.


Are translations of the book of Mormon into other languages made from English, or are the golden plates stashed in a temple somewhere?

You're right, the golden plates were returned to the angel Moroni at the conclusion of the original translation into English.

First, we have to understand the translation process (this link is the source to the quotes below).

There are some original translation manuscripts still in existence, but these are hardly legible anymore and, for several reasons (such as completing the whole translation in 60 days), contain many grammatical and spelling errors. Subsequent revisions of the English text referred back to the original manuscripts and other historical documents to fix technical issues and improve formatting. These have been published as new editions (most recently in 2013).

Regarding the relationship between textual revisions and the correctness of the translation:

  "All who have translated are keenly aware that it is a rare translation which cannot be improved,” said Stephen Ricks, a professor of Hebrew at Brigham Young University. “Thus, while it would be incorrect to minimize the divine element in the process of translation of the Book of Mormon, it would also be misleading and potentially hazardous to deny the human factor."

With an English translation that is close the original writ, translations into other languages are based on the current English revision. Several other languages, such as Spanish, have been revised several times for the same reasons. Some translations are even incomplete and are only available as selected excerpts until a full translation can be made. (I know someone who is helping to re-translate the Book of Mormon into Persian. She told me that the current Persian edition has trouble with some of the word choice and sentence structure compared to the English reading of it.)

As you might imagine, these translations are time consuming and difficult to do well. The translation process is done by study, prayer, and faith.

Finally, to answer your last question ("Why not a NIV-style English translation of the Book of Mormon?"), I would have to say that I don't know. I can't find any Church statement on that question specifically, but maybe somebody else could find an official source.

Well, Jacob Glad's answer added the missing piece, an official statement on the matter. Anyway, my original thoughts were:

If you want my guess, though, it's because the LDS Church wants to maintain the purity of the translation as much as possible. Translating into a different style of English may cause confusion, since it's quite likely elements of the text would inadvertently lose or change the meaning. As it stands, the language found in the current edition of the Book of Mormon is not nearly as archaic as the language in the KJV Bible, and is (in my opinion) still much more readable. With that perspective, some scholars suggest that an official, NIV-style edition of the Book of Mormon is simply not necessary.


What is the Protestant argument against Immaculate Conception?

Firstly, it should be noted that not all Protestants reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is not as though there is a uniform Protestant doctrine that strictly states the Immaculate Conception to be false (if there is I am unaware of it). Martin Luther himself defended the Immaculate Conception:

  But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin.

Only later did he refute his original position in the following way:

  Mary is conceived in sin just like us.

On a lesser note, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli also appear to adorn Mary (see the link posted above). The High Anglican Church goers also seem to be fond of the Immaculate Conception. All of these are simply examples of the fact that Protestant thought need not equate to 'anti-immaculate conception'.

That being said, the following are the most predominant arguments I've seen used by Protestants against the Immaculate Conception.

BIBLICAL VERSES

The following verses are often used in arguments against the Immaculate Conception:

Romans 3:23

  All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

1 John 1:8

  If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him."

Luke 1:47

  "My spirit rejoices in God my savior" (as spoken by Mary herself).

PROTESTANT THEOLOGY

Following these verses, Protestant theology rather firmly asserts the fact of sin and that such a fact is the very reason Christ came into the world. The main theory of atonement present in Protestant theology is known as penal substitution. It essentially asserts that Christ took upon himself punishment for every sin that has or ever will be committed. So saying that a person can be without such sin suggests not only that there is a soul that doesn't need Christ's power but also that Christ's own work is not fully needed. Obviously this presents a major problem. So typically most Protestants look rather firmly down upon the idea that even the Mother of God was without fault.

ORIGINAL SIN VS. PERSONAL SIN

Although many Protestants accept the idea that there exists original sin in some capacity, the Protestant sects face a wide range of differing views on exactly what is meant by the term. Needless to say, the significance of the theological concept that is so central to Catholic and Orthodox theology (which hold that Christ offered penance for original sin more so than personal sin) suffers in importance under Protestant theological consideration. The distinction that is apparent for Catholic and Orthodox thinkers between original sin and personal sin becomes blurred and less significant. The result is, according to Catholic and Orthodox thought, an inflation of the property of personal sin and a deflation in the property of original sin. Thus when the proposition that a person is 'sinless' comes into play, it is about as heretical as one can get. But it is a statement that under Protestant theology is not only confusing, but not able to be coherently understood with the current frame of thought.

In Protestantism, to propose that one is 'sinless' is to propose one does not need a savior. But Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity break down 'sin' into two essential parts; original sin and personal sin. Original sin engenders continuously the inclination to personal sin. So in theory, a soul can be sinless in regards to 'personal sin', but such would only indicate that the same soul was unified so significantly with the grace of Christ that they did not face the consequences of original sin. There are two ways to save a soul after all; they can be saved by falling into a pit and requiring assistance after the fact, or they can be saved by being cared for and guided around the pit. The latter would be the means by which Immaculate Conception proponents would suggest Mary was both saved and free from personal sin. Mary would have been preserved from original sin by the grace of the penance Christ offered for original sin, and thus would have been reserved from personal sin.

FINAL PROTESTANT OBJECTIONS

This clarification serves to dismiss the use of the Lukean verse in hopes that it contradicts the Immaculate Conception. But Protestants could likewise point out several objections to this whole line of thought, including the notion that it would seem unfair if God could save souls from the very oppurtunity of sin that he would pass up the chance. If God could exempt Mary of original sin, why could God not exempt all souls from original sin, or more so, why doesn't he? Another objection comes at the hands of the verses already mentioned. What is to say the verses stating that 'no person is without sin' is either a) only to be taken generally or b) referring to 'sin' in a way that allows theological exceptions. These objections are perhaps the most primary responses to the actual doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.


Hearing Bell sounds - What does the Bible say about bells?

As far as I can tell, the Bible mentions bells only in Exodus (chapters 28 and 39), where they formed part of the decoration of the robes of the Priests, and in Zechariah (chapter 14), where in the last verse it proclaims that the bells on horses will be engraved with "Holy is the Lord".

Bell sounds can travel quite a long distance, so that the sounds you are hearing may not necessarily be from your house. I once heard quite a delightful wind chime on the breeze, and upon exploration found that the chime was a couple of blocks away. Another thing to consider is that the sound may not be coming from an actual bell, but rather another piece of metal which is free to vibrate when struck.

Any spiritual significance of any bell comes from the hearer of the bell, rather than the bell itself. A case in point is bells rung on Sunday morning, and other times of the week. To some, the bells are calls to prayer, and sometimes for some people, a bell at a specific time is a call to a specific prayer. To others hearing the same sounds, the bells simply denote the time of day, and to still others, they sometimes are only a nuisance to be endured.


The reference to "the first and the last" is a conscious echo of Isaiah 41:4:

  Isaiah 41:4: Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Isaiah 41:4 is, in turn, part of a narrative about the Creator -- the first person of the Trinity --  as we see in Isaiah 40:28:

  Isaiah 40:28: Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

In verse 44:24 the narrative again reminds us that it is God, the creator of all things, who is talking:

  Isaiah 44:24: Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

The importance of "no God beside me" is not a denial of the Trinity but of paganism.  Most biblical scholars regard Isaiah chapters 40-55 to have been written during the Babylonian Exile by an anonymous prophet now known as Second Isaiah to distinguish him from Isaiah, son of Amoz. It was during this period that the priesthood began to assertively declare that there is only one God.


What is the significance of the angelic visitation of the shepherds after the birth of Jesus Christ?

The following is highly speculative but (I think) not entirely unreasonable.

Shepherds might be considered lower class and were likely grubbier than those in other occupations, especially given that these were night-shepherds in the fields (when all the "decent" folk would be sleeping at home).
By announcing the message to isolated shepherds, the privilege of evangelizing was bestowed on the hearers.  If the announcement had been made in a town, lots of people would have noticed.  Alternatively, there might be an aspect of messianic secret (cf. Jesus's telling people not to talk about him healing them), perhaps to reduce the number of people interested because of miracles rather than the message the miracles are meant to provide a sign for.  In addition, a degree of secrecy might have delayed Herod's infanticidal actions (people in authority would be unlikely to pay attention to the ravings of shepherds but if a whole town--including its respected elders--was talking about an angelic appearance, then even priests in Jerusalem might give the account some credibility).
Such might be an homage to David and a foreshadowing of Jesus' own identification as the good shepherd.


Where does the concept of "unconditional love toward others" come from?

I would submit that the numerous times God forgave Israel, the love he expressed to David even after sinning, and ultimately the very fact that a plan of salvation was established from the very beginning, all point to and demonstrate unconditional love
The need of repentance and "process", assuming you're speaking of Titus 3:4-7, is that plan of salvation in which demonstrated/demonstrates unconditional love.

Isaiah 54:10
Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,” says the Lord, who has compassion on you.
Psalms 78:36-38
But then they would flatter him with their mouths, lying to him with their tongues; their hearts were not loyal to him, they were not faithful to his covenant.
Yet he was merciful; he forgave their iniquities and did not destroy them.  Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.
Matthew 18:21-22
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.


What was the difference between Jerusalem's honorary primacy and the primacy of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch?

Canon VI of the Council of Nicaea says, among other things:

  LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that
  the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is
  customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the
  other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

Canon VII says:

  SINCE custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of
  AElia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due
  dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour. [my emphasis]

The General Introduction to The Works of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Volume 1 (page 14) puts this in perspective, proposing that the seventh canon of Nicaea merely reasserted that Jerusalem was subject to Caesarea, "while also confirming to Jerusalem certain unspecified ancient privileges."

F.J.A. Hort (Two Dissertations  59) is cited on page 15:

  All Palestine was subject to the supremacy of Antioch; and the metropolitan jurisdiction of Caesarea over the rest of Palestine was balanced by privileges peculiar to Jerusalem.

In strict terms of hierarchy, Jerusalem ranked below Caesarea and then Antioch, but, because of tradition, enjoyed privileges that otherwise were only enjoyed by Alexandria, Antioch and Rome.


First, we need to know that Revelation is a prophesy about the future.

  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His
  servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and
  signified it by His angel to His servant John, (Revelation 1:1, NKJV)

  After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in
  heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking
  with me, saying, “Come up here, and I will show you things which must
  take place after this.” (Revelation 4:1, NKJV)

Once that framework is set, we can start thinking from that perspective. The visions saw by John were not related to the past or John's present time. So, the war in Heaven is about the future war between Satan and God and not related to the crucifixion of Christ, and so on.

The Abyss or Bottomless-Pit is mentioned three times in Revelation 9, 11 and 20. Here is a summary of it.

Locusts came out from it (Rev 9)
The Beast ascends out of it (Rev 11:7)
Satan was bound in it for 1000 years (Rev 20:3)

According to Rev 20 (NKJV), the Bottomless-Pit is a Prison.

  1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the
  bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the
  dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him
  for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and
  shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the
  nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these
  things he must be released for a little while.

  7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released
  from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in
  the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together
  to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

The location of this Bottomless-Pit is unknown but it must be somewhere in this vast universe or perhaps out of it, in a spiritual world or whatever you call it. It possibly cannot be on Earth but I can't say it is not. One thing we know for sure is that the Bottomless-Pit is a prison and this is a place where many demons are afraid to go.

  The demons kept begging Jesus not to send them into the bottomless pit. (Luke 8:31,NLT)

Hope this helps.

References:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/abyss/
http://www.revelationcommentary.org/09_chapter.html
http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/abyss-and-beast.htm
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030424.htm


What did Jesus mean by saying "only a few find the narrow gate"?

Matthew Chapter 7 is often thought to be in reference to those that will enter into the kingdom versus those that will not.  If one reads in advance to verse 13 they will discover that the opening line is “judge not, that ye be not judged” and what follows is a warning: “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”.
Then in verses 7-11

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you…if ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”  In verse 12 we are given insight: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

This whole narrative is in regard to our relationship with one another.  “Judge not”,  “remove the plank out of your own eye”,  “whatsoever ye would that men should do to you”, this is the law of the Prophets.  In Matthew 22 Jesus also spoke of the law of the Prophets: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind… love your neighbor as yourself.”
Therefore in keeping with the narrative the wide gate that leads to destruction would be those works Paul speaks of that will not stand the test of fire and the narrow gate would be those works that stand the test of fire as they are conceived by God’s love.

1 Corinthians 3:8-…every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour…Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The word in Matthew 7 translated as “narrow” is done so only in this verse.  The Greek word being translated “thlibō” generally is translated as trouble or afflict.  Grace, Christ’s work on the cross (His trouble or affliction) is the narrow gate and the greatest love.  John 15:13 “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

John 10:9 "I am the door (gate): by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."
Matthew 16:24 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me"


What is the difference between ESV, NIV and NKJV

Without knowing more about the reasons for your daughter wanting to buy a new Bible, and why it is she has only these three options, it is impossible to make a recommendation.  However, having background information about each of these Bibles will help her to come to a decision.  Below are links to three articles, which provide a brief history as well as pros and cons on each Bible. I have partially quoted from each article:

The English Standard Version (ESV) is a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version. The first edition was published in 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. The ESV Study Bible, also published by Crossway Bibles, was published in October 2008. It uses the ESV translation and adds extensive notes and articles based on evangelical Christian scholarship. Under noted theologian J. I. Packer, who served as general editor, the translators sought and received permission from the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 edition of the RSV as the English textual basis for the ESV. Difficult passages were translated using the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other original manuscripts.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/English-Standard-Version-ESV.html
The New International Version (NIV) committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an “accurate, beautiful, clear, and dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use.” The NIV is known especially as a "thought for thought" or “dynamic equivalence” translation rather than a “word for word” translation...  The greatest ‘con’ of the 2011 NIV is the inclusion of gender-neutral language and the necessity of interpreting rather than translating in order to present a more culturally sensitive or politically correct version.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/New-International-Version-NIV.html
Although the New King James Version (NKJV) uses substantially the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the original KJV, it indicates where more commonly accepted manuscripts differ. The New King James Version also uses the Textus Receptus ("Received Text") for the New Testament, just as the King James Version had used. The translators have also sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original KJV, which the NKJV revisers call "complete equivalence" in contrast to "dynamic equivalence" or “thought-for-thought” used by many other modern translations, such as the New International Version.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/New-King-James-Version-NKJV.html

I hope this information will be helpful.


Any mentions of Environmental protection in Bible?

If you search on Google with keywords like "bible environmental", you will get many sites which claim that the Bible supports the idea of Environmental Protection.  EarthCare has a good summary of relevant verses on environmental care, some of them are...

  Command to Care for Creation

  "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
  it and take care of it." (Genesis 2:15)

  "The land itself must observe a sabbath to the Lord. For six years sow
  your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and garner their
  crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest,
  a sabbath to the Lord.... The land is to have a year of rest."
  (Leviticus 25:2-5; cf. Exodus 23:10-11)

  "You shall not pollute the land in which you live.... You shall not
  defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the
  LORD dwell among the Israelites." (Numbers 35:33-34)

  "If you besiege a town for a long time, making war against it in order
  to take it, you must not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against
  them. Although you may take food from them, you must not cut them
  down. Are trees in the field human beings that they should come under
  siege from you?" (Deuteronomy 20:19)

However, these verses are not directly referring to environmental protection, though they can be put forth for the argument.

Keep your Temporary Home clean:
The earth belongs to us and we must take care of it, not because God commanded us to do it so. This is a secular matter. Though we will stay here only for a while, lets take care of this Temporary Home. It would be a foolish thing to pollute our home.

Can we really take care of the Earth? NO! It is in God's care. God created this world according to His will and will destroy it again by the same will. No matter how hard we try to preserve the environment and wild life, God is going to destroy this earth by fire anyway on the Day of Judgement. In that sense, it might be pointless to strive hard in protecting the environment.

  2 Peter 3:3-7 (NIV)

  Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will
  come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.They will say,
  “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died,
  everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But
  they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came
  into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By
  these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
  By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire,
  being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

God will destroy this present world by fire and will create a new Heaven and Earth, a new Earth far far better than the present.

  Revelation 21:1 (NIV)
  Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and
  the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

We are not permanent on this earth, we have a destination ahead. We must not set our hearts on this world because we are only travelers here.

  1 John 2:15 (NKJV)
  Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the
  world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Conclusion: If you want to protect the environment, go do it. There is nothing wrong in it. It's a good thing. It proves that you are a good human. Only good people think about those things and only fools neglect them. But please, do not include Christianity to the context. Don't try to relate them. Does that mean we should start polluting the environment? Not at all! Only foolish people would do that.


According to Baptist teachings, what are the actual precepts God requires of us who are his?

It is pretty widely accepted, that the old testament Jews believed this too be the most important precept,  was this
Deuteronomoy 6:4-5 called the "Shema"

  4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one![a] 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

The next section is good too. Deut 6:5-9

  6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

The idea being, that your life is devoted to obeying the Lord. You write his commandments on your front door, you talk about them all day, at home, with your friends, your family, you meditate on the word as you wake up, and before you go to sleep.

Compare with Proverb, 3:6

  In all your ways acknowledge Him,
  And He shall direct[a] your paths.

Making a list of all the "precepts" of God for human life could take a very long time. God understands the variety of human life, and in the Bible has left 66 books, covering a variety of issues, times, and situations.

The bible speaks on every facet of human life, God has things to say on, How you treat your family, How do you share your faith, how to be a good husband, how to be a good wife, how to obey the authorities in your life who are christian, how to obey authorities in your life who are secular, principles for giving money, principles for sexual behavior, principles for morality, principles for treating other believers, principles for running a local church etc etc etc.

A list of all the different precepts would be extremely long. When Jesus was asked a similar question, here is how he responded.
Matthew 22:35-40

  5 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
  37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[d] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[e] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Many times, people want to look for a few specific rules which they can keep perfectly, and then they will be able to feel like "Good" people.

The bible is clear that we are not saved by obeying the law, rather we are saved by Grace, and any "good works" are a result of being saved, and not what causes us to be saved.

see Ephesians 2:8-10

  8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

So with all this being said, God certainly does have standards for his children, there are absolutely "do's and dont's"

The classic example of these would be the Ten Commandments.  You can find these in Exodus 20.

These lay out foundational principles for how we are to honor God, and how we are to honor other human beings as well.

*footnote
Your question was addressed to "Us who are His". This is who these are addressed to. These are built on main requirement of God towards people
Jesus said in Mark 1:15

  14 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom[e] of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”


Can a person lose salvation if publicly denies Jesus but keeps living a christian life? (Catholic)

There is a few things to consider in order for the answer to make sense:

We have multiple opportunities while we are alive to repent, be
forgiven, fall into sin, learn from our mistakes, repent again, and
so on. We are basically building christian character and receiving
grace to help us in our journey to heaven. It is not a one time
deal.
We die one time. This is one time deal.
After we die we will be judge (without going into details on
personal judgement or at the end of times) by Jesus and the
judgement is in the complete life journey we chose. On top of that
Jesus will give us all the Mercy we are willing to accept.
Jesus will not force us into Heaven (salvation) if we do not want
to.

Therefore, it is possible that a person in his early Christian journey lives a life that you can describe as more "secretive or internal". But as the journey and the Christian character becomes more mature and aligned to Christ's,   living two life's (one internal and one external) is contradictory.

At one extreme you can find the saints and martyrs that freely chose to be thrown to the beasts or unimaginable tortures rather than renouncing Christ externally (I assume they could have chosen to reject Him publicly but in their hearts still be as committed to Him). They preferred dead rather than renouncing Him even externally.

On the other extreme you can find a person just new to Christianity but not yet strong enough to overcome fear. He could possible be tempted to deny Christ publicly but still recognize him as his God and Savior. If he dies at that moment, then we trust that Jesus, in his infinity mercy and since He know what we have in the deepest places of our hearts, may offer him salvation.

So, my answer to your question is, until one dies, one has the opportunity of repenting and finding forgiveness. Work hard for your salvation by aligning your life to Christs' own life, day after day. And at the end have Hope that Jesus is Mercy itself - but will never bully us into loving him.

Sections that may help in answering further the question or guiding the appropriate response depending on the scenario.

CCC: Grace 1996-2005, Christian Holiness 2012-2015, Faith/Hope/Charity 2087-2094.

Peace.


Why is God considered by many to be a male?

Because Christians believe God inspired the scriptures, and in the scriptures he predominantly uses masculine pronouns and masculine imagery to talk about himself. There are different views of inspiration, but in all the major branches of Christianity I think it would be accurate to say that most Christians believe that God has so worked inspiration that while the human authors did express their individual voices, what they wrote is exactly what God wanted to be written. While there are many cultural accommodations in scripture, the masculinity of God is not one, for it would have been very difficult easy to write about God as female or as both or as neither, as the pagan gods around them were of all genders.

I think there's a little bit of irony in this age of accepting and using people's preferred pronouns that some people don't want to use God's preferred pronouns ;). I think that ultimately comes from people not accepting that the scriptures are inspired by God.


Mere Christianity Book IV Chapter 9 ("Counting the cost") : George MacDonald References

The first one is from a sermon called The Father's Appeal, preached in Westminster Chapel:

“Though Jesus Christ is very hard to satisfy, He is very easy to please. Think of that and it will help you a little. He is very easy to please, but very hard to satisfy. If you will but let Him in, and you have not much to put on the table. You cannot share much of life because you have not got it, He will be so pleased, if it be but a cup of cold water that you can give him. Let it be something genuine, something real.”

I could not find the second one but MacDonald may have borrowed it from Book 1 Chapter 5 of The Confessions of St. Augustine:

My soul is like a house, small for you to enter, but I pray you to enlarge it. It is in ruins, but I ask you to remake it. It contains much that you will not be pleased to see: this I know and do not hide. But who is to rid me of these things? There is no one but you …


It was for a slow, painful and also humiliation. The cross had no symbolic meaning in a crucifixion, it could have been any wooden construction. Historically crucifixion actually means impaling on a plank, piece of wood ,etc. The word cross actually comes from the word crux which defers to a wooden construction(or tree) used for impaling people on. Where it came from we don't know, the oldest registered crucifixion is before ancient Rome by the Persians somewhere 500 B.C.


Do Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize marriage out of their religion?

Yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses recognise marriage between Witnesses and non-Witnesses.  However, for a divorced Jehovah’s Witness man to remarry he must have divorced his wife on the grounds of her adultery.  He may have a legal document granting him a divorce, but the Bible says the only basis for divorce is adultery.  Here are a couple of quotes from the official Jehovah’s Witness web site:

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, pages 639-643 – Divorce: What is the only Scriptural basis for divorce among Christians? Jesus said: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:8, 9) Today, generally, distinction is made between “fornicators” and “adulterers.” According to modern usage, those guilty of fornication are unmarried persons who willingly have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex. Adulterers are married persons who willingly have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex who is not their legal marriage mate. As shown in the article FORNICATION, however, the term “fornication” is a rendering of the Greek word por·neiʹa and includes all forms of illicit sexual relations outside of Scriptural marriage. Hence, Jesus’ words at Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 mean that the only divorce ground that actually severs the marriage bond is por·neiʹa on the part of one’s marriage mate. The follower of Christ may avail himself of that divorce provision if that is his desire, and such a divorce would free him to marry an eligible Christian.—1Co 7:39.
Nor does the Bible grant Christians the right to divorce their marriage mates because of difference in religion; it shows instead that by remaining with an unbelieving mate the Christian may win that individual over to the true faith.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001202
Honor “What God Has Yoked Together” Watchtower (Study) 2018 - The Only Scriptural Grounds: On two occasions, Jesus indicated that the only grounds for a divorce that would free an innocent mate to remarry is por·neiʹa. What does that Greek term mean? Por·neiʹa applies to illicit sexual relations outside Scriptural marriage. It includes adultery, prostitution, and sex relations between unmarried individuals as well as oral and anal sex and the sexual manipulation of the genitals of an individual to whom one is not married.  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2018683

I have no idea what you mean by saying this man is “divorced from his wife after 22 years of sub- standard wife treatment” and all I can suggest is that you get him to explain exactly what the grounds for the divorce were.


Lucifer and his angels do indeed appear to have independent will.  Revelation 12 describes the fall of the angels:

Revelation 12
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

It seems to my limited reasoning faculty, that it would not be possible for the "dragon" and his angels to make war on God and be cast out of heaven without them exercising their will independently of God's.
Furthermore, Isaiah describes self-will as the cause of the devil's fall:

Isaiah 14:12 ff
12 How you have fallen from heaven,     morning star, son of the
dawn!   You have been cast down to the earth,     you who once laid
low the nations!  13 You said in your heart,     “I will ascend to the
heavens;  I will raise my throne     above the stars of God;  I will
sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,     on the utmost heights of
Mount Zaphon.  14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;     I
will make myself like the Most High.”

That's a lot of "I will" statements, for someone without one.
Why some of the angels rebelled and others did not (and do not), is a mystery.  But you must be careful not to conflate independent will with a natural inclination to sin - for example, God has perfectly independent will, but it's not within his perfect nature to sin (indeed, since sin is fundamentally asserting your will over God's it's not possible by very definition for him to sin).