There was polygamy, or plural wives, in the Old Testament.
Starting with the (NRSV) Bible.

Sarai gave Hagar to Abram as his wife, Genesis 16:1–11

Jacob received Leah and Rachel and their handmaidens as wives, Genesis 29:21–28, Genesis 30:4, 9, 26.

If a man take another wife, he shall not diminish the first wife’s possessions, Exodus 21:10

David and his two wives went up to Hebron, 2 Samuel 2:1–2

In the Book of Mormon, the book of Jacob, Jacob explains to the Nephites how God sees plural wives. (Jacob 2:27-30)

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

So God has to command plural marriage by revelation.
Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, God revealed that he wanted all things restored, including polygamy.  This revelation was recorded 12 July 1843, and is known in the Doctrine and Covenants as revelation 132.

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
40 I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.

Poor Joseph.  God commanded him to restore all things.  He felt obliged to marry 34 other women.


What is the difference between the Gospel and the Holy Bible?

The difference between the Gospel and the Holy Bible.

The Injeel as Islam describes it has no evidence of existence outside Islamic sources, nor do Jesus' Muslim followers. The early Christians never believed that Jesus was given the Gospel from God like a prophet would be given. But rather he gave the gospel to his followers and it was his followers who eventually recorded it.

  And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. The First Apology (153-155 A.D) (Emphasis Mine)

Notice Justin Martyr never mentions one Injeel given to Jesus, like the one described in Sura 57:27. But rather a collection of documents written by his disciples.

  Also, does anyone have the original version of it (I mean the original version which was supplied by Jesus Christ, peace be upon him)?

No one has the gospel described in the Quran, no one has evidence of the Muslim followers of Jesus either.

"The Gospel" is a phrase used to describe either some books in the new testament (Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) and/or the general message of Christianity.


In Catholic Church History, when, why and by whom did the four living creatures become associated with the four evangelists?

The second century church father Irenaeus was probably the first.
Against Heresies: Book III
Chapter XI-Proofs in Continuation, Extracted from St. John's Gospel. The Gospels are Four in Number, Neither More Nor Less. Mystic Reasons for This.

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground”  [ 1 Tim. iii. 15. ] of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, “Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth.” [ Ps. lxxx. 1.]  For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,”  [ Rev. iv. 7.]  symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,”—an evident description of His advent as a human being; “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” [ John i. 1.]  Also, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;”[ Matt. i. 1, 18.]  and also, “The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.” This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,”—pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (καθολικαί) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html#fna_ix.iv.xii-p39.2
Cherubim represented the seasons in other Ancient Near Eastern symbolism.

The church Father Irenaeus said the human face of the third beast represented Matthew, the eagle of the fourth the gospel of Mark, the ox of the second Luke, and the lion of the first being John. Victorinus said the man pictured Matthew, the lion Mark, the ox Luke, and the eagle John. Augustine identified the lion with Matthew, the man with Mark, the ox with Luke, and the eagle with John. Athanasius referred the man to Matthew, the calf (i.e., ox) to Mark, the lion to Luke, and the eagle to John. Seemingly, almost every combination has been suggested.15
From this passage is derived the familiar symbolism of the four Evangelists; Mark seated on a lion, Luke on a steer, Matthew on a man, and John on an eagle.16

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Revelation/commentary/htm/topics/four_gospels.html
Here is the reasoning of Victorinus in his commentary on the Apocalypse. I think he is the first to match the order you give.

“And round about the throne were four living creatures.”] The four living creatures are the four Gospels.
7–10. “The first living creature was like to a lion, and the second was like to a calf, and the third had a face like to a man, and the fourth was like to a flying eagle; and they had six wings, and round about and within they were full of eyes; and they had no rest, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord Omnipotent. And the four and twenty elders, falling down before the throne, adored God.”] The four and twenty elders are the twenty-four books of the prophets and of the law, which give testimonies of the judgment. Moreover, also, they are the twenty-four fathers—twelve apostles and twelve patriarchs. And in that the living creatures are different in appearance, this is the reason: the living creature like to a lion designates Mark, in whom is heard the voice of the lion roaring in the desert. And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh. Therefore, in enumerating from Abraham to David, and thence to Joseph, he spoke of Him as if of a man: therefore his announcement sets forth the image of a man. Luke, in narrating the priesthood of Zacharias as he offers a sacrifice for the people, and the angel that appears to him with respect of the priesthood, and the victim in the same description bore the likeness of a calf. John the evangelist, like to an eagle hastening on uplifted wings to greater heights, argues about the Word of God. Mark, therefore, as an evangelist thus beginning, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet;”[Mark i. 3. ]  The voice of one crying in the wilderness,” [Isa. xl. 3. ] —has the effigy of a lion. And Matthew, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:” [  Matt. i. 1. ]  this is the form of a man. But Luke said, “There was a priest, by name Zachariah, of the course of Abia, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron:” [ Luke i. 5. ]  this is the likeness of a calf. But John, when he begins, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” [  John i. 1. ] sets forth the likeness of a flying eagle. Moreover, not only do the evangelists express their four similitudes in their respective openings of the Gospels, but also the Word itself of God the Father Omnipotent, which is His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, bears the same likeness in the time of His advent. When He preaches to us, He is, as it were, a lion and a lion’s whelp. And when for man’s salvation He was made man to overcome death, and to set all men free, and that He offered Himself a victim to the Father on our behalf, He was called a calf. And that He overcame death and ascended into the heavens, extending His wings and protecting His people, He was named a flying eagle. Therefore these announcements, although they are four, yet are one, because it proceeded from one mouth. Even as the river in paradise, although it is one, was divided into four heads. Moreover, that for the announcement of the New Testament those living creatures had eyes within and without, shows the spiritual providence which both looks into the secrets of the heart, and beholds the things which are coming after that are within and without.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi.ii.iv.html


What would be a typical Christian Pacifist response to 'rampant evil' - say in the form of large scale terrorism?

I spent most of my formative years in a Mennonite church, and identify with the Mennonite concept of pacifism.  So I will attempt to answer from a Mennonite Pacifist perspective, based primarily on my understanding, as taught to me by Mennonites, of this view (as opposed to my personal opinion on this view, which does vary slightly on a few points), and when possible, will provide references.

First, one must define what is meant by pacifism (and in this case, specifically, Mennonite Pacifism).  First, one thing that pacifism is not.

Pacifism is not a "passive" approach to aggression

While "pacifism" bears a resemblance to the often confused concept "passivism", they are not the least bit related.  The root of the word "pacifist" is the same as to "pacify" or "peace," whereas the root to the word "passivism" is "passive".

While few people go so far as to claim that "pacifism" comes from the same root as the word "passive" (although I have seen this argued before!), there is still an underlying concept in pacifist critique, that pacifists are, by and large, weak cowards who run from a fight and are, indeed, "passive" when faced with the threat of violence.

Pacifists, especially Mennonite pacifists, are anything but passive! They are generally very active, and even offensive, in their pacifist activism!

An article in The Mennonite magazine describes pacifism as:

  [P]acifism focuses on living without harming others at the minimum and as much as possible loving enemies and doing good to those who harm you.

Notice that this doesn't say anything about passively taking a beating from an aggressor!

What is Pacifism then?

If Pacifism is not responding to aggression with violence, and pacifism is not being passive, what is it?

Pacifism is the pro-active non-violent response to aggression. It can take many forms.  Some simple examples:

Non-violent protests
Smuggling of unjustly persecuted people (such as Jews during the Holocaust, or blacks in the US underground railroad) to hide them from a violent/oppressive regime
Civil disobedience
Voting
Speaking against acts of violence
Countless others

Naturally, most of these activities attract a lot of negative attention, especially from those who are in favor of a violent response to an aggressor or threat.

What guides a Christian Pacifist?

A Christian Pacifist holds a few Biblical principles in very high esteem.  I will spell these out, then help show how they can be applied to a 'rampant evil' situation, such as WWII.

Love your enemy.

  love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you Matthew 5:44 NIV

This is probably the key verse for Christian pacifists.  If we take this commandment from the Sermon on the Mount to heart, it becomes practically impossible to kill our enemy (unless we can somehow justify a mercy killing, but that's ruled out by the next point, which is... )
You shall not murder.

  You shall not murder. Exodus 20:13 NIV

Turn the other cheek

  You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.‘ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. Matthew 5:38-39 NIV

Here Christ tells us directly do not resist an evil person. This is surely applicable to 'rampant evil', as much as it is to a rude friend who slaps you in the face. Not only are we told not to resist, we are told to make ourselves even more vulnerable to them!
Violence is for God, not man.

  Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. Romans 12:19 NIV

This won't always apply to war situations, but when you consider those who are most quick to criticize pacifists in times of war, it is those who are motivated by a drive for vengeance.

These verses, and others, when considered together in the context of the Bible, and especially the new testament, are taken to paint a picture of non-violent resistance to oppression and aggression. Christ himself lived under an oppressive regime, and among would-be violent revolutionaries (many whom did become violent after Christ's ascension), who even asked him to legitimize their fight against Rome, and Christ responded by saying "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"--hardly fighting words!

So both the commandments given by Christ, especially the one about loving one's enemy, and his actions in light of his oppressive situation, suggest to Christian Pacifists that non-violence is the model we are intended to follow.

Now finally to the core of your question...

How does a Pacifist respond to 'rampant evil?'

Quoting the article from The Mennonite again (emphasis mine):

  Pacifism assumes that punishment and retribution do little to bring about change and tend to escalate the cycle of violence. It is not moral or even possible to “kill all the bad guys.” It is only possible to identify and address factors leading to violence in the environment, such as unemployment. As a pacifist there are causes for which I am prepared to die but none I can imagine that would lead me to kill.

The four principle verses mentioned above suggest directly that a Christian's response to aggression and evil ought to not be violent, and they imply (and it is elsewhere in scripture spelled out) that they ought to trust in God for liberation from evil.

A Christian Pacifist will be willing to die for a cause, but not be willing to kill for a cause.

But does it work?

This is a common criticism... "But if the US had responded with pacifism to Hitler... we'd all be speaking German now!"

We have no way of knowing that, because we did not have a large-scale pacifist response to Hitler.  If we had, the world today would undoubtedly be much different.  Would we all be speaking German?  Probably not.  But even if we were, according to a Christian Pacifist, we might be living under oppression, but we would be living free from the guilt of murdering hundreds of thousands of Nazi and Japanese soldiers in the 1940s, and hundreds of thousands of civilian bystanders.

A Christian Pacifist may "lose" in the eyes of the world, and be conquered, but they will uphold a higher standard, and will have won in the eyes of God.  "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Even though the Christian Pacifist will say that "even in military defeat we have won", this does not mean that pacifism doesn't work in the world's eyes, as well. There are many examples where it clearly has worked.  Look at the independence of India, led by Gandhi, after WWII.  A few Indians lost their lives in some peaceful protests, where the British responded with overwhelming violence.  But without a doubt, fewer Indians (to say nothing of the British!) died as the result of a non-violent revolution than would have died if the Indians had taken up arms against their oppressors.


Is Jesus seen as both the Passover Lamb and Goat(s) of the Atonement in any Protestant Theology?

I would expect that every Christian denomination would see Jesus's death as the fulfilment of both the Passover sacrifice and the Day of Atonement sacrifices and rituals, because the identification is made in the scriptures themselves.
1 Corinthians 5:7 says directly that Christ is our Passover lamb:

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Hebrews 9 is a lengthy comparison of the Jewish priests' ministry and Jesus' ministry. Its focus is more on showing that Jesus is the great high priest than explicitly saying he was the fulfilment of the goats, but the comparison is still there when it talks about his blood. The first paragraph shows that the Day of Atonement was the focus. The second shows the glorious truth that Jesus' death has done away with the need for all recurrent sacrifices!

Hebrews 9:6-7: These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.
Hebrews 9:11-14: But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.


What prominent scholars and/or denominations hold to Matthean priority?

"Matthaean priority" comes in two primary forms: the Augustinian hypothesis and the two-gospel hypothesis.  Both hold that Matthew came first, but differ on which synoptic gospel came next (Mark in the Augustinian hypothesis; Luke in the two-gospel).  They are minority views in NT scholarship, but some respected scholars have argued for them in recent years.  Among them are:

Bernard Orchard (Roman Catholic)

The Order of the Synoptics with Harold Riley (1987)

John Wenham (Anglican)

Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke (1992)

F. David Farnell (evangelical Protestant)

"The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church" (1999)

In previous generations, scholars like Johann Jakob Griesbach, John Chapman, Christopher Butler, and William Farmer held similar views.  Of course, so did many in the early church, but that's another story.

As for the relative popularity of these views as compared to Marcan priority, Christopher Tuckett's article "The Current State of the Synoptic Problem" (2008) may shed some light.  He describes the dominant solution to the Synoptic problem (the two-source hypothesis, which defends Marcan priority) and identifies several trends:

"There is widespread (but by no means universal) acceptance" of Marcan Priority (page 1)
In the early and mid-20th century, confidence in Marcan priority was extremely high, but this has ebbed somewhat in the last 30–40 years (10)
Of the two main rivals to the dominant two-source theory (and its Marcan priority), one of them (the two-gospel hypothesis of Griesbach) advocates Matthaean priority (4, 13)
Prominent advocates of the two-gospel hypothesis have claimed that the dominance of the two-source theory / Marcan priority is at least partially due to theological reasons (i.e., that belief in two-source theory / Marcan priority facilitates questioning the historicity of the Jesus tradition) (15)

That said, many believers in the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture (B. B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, A. T. Robertson, etc.) have supported the two-source hypothesis, so there isn't a clear dividing line on this issue between defenders of historicity and those opposed to it.

All told, we can safely conclude that Marcan priority is clearly dominant – Tuckett tells us that two of the top three schemes for solving the Synoptic problem rely on it.  But moreso today than 40–50 years ago, scholars acknowledge weaknesses in the dominant theories, and are generally less inclined to dismiss Matthaean priority out of hand.


What are the benefits of last rites to a mortally injured person in the Catholic belief?

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

The Effects of Extreme Unction
The advantages we receive from this Sacrament are also to be
accurately explained, so that if nothing else can allure the faithful
to its reception, they may be induced at least by its utility; for we
are naturally disposed to measure almost all things by our interests.
Pastors, therefore, should teach that by this Sacrament is imparted
grace that remits sins, and especially lighter, or as they are
commonly called, venial sins; for mortal sins are removed by the
Sacrament of Penance. Extreme Unction was not instituted primarily for
the remission of grave offences; only Baptism and Penance accomplish
this directly.
Another advantage of the Sacred Unction is that it liberates the soul
from the languor and infirmity which it contracted from sins, and from
all the other remains of sin. The time most opportune for this cure is
when we are afflicted with severe illness and danger to life impends,
for it has been implanted in man by nature to dread no human
visitation so much as death. This dread is greatly augmented by the
recollection of our past sins, especially if our conscience accuses us
of grave offences; for it is written: They shall come with fear at the
thought of their sins, and their iniquities shall stand against them
to convict them. Another source of vehement anguish is the anxious
thought that we must soon afterwards stand before the judgment seat of
God, who will pass on us a sentence of strictest justice according to
our deserts. It often happens that, struck with this terror, the
faithful feel themselves deeply agitated; and nothing conduces more to
a tranquil death than to banish sadness, await with a joyous mind the
coming of our Lord, and be ready willingly to surrender the deposit
entrusted whenever it shall be His will to demand it back. To free the
minds of the faithful from this solicitude, and fill the soul with
pious and holy joy is, then, an effect of the Sacrament of Extreme
Unction.
From it, moreover, we derive another advantage, which may justly be
deemed the greatest of all. For although the enemy of the human race
never ceases, while we live, to meditate our ruin and destruction, yet
at no time does he more violently use every effort utterly to destroy
us, and, if possible, deprive us of all hope of the divine mercy, than
when he sees the last day of life approach. Therefore arms and
strength are supplied to the faithful in this Sacrament to enable them
to break the violence and impetuosity of the adversary, and to fight
bravely against him; for the soul of the sick is relieved and
encouraged by the hope of the divine goodness, strengthened by which
it bears more lightly ail the burdens of sickness, and eludes with
greater ease the artifice and cunning of the devil who lies in wait
for it.
Finally, the recovery of health, if indeed advantageous, is another
effect of this Sacrament. And if in our days the sick obtain this
effect less frequently, this is to be attributed, not to any defect of
the Sacrament, but rather to the weaker faith of a great part of those
who are anointed with the sacred oil, or by whom it is administered;
for the Evangelist bears witness that the Lord wrought not many
miracles among His own, because of their unbelief.
It may also be truly said at the Christian religion, since it has
struck its roots more deeply in the minds of men, stands now less in
need of the aids of such miracles than it did formerly, at the
commencement of the rising Church. Nevertheless, faith should be
strongly excited in this respect, and whatever it may please God in
His wisdom to do with regard to the health of the body, the faithful
ought to rely on a sure hope of attaining, by virtue of this sacred
oil, health of the soul, and of experiencing, should the hour of their
departure from life be at hand, the fruit of that glorious assurance:
Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord.


One can find a reference to the peacock in the book of Revelation 4:6:

  Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.

"Full of eyes"... "The tail of the peacock, with its ‘thousand eyes’ are symbolic of omnipotence and often ascribed to the Archangel Michael. The peacock’s feather is sometimes associated with St. Barbara."1
Also, The peacock, (due to an ancient myth that Peacock flesh did not decay),
is seen as a symbol of immortality.

The peacock is also seen as a symbol of resurrection: "When the peacock sheds his feathers, he grows more brilliant ones than those he lost."2

One may also hear the opinion that the peacock is the symbol of (ironically) humility, since it has great beauty, yet hides it all behind itself.

As a fleur de lis symbol, it is often seen as a symbol of Beauty, power, and knowledge.3

  What churches is this symbol used in?

To the best of my knowledge, the Protestant denominations have never really used the Peacock as a symbol. It is used somewhat commonly in the Orthodox church (which is where I was first acquainted with its use), and can be seen in medieval Catholic churches. Not sure if the Catholics still use it to this day, but I know that the Orthodox certainly do. For more on this, take a look at this link.


Should Catholics in a state of grace call themselves sinners?

Being in a state of grace is defined as:

  Condition of a person who is free from mortal sin and pleasing to God. It is the state of being in God's friendship and the necessary condition of the soul at death in order to attain heaven.

However, the Catechism makes a distinction between sins as mortal or venial so it is possible to be in a state of grace (free from mortal sin) while still being a sinner (having committed venial sins). Indeed, the Catechism refers to one who has committed venial sin(s) but not mortal sins as a "sinner" despite being in a state of grace (emphasis added):

  1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

One could perhaps claim to be not a sinner just after having received absolution (so that you are free from mortal and venial sin), but even so the Catechism uses the word "sinner" to refer to a person who has just received absolution (emphasis added):

  Satisfaction

  1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

The Catechism could easily refer to the "sinner" who "must still recover his full spiritual health" as, for example, a "penitent", yet it nonetheless continues to refer to the person as a "sinner".

Therefore, I would still call myself a sinner even if I'm in a state of grace. Even if one has recently received absolution from confession, in honesty and humility it is probably not long before one commits another venial sin and can no longer claim to be free of all sin.


What was the amount of bread and wine used when Jesus did communion?

It would have actually been a pretty lavish meal. It was Pesach. That means it was the "seder" for Passover, the communal dinner to celebrate that Feast day. It is the only feast day that is celebrated, to this day, at home. That is, in someone's home or homelike setting. A Passover Seder is one of the primary Feasts (MoAdim) Moshe (Moses) laid out in the Torah, that is the first 5 books of what is now called the Old Testament scriptures (of the Jews, Messianics and Christians).

Jews (remember, Jesus was a Jew and was then still in complete obedience to the Mosaic law) saved up all year, and many still do, for that feast meal. Family came from all around, even other lands, and it was one of 3 "pilgrim" feast days in that the adult males had to go to Jerusalem to observe, if they could. That's why Jesus had someone go and find the man who had "prepared" for them "the meal." Passover is always done with matzah and wine. Matzah is just the hebrew word for unleavened bread. Y'shua (Jesus) served that day and the next as "'the Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world,'" just as John the Baptizer said of him, and also as the First Fruits (of the New Covenant). See Hebrews 13:11-16:

  The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. 15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.


What is the status of Catholics who reject Vatican II? Are they considered heretics?

It is always good to start with definitions.

Heresy1 ≡ is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. [cf. CCC 2809.]

1. Fuller treatment here: Heresy | New Advent.

The chief things which God has revealed, and therefore to be believed, are contained in the Apostles' Creed. [cf. Penny Catechism, 13.]

An example of a a heresy is Arianism, the first heresy that gained a strong footing in the Church and seriously endangered its very nature and existence. Arius bluntly asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time.

Next it would be good to say what the council was all about from the Church's perspective.

The future Pope Benedict XVI [now Pope Emeritus], when he was still prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in an address, given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation's bishops, that, the truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.2

2. cf. Library: Cardinal Ratzinger's Remarks Regarding the Lefebvre Schism - Catholic Culture.

Therefore from the Church's perspective pre and post Vatican II, there has been no change in the truths to be believed.

Continuing to how the Church interprets the Council.

Carol Glatz in a post on Friday, 30 Nov 2012 in the Catholic Herald reported Archbishop Gerhard Müller saying that what Pope Benedict XVI has termed “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity” is the “only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology”.

In the article, the Archbishop continued:

  “Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a
  heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, [found]
  both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist” side.

Note: The Archbishop's reflections are here in Italian.

Therefore Answering

According to Archbishop Muller, there are "progressives" and "traditionalists" who refuse the Council, who do not have the unique orthodox interpretation of the Council which Pope Benedict XVI termed "the hermeneutic of reform in continuity". Theirs is an interpretation of "discontinuity and rupture" and the Archbishop terms this interpretation as a heretical interpretation.


According to the Catholicism, what was the marital status of Gomer, the woman chosen to be Prophet Hosea's wife?

As I understand the verse: “Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress..." It says there, "adulteress" and so she was married. The question is, "To whom?" The answer is to Hosea.
In Good News Translation it says, "The Lord said to me, "Go again and show your love for a woman who is committing adultery with a lover." It says, "AGAIN," which means she was with Hosea and therefore his wife who was an adulteress.
So, what we can learn from this is we should use a Bible translation, which is easier for us to understand. I also struggled understanding God's word because of the Bible translation I was using. Good News Translation (GNT) is just about right (for me, with the Lord's guidance).


Meaning of 1 Peter 4:17 According to Calvinists

From Calvin's Commentary on the Bible:

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/1-peter/4-18.html#cal

I have bolded relevant passages.

  When the faithful see that it is well with the wicked, they are
  necessarily tempted to be envious; and this is a very dangerous trial;
  for present happiness is what all desire. Hence the Spirit of God
  carefully dwells on this, in many places, as well as in the
  thirty-seventh Psalm, lest the faithful should envy the prosperity of
  the ungodly. The same is what Peter speaks of, for he shews that
  afflictions ought to be calmly borne by the children of God, when they
  compare the lot of others with their own. But he takes it as granted
  that God is the judge of the world, and that, therefore, no one can
  escape his hand with impunity. He hence infers, that a dreadful
  vengeance will soon overtake those whose condition seems now
  favorable. The design of what he says, as I have already stated, is to
  shew that the children of God should not faint under the bitterness of
  present evils, but that they ought, on the contrary, calmly to bear
  their afflictions for a short time, as the issue will be salvation,
  while the ungodly will have to exchange a fading and fleeting
  prosperity for eternal perdition.

  But the argument is from the less to the greater; for if God spares
  not his own children whom he loves and who obey him, how dreadful will
  be his severity against enemies and such as are rebellious! There is,
  then, nothing better than to obey the Gospel, so that God may kindly
  correct us by his paternal hand for our salvation.

  18 And if the righteous It has been thought that this sentence is taken
  from Proverbs 11:31; for the Greek translators have thus rendered what
  Solomon says,

  “Behold, the just shall on the earth be recompensed; how much more the
  ungodly and the sinner?”

  Now, whether Peter intended to quote this passage, or repeated a
  common and a proverbial saying, (which seems to me more probable,)
  (51) the meaning is, that God’s judgment would be dreadful against the
  ungodly, since the way to salvation was so thorny and difficult to the
  elect. And this is said, lest we should securely indulge ourselves,
  but carefully proceed in our course, and lest we should also seek the
  smooth and easy road, the end of which is a terrible precipice.

  But when he says, that a righteous man is scarcely saved, he refers to
  the difficulties of the present life, for our course in the world is
  like a dangerous sailing between many rocks, and exposed to many
  storms and tempests; and thus no one arrives at the port, except he
  who has escaped from [a] thousand deaths. It is in the meantime
  certain that we are guided by God’s hand, and that we are in no danger
  of shipwreck as long as we have him as our pilot.

  Absurd, then, are those interpreters who think that we shall be hardly
  and with difficulty saved, when we shall come before God in judgment;
  for it is the present and not the future time that Peter refers to;
  nor does he speak of God’s strictness or rigour, but shews how many
  and what arduous difficulties must be surmounted by the Christian
  before he reaches the goal. Sinner here means a wicked man (52) and
  the righteous are not those who are altogether perfect in
  righteousness, but who strive to live righteously.


What is the modern LDS view towards multiple Heavenly Mothers/wives of members of the Godhead?

There is very little in regards to the doctrine of Heavenly Mother and not much has changed in recent years. Most references to Heavenly Mother are singular (not plural), and there is no expounded doctrine within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regards to Heavenly Mother.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. ... Prophets have taught that our heavenly parents work together for the salvation of the human family. ... As with many other truths of the gospel, our present knowledge about a Mother in Heaven is limited.1

 1 Mother in Heaven


Why can't people change their denomination?

The primary reason why serious Christians cannot switch denominations is because the doctrines surrounding salvation have eternal consequences.

For instance, the Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith, and that without a valid transubstantial reception of the Eucharist the human soul will eventually wither away.

On the other hand, most Baptist camps teach and believe that the Eucharist is only a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper, and really has nothing to do with salvific Grace other than a Christ-given ordinance of worship.

...two totally different denominational doctrines...

(I chose these two denominations for no specific anti-ecclesiastical reason other than comparison of doctrine)

Another example is justification by Grace alone through a working faith taught by pre-Reformation churches versus justification by faith alone taught by the majority of Protestant denominations.

On crucially important doctrines such as these, you are either right or wrong. This is why its infinitely and eternally important to find the right denomination (well...at least as close as possible).

Of course there are many other superfulous reasons why people stay where they are, such as familial pressure and tradition.

I really hate focusing on differences rather than what we all have in common, but this question seems to draw lines in the sand.

It must be said that there will always be overlapping areas of grey, and the Holy Spirit knows what he is doing.


If a priest makes a major mistake during confession, can he later talk to the person to correct themselves?

Is a priest permitted to talk about a person's confession to the penitent after the penitent's sacramental confession?

There is a lack of general information on this subject, but the short answer is yes, but only after having received permission from the penitent himself to do so.

  A priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession a particular sin, fault, temptation, circumstance in a counseling session or in a conversation with the same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For instance, especially with the advent of "face-to-face confession," I have had individuals come up to me and say, "Father, remember that problem I spoke to you about in confession?" I have to say, "Please refresh my memory," or "Do you give me permission to discuss this with you now?"

  Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person secret. - The Seal of the Confessional

While there are now apps such as Confession that can assist during the examination of conscience, you cannot receive sacramental absolution via the internet or on the phone.  Matters of conscience are forbidden by Rome over the phone, e-mail, internet and other forms of modern communication when the sacrament of confession is involved. This would apply to a priest talking to a penitent about any matter of conscience involving a past confession. The internet is never a safe place for such conversations.

  “It is essential to understand well the sacrament of penitence requires the personal dialogue between the penitent and the confessor and the absolution by the confessor,” Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi told reporters on Wednesday. “This cannot in any way be substituted by a technology application.”

  “One cannot talk in any way about a ‘confession via iPhone,’ ” Lombardi said. - Vatican issues warning for new Confession app


What is the significance of the name, "The Word"?

By Greek word being translated to Word is "Logos".  Both Jews and Gentiles would have taken significant meaning from this.

For Jewish readers, Logos is how God achieved his will and is the personification of God's revelation to them.

For Gentile readers, Logos would have been understood as an intermediate entity through which God created and communicated.

By calling Jesus "the Word" in John 1:1, he is saying Jesus is God's will and God is communicating through him.  He is also saying that Jesus is a part of God, therefore anything which comes through Jesus, even though it is through the flesh, is directly from God.

Reference


Are there any denominations that do not require pastors to be college educated?

Amish and some Mennonites practice this. I met a Beachy Amish pastor several years ago who was selected by "lot" without needing to go to college. This practice, I believe, is based on Acts 1:26 where Matthias was selected as an Apostle by lot. This guy was not dumb or stupid by any means - he knew his Bible well, but perhaps not as much Shakespeare.

Jehovah's Witnesses ordain non-college graduates as Elders. See this answer to this question: How trained are the elders in the Jehovah's Witness denomination?


Why is it not enough for Jesus to be human to be the perfect sacrifice, why must he be God?

God gave detailed instructions on how and when animal sacrifices were to be offered to cover sin.  The underlying principle is that blood has to be shed for the forgiveness of sins:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22).

This was to continue until Christ came to offer the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, which made animal sacrifice no longer necessary.

But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Hebrews 10:3–4).

Yes, Jesus is holy and without sin, so why would a perfect human sacrifice be insufficient if he was only a man?
One human life, even the life of a perfect man, couldn’t possibly cover the sins of the multitudes who ever existed.  Neither could one finite human life atone for sin against an infinite God.  The only viable sacrifice must be an infinite one, which means only God, manifest in flesh, could atone for the sins of the elect.  Only God, an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself.  This is why God became manifest in flesh to dwell among men (John 1:14).  No other sacrifice would suffice.
God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled all the requirements of the Law.  Unlike the temporary sacrifices, Jesus’ once-for-all-time sacrifice was followed by His resurrection.  He laid down His life and took it up again, thereby providing eternal life for all who would ever believe in Him and accept His sacrifice for their sins.  He did this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father has given Him (John 6:37–40).
Sin entered the world through Adam, and Adam’s sinful nature has been transferred to every baby born into the world (Romans 5:12)—except for Jesus. Because Jesus did not have a human father, He did not inherit a sin nature. He possessed the divine nature from His Heavenly Father.
Jesus, the Word, became flesh in order to dwell among us (John 1:14). Jesus came (from heaven) to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45).
Jesus was the final, perfect sacrifice that satisfied forever God’s wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:14). His divine nature made Him fit for the work of Redeemer; His human body allowed Him to shed the blood necessary to redeem.  No human being with a sin nature could pay such a debt.  No one else could meet the requirements to become the sacrifice for the sins of those whom God had chosen, the elect  (Matthew 26:28; 1 John 2:2).  If Jesus were merely a good man as some claim, then He had a sin nature and was not perfect.  In that case, His death and resurrection would have no power to save anyone.
Because Jesus was God manifest in flesh, He could pay the debt we owed to God.


Does one have to admit to not being a virgin when preparing for a Catholic wedding?

Go make a sacramental confession with a Priest other than the one conducting your Pre-Cana, and after the confession ask him. But I don't believe that the Priest is allowed to ask, but I don't believe the Church would withhold the Sacrament. Lack of virginity is not a reason for withholding the sacrament, for one can marry after the first spouse has died, and they would obviously not be a virgin.

And, just to clarify, intercourse with someone doesn't make you married to them. Unmarried, non-virgins can definitely marry in the Catholic Church.


What does it mean that God is the saviour of all people, especially those who believe?

Just one week back I encountered the same question in my personal meditation.

I think the key is in understanding the term Saviour.

Saviour to all men: Originally all men ought to have been destroyed in Adam when he sinned. The Bible says,

  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8

So the reason why this world was allowed to continue was because of the fact that the Jesus took it upon Himself to save the human race. I Peter 1:18-21 clarifies it further.

  Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. I Peter 1:18-21

So the fact that the world is continuing, that food is growing, that animals are living is all thanks to Christ. So God in Christ is the saviour to all men in giving them a probationary time to choose what they want.

Especially of those that believe: This refers to people who have made the choice to stand in the side of Christ, to accept Christ as the Son of God, believing on His name thereby becoming Sons and Daughters of God themselves:

  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12


What is the Biblical basis for man being created perfect, or for man not being created perfect?

On Nakedness and Shame

In Gen. 2:25, it states "and the two of them were naked" (וַיִּֽהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים), but it does not say that Adam and Eve knew they were naked (cp. Gen. 3:11). The statement that they were naked is merely an objective fact.

Because they did not know they were naked, "they were not ashamed" (וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ) (ibid). Yet, in Gen. 3:7, once "they knew that they were naked" (וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם), after partaking of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:6), which causes their eyes to be opened (Gen. 3:7a), then they were ashamed and afraid (Gen. 3:10). Consequently, they made themselves girdles or aprons from fig leaves to cover their nakedness (Gen. 3:7b).

On Man being Alone

In Gen. 1:31, the ultimate verse of the first chapter in which humanity is created (cp. Gen. 1:26-27), both male and female of the species, "God saw everything that He made, and behold, it was very good."

Ergo, humanity created as both male and female was "very good," but when humanity existed as only male (i.e., as Adam by himself), it was "not good that he be alone" (cp. Gen. 2:18). Hence, God created Eve to be a helper for him, and this union of male and female, husband and wife, was then "very good."

Gen. 2 contains an expansion of Gen. 1, including an elaboration of the creation of humanity.

To note, while man being alone was not good, this does not mean that man himself was not good. Adam, the first man, was the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), and if God is good, then man must have also been good (this pertains to man before his fall). The Lord Jesus Christ came to restore man to that original image of perfection and goodness.


In John 1:45–51, did Jesus prophesy that Nathanael was one of the 144,000 Jews in Revelation 7 and 14?

There is some variety in what Christians have taught concerning this verse, but most seem to focus on it represent one or more of the following

An allusion to Jacob's dream of a ladder (Genesis 28:10-22). These typically present Christ as the fulfillment of that dream.
A specific prediction of an event in Christ's life that Nathanael would witness, especially

Christ's Baptism
Christ's Transfiguration
Christ's Ascension

A prediction of the Second Coming
A general claim to divinity

There are some who mention Nathanael and that Christ has confirmed his confession "Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!", but that they usually move quickly on to interpreting Christ's words. I haven't found any that explicitly mention Nathanael's ultimate fate. Those that mention Nathanael tend to focus more on the miracles and wonders that Nathanael will witness.

Here are some of the highlights.

John Chrysostom

John was Patriarch of Constantinople around AD 400. He is well respected by most Christian traditions, but is particularly beloved by the Orthodox. In his 21st Homily on the Gospel of John, he focuses on how the angels serve Christ throughout His sojourn of Earth and that this is proof of Christ's Divine Sonship.

  Persuading him by these words to own Him Lord also of the Angels. For on Him as on the King's own Son, the royal ministers ascended and descended, once at the season of the Crucifixion, again at the time of the Resurrection and the Ascension, and before this also, when they came and ministered unto Him, when they proclaimed the glad tidings of His birth, and cried, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace', when they came to Mary, when they came to Joseph. ...  For of His sayings some had been proved, such as, Before Philip called you, under the fig-tree I saw you; others had yet to come to pass, and had partly done so, namely, the descending and ascending of the Angels, at the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension; and this He renders credible by His words even before the event.

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine was Bishop of Hippo around AD 400. He is among the most influential theologians in Christian history. In his 7th Tractate on John, Augustine refers back to Jacob and asserts that the dream pointed to Christ:

  Jacob saw a ladder in a dream; and on a ladder he saw angels ascending and descending: and he anointed the stone which he had placed at his head. You have heard that the Messiah is Christ; you have heard that Christ is the Anointed. For Jacob did not place the stone, the anointed stone, that he might come and adore it: otherwise that would have been idolatry, not a pointing out of Christ.

He goes on to interpret the angels on the ladder as the Christian preachers. Nathanael probably did not understand it this way, but it is worth mentioning.

  But what saw he then on the ladder? Ascending and descending angels. So it is the Church, brethren: the angels of God are good preachers, preaching Christ; this is the meaning of, they ascend and descend upon the Son of man.

Cyril of Alexandria

Cyril was Patriarch of Alexandria in the 400s. He was central to the defense of the Two Natures of Christ against Nestorius. His exposition may come the closest to commenting on Nathanael's salvation, but he seems to focus more on the evidence that will confirm Nathanael's confession rather than his final state.

  Thou shalt be firmer unto faith, saith He, when thou seest greater things than these. For he that believed one sign, how shall he not by means of many be altogether bettered, especially since they shall be more wonderful than those now wondered at? ... Common now to all is the word which seals the faith of Nathanael. But in saying that angels shall be seen speeding up and down upon the Son of Man, that is, ministering and serving His commands, for the salvation of such as shall believe, He says that then especially shall He be revealed as being by Nature Son of God. For it is not one another that the rational powers serve but surely God.

His commentary then moves on to a discussion of Christ's miracles and ties these back to the wonders that Nathanael will see.

Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas was a Catholic priest and monk in the 1200s. He is considered a Doctor of the Church by the Catholic Church. Aquinas uses the passage to illustrate Christ's power and His two natures:

  Because Christ spoke the truth about the past, it was easier for Nathanael to believe what he foretells about the future, saying, you will see. For one who has revealed the truth about things hidden in the past, has an evident argument that what he is saying about the future is true. He says, the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man, because, in his mortal flesh, he was a little less than the angels; and from this point of view, angels ascend and descend upon him. But insofar as he is the Son of God, he is above the angels, as was said.

He goes on to agree with Augustine that the statement refers back to Jacob and a prefiguring of Christ:

  According to Augustine, Christ is here revealing his divinity in a beautiful way. For it is recorded that Jacob dreamed of a ladder, standing on the ground, with "the angels of God ascending and descending on it". Then Jacob arose and poured oil on a stone and said, "Truly, the Lord is in this place". Now that stone is Christ, whom the builders rejected; and the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit was poured on him. He is set up as a pillar, because he was to be the foundation of the Church: “No one can lay another foundation except that which has been laid” (1 Cor 3:11). The angels are ascending and descending inasmuch as they are ministering and serving before him. So he said, Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened, and so forth, as if to say: Because you are truly an Israelite, give heed to what Israel saw, so that you many believe that I am the one signified by the stone anointed by Jacob, for you also will see angels ascending and descending upon him

John Calvin

Calvin was one of the principle theologians of the Reformation. He takes the position that we should not spend too much time wondering about Nathanael but should instead learn what we can about the Kingdom of God:

  They are greatly mistaken, in my opinion, who anxiously inquire into the place where, and the time when, Nathanael and others saw heaven opened; for he rather points out something perpetual which was always to exist in his kingdom. I acknowledge indeed, that the disciples sometimes saw angels, who are not seen in the present day; and I acknowledge also that the manifestation of the heavenly glory, when Christ ascended to heaven, was different from what we now behold. But if we duly consider what took place at that time, it is of perpetual duration; for the kingdom of God

To that end, Calvin understands the statement to refer to Jacob's dream being fulfilled in Christ, the only Mediator between heaven and earth.

  They are said to ascend and descend, so as to be ministers of God's kindness towards us; and therefore this mode of expression points out the mutual intercourse which exists between God and men. Now we must acknowledge that this benefit was received through Christ, because without him the angels have rather a deadly enmity against us than a friendly care to help us. They are said to ascend and descend on the son of man, not because they minister to him, but because -- in reference to him, and for his honor -- they include the whole body of the Church in their kindly regard. Nor have I any doubt that he alludes to the ladder which was exhibited to the patriarch Jacob in a dream, for what was prefigured by that vision is actually fulfilled in Christ.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I don't think we can completely rule out the idea Christ was confirming Nathanael's salvation, but it seems that Christian teachers have not dwelt on this. Instead the focus, in one way or another, on Christ.


Is the resolution not to sin again a must for absolution?

As explained here, three things are part of the matter  of the Sacrament (the 'stuff,' or that which is involved and necessary—such as water, in baptism):

Confession (of sins)

Contrition (sorrow for sin)

Satisfaction (making reparation to God by doing the opposite of indulging in sin, which is to do penance)

Purpose of amendment (intention not to commit the same sin as best you can, honestly, truthfully), however, is related intrinsically to contrition. Because you are not sorry if you both say you are sorry and intend, but don't outwardly make it known, that you in fact plan to do the same in the future!
That is, to make a confession without purpose of amendment (resolution not to sin) is to make an invalid confession, and you cannot recieve the grace given in the Sacrament of Confession.
Refusing to or not having the intention to amend your life and not fall into the same sin with all your strength, is actually the sin of presumption ('God will definitely forgive me if I sin again,' i.e. 'God owes me forgiveness').
And you cannot replace part of the matter for the Sacrament with a sin!
This passage from Sirach (or, Ecclesiasticus) deals with this:

Sirach 5:1-10
Set not thy heart upon unjust possessions,1 and say not: I have enough to live on: for it shall be of no service in the time of vengeance and darkness. Follow not in thy strength the desires of thy heart: And say not: How mighty am I? and who shall bring me under for my deeds? for God will surely take revenge. Say not: I have sinned, and what harm hath befallen me? for the most High is a patient rewarder. Be not without fear about sin forgiven, and add not sin upon sin: And say not: The mercy of the Lord is great, he will have mercy on the multitude of my sins. For mercy and wrath quickly come from him, and his wrath looketh upon sinners. Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day. For his wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance he will destroy thee. Be not anxious for goods unjustly gotten:1 for they shall not profit thee in the day of calamity and revenge.

1 or in the case of habit of sin, illicit pleasures, to which you have no right: the pleasure which comes with sinning
cf. Mt 24:42-51; Luke 12:46; Revelation 22:12.
Similarly, it is gravely disrespectful to abuse the Sacrament of Confession:

Hebrews 10:29
How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath
trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the
testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an
affront to the Spirit of grace?

See also 2 Peter 2:20-22, as noted by the commenter below.


Did Abraham, David and Solomon think having many wives was sin?

There were specific instructions for the king of Israel to not acquire many wives for himself, since that could have the effect of turning his heart away from the Lord.  This text predates the first king of Israel, so I would say that David and Solomon should have known that this was forbidden.

(Note:  the Bible did not actually forbid them from polygamy, but from having a whole bunch of wives.)

  "When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and
  you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over
  me, like all the nations that are around me,' you may indeed set a
  king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your
  brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner
  over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many
  horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to
  acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never
  return that way again.' And he shall not acquire many wives for
  himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself
  excessive silver and gold.  Deuteronomy 17:14-17 ESV

As for Abraham specifically, aside from the affair with Hagar, he stayed married to one wife (Sarah) until she passed, after which he married Keturah and had children with her.

The Bible does not explicitly state that polygamy was forbidden, yet it would have been instructive to note that God created Adam and Eve--not Adam and Eve and Shirley and Tina and...


The Orthodox canon of the Old Testament is close to the Septuagint both by the order of books and by the contents.
However, the Canonical books are those that were originally included in the Jewish canon, with several additions. 60th rule of the Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 363) names 22 books within the Old Testament. They were reorganized and split during the centuries to coincide more with the Septuagint.

The Russian Orthodox tradition includes 39 canonical (coinciding with the Protestant Old Testament) and 11 non-canonical books, thus having a distinction from Catholic Vulgata that contains 46 canonical books forming the Old Testament.

The 11 non-canonical books are: 7, that are known as Deuterocanonical in Catholic canon (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees), the Letter of Jeremiah as the separate book from Baruch, and the other 3: 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 3 Esdras.
These non-canonical books are considered as not written under the Holy Spirit, but are accepted by many Fathers.

From the thirty-ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival:

  There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
  Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
  These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'You err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me Matthew 22:29; John 5:39.'
  But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.

The Orthodox Synod, convened in Constantinople in 1642, made a decision that is similar to the aforementioned words of Athanasius of Alexandria: the argued books of Old Testament "are non-canonical", but "are venerated as beneficent and pious" (ref. in Russian).

The Prayer of Manasseh is agreed to be non-canonical by all Christian denominations, but it is placed in different parts of the Bible by different Churches. In the Russian Orthodox tradition (also in the late 4th-century Vulgate and the Ethiopian Bible) it is placed at the end of 2 Chronicles, after 36:23 (ref. in Russian).

The list of non-canonical books accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church differs a bit from the list of the Russian Orthodox Church. It contains 4 Maccabees, but does not include 3 Esdras.

27 books of the New Testament are the same for the most of Cristian denominations. The full list on Wikipedia is correct.


Which day of Creation Week were the stars created?

The text of Genesis 1, literally interpreted, clearly includes the stars in the list of things created on day 4, along with the sun and moon. Even older translations like the KJV include "stars" in verse 16. Planets in ancient cosmologies (even up to medieval times) would have usually been considered a subset of "stars".
In verse 1, "the heaven" does not necessarily include stars. In the original ancient Hebrew cosmology it would have referred to the "vault" over the earth (or "ocean of heaven"). Those attempting to apply it to modern cosmology might consider it to be "space". Young Earth Creationists do not have a fixed viewpoint on this as I understand it.
You mention Creation Ministries International (CMI) in comments. CMI takes Genesis days very, very literally. It's basically their defining doctrine. I have not been able to locate a definitive statement from CMI about what day the stars were created, but since Genesis states it very clearly as day 4 I would be utterly astonished if CMI did not agree. "The universe" can exist without stars, so saying "the universe was created on day 1" does not have to mean the stars were also.


Did God ever really help the Hebrews in battle?

Here's a list of several events just off the top of my head:

capture/destruction of Jericho
Othniel
Gideon's 300 men against the Midianites
Samson's final crush of the Philistines
Elijah and the prophets of Baal

As to why God didn't save them from some oppressors, one of the myriad instances of a single phrase in Judges shows why:

  Now the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, so that the LORD gave them into the hands of the {nation} for {number} of years*

*note "nation" and "number" can be substituted for any oppressor and duration


How does the Snake in the Desert foreshadow the coming of Jesus?

Numbers 21:6-9 (NIV)

  6 Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

  8 The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.

I believe the key here is the type of action that was taken "raising up" and the result of that action "healing". If you recall the people of Israel were struck with a plague of snakes. To alleviate the plague Moses was instructed to raise up a bronze snake and all who looked at the snake were healed.

Jon 3:14-15(NIV)

  14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

We are bitten with a plague of sin, Christ was raised up on the Cross. Those who look to Christ are healed. I also don't think its a coincidence that the plague was snakes. This goes back to more snake imagery involving Jesus from Genesis:

Genesis 3:15(NIV)

  15 And I will put enmity
     between you and the woman,
     and between your offspring and hers;
  he will crush your head,
     and you will strike his heel.”

Jesus' coming was foreshadowed with snakes as far back as Genesis, this is a continuation of that theme.


Who can move Easter celebrations in the Orthodox Churches?

Who made the decision that the autonomous Finnish Orthodox Church could celebrate Easter at the same time as Western Churches and was the Ecumenical Patriarch involved?

The decision for this extraordinary move on the part of the Orthodox Churches was primarily made by the Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow. Patriarch Tikhon granted permission for the Finnish Orthodox Church to celebrate Easter with the usage of the Gregorian calendar in October 1921. Although it was Patriarch Tikhon's decision, the Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos did have some input into to the decision.

As for the Orthodox Church in Estonia, it was the Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos who issued the tomos of autonomy on June 7, 1923. Similarly the Patriarch of Moscow was involved in this decicion as well.

The following article explains the situation for both Orthodox Churches quite well: The Date of Orthodox Easter in Finland and Estonia.

Finland and Estonia


How does one test the spirits and identify false preachers?

The Bible gives several ways.

One of the easiest is if their predictions don't come true:

  When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow
  not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not
  spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not
  be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:22).

Another is if they speak contrary to Scripture:

  And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar
  spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a
  people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the Law
  and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is
  because there is no Light in them" (Isaiah 8:19-20).

and

  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you
  than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
  (Galatians 1:8)

Along the same vein, if you know your Scripture, you'll know what Christ-Like behavior and attitudes are, and will be able to use your malarkey detector to sniff them out.

  You will know them by their fruit. Grapes aren't gathered from thorns,
  or figs from thistles, are they? (Matthew 7:16)


Popes' Coat of Arms and Saint Malachy Prophecy of the Popes

No pope chooses his name or coat of arms based on the Prophecies of Popes which are attributed to the Irish St. Malachy. That seems like a reasonable weak reason for a pope to choose his papal name based on St. Malachy’s predictions, to say the least, if not superfluous altogether by some people.

Any connection of these Latin mottos to a pope’s coat of arms of name or some else involved in a pope’s life is up to chance.

Proponents of the prophecies have attempted to link these mottos to various Supreme Pontiffs in various ways as the Wikipedia article on the Prophecy of the Popes points out.

It is more the proponents of the prophecies that create the suitable links between a particular pope and his St. Malachy’s motto.

Since the Vatican does not recognize this as an valid prophecy, anyone could interpret it a particular motto in their own way.

I am personally unsure if this prophecy is true or not, however it seems to have an eerily accurate tone to it, to say the least.

I am personally at divergence with most proponents of the Prophecy of the Popes, when it comes to the interpretation given to the current Pope Francis as this question points out: Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis and the Prophecy of the Popes.


Do Pentecostals include the Old Testament in their Bible? Or do they only follow the New Testament?

As per my previous comment, to the best of my knowledge, all Pentecostal denominations use the regular Protestant canon which includes the 39 books that are frequently thought of as the Old Testament. This excludes the 7 Deuterocanonical books that are included in the Catholic and Orthodox canons.

The term "New Testament Church" is fairly common parlance amongst Pentecostals (but by no means restricted to just them - eg), so it's not particularly suprising that a particular congregation may be named as such. It's not any kind of statement against "following the Old Testament" as such, but it's more based on:

The people of God in the Old Testament are not usually referred to as "the Church", but rather as Israel.
It's a subtle acknowledgement of the belief that many modern churches have adopted beliefs, traditions and practices that do not have a biblical basis and have thus departed from the Church found in the New Testament which is believed to be what we should be aiming to return to as our model.


How did the early Christians and Apostles Get into the temple? Shouldn't they have been stoned by the Jews for preaching Jesus as God?

Insufficient Authority

This answer sheds light on the question: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5558/in-the-time-of-jesus-were-the-jewish-authorities-allowed-to-execute
The Jews were not permitted to sentence a person to death without the consent of the governing Roman official. The above article (citing Josephus) shows how, after one official (Porcius Festus) died in office, before his replacement could be sent from Rome, the high priest arrogated the power to have James, a leader in the Christian church, executed. Once the new Roman official arrived, he removed that high priest from office for this serious breach.

Fear of the Crowd

25 Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are
standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26 At that, the
captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not
use force, because they feared that the people would stone them. (Acts
5:25-26)

Fear of Public Opinion, possible insurrection

Peter healed a lame man in the temple courts in front of a crowd. This made him popular.

13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they
were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note
that these men had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the
man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing
they could say. 15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin
and then conferred together. 16 “What are we going to do with these
men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have
performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this
thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them
to speak no longer to anyone in this name.” (Acts 4:13-17)

Futility of Legal Measures and God's Protection

When the authorities did arrest the Apostles, on occasion God would send angels to set them free.

17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of
the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They
arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during
the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and
brought them out. 20 “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and
tell the people all about this new life.”

If God's holy angels told the Apostles to stand in the temple courts, they were well protected.


Is the nation of Israel itself a type of Christ and, if so, how?

Christopher Wright authors the book Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament to help modern day Christians make a correlation between Old Testament Israel and the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. I think this is the best resource for the answer to this question and the full text can be found here

Wright begins his book by making the assertion that the Jesus of the New Testament embodies the covenants and promises set forth in the Old Testament by God to Israel (Wright 1992, 62). Wright claims that it “is the contention of [the] whole book that we must clearly face up to the distinctive claims of the Hebrew scriptures if we are to get our understanding of Christ’s uniqueness straight also” (Wright, 35). In the Old Testament, the people of Israel are the chosen people of God. It is through these people that God chooses to bring salvation to the world (Wright, 49). Wright claims that Jesus “had, in a sense, taken on the identity of Israel” in the New Testament (Wright, 182). Jesus came into a historically centered Jewish culture and claimed the identity of the saving grace of the world.

Wright concludes his text by making the claim that “Jesus did not come to teach people new ideas about some new moral philosophy which he called the Kingdom of God,” but rather became the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises entirely (Wright, 251). Wright accurately shows how Jesus not only fulfills the promises of the Old Testament but also adapts it’s philosophies for himself (Wright, 197). Jesus, then, uses the Old Testament to find his own identity, his purpose and his values.

As Wright begins to develop his book, his fundamental claim is the Jewish nature of Jesus himself. Therefore, Wright begins Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament by exploring the Jewish culture that surrounded the time of Jesus. His goal is simply to enhance the personhood of Jesus through a deep knowledge of the Old Testament, its history, and its theological values. Just as through Israel God created a universal blessing, through Jesus God has created a universal means of salvation (Wright, 36). Through both Israel and Jesus there occur elements of election, redemption, covenant and inheritance (Wright, 40). Wright affirms this biblically through multiple passages, the foremost being Galatians 3:29 – “If you belong to the Messiah, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” This verse and the assertions of Wright all center around Jesus being the doorway into which modern-day Christians are accepted into the covenant of eternal life and the blessings set forth in ancient times by God to Israel.

Therefore, as Wright presses on into the book the reader travels with him into the promises that God makes in the Old Testament to Israel and the other nations. It is here that Wright explains in detail the inter-connectedness of Jesus and Israel and how the people in the time that the gospels were written would have implicitly understood the significance (Wright, 60). As the reader explores all of the ancient covenants that God created with Israel, Wright explains how each one of them was more than just a specific promise to a specific people. “So once again, we find the same combination: the universal, missiological dimension of the covenant, in its ultimate scope, for the blessing of all nations through Israel” (Wright, 92-93). This sets up the historical context for the New Covenant which occurred with Jesus (Israel) and through Him salvation can be expanded to other nations (Gentiles).

Wright’s goal of enhancing the person of Jesus through the Old Testament is both clear and powerful as moves forward in the text. Wright then explains how the character of Jesus was formed by the Old Testament’s use of the phrase “Son of God” (Wright, 106-107). Many times in the Old Testament, the people of Israel are referred to as the “sons of God” and are therefore related to Jesus within the text (Wright, 122-123). In Exodus 4:22 God declares Israel to be His firstborn son; therefore, the relationship between Israel and Jesus is very explicit – Israel was the firstborn son of God and Jesus also carried this title. Because of this, the mission of Israel must also be the mission of Jesus. The redemptive abilities of Israel then become the redemptive abilities of Jesus. Through Israel God chose to bless the world and through Jesus He chose to save it.

Wright also asserts, then, that Jesus gained his mission from the Old Testament as well. Wright claims that “Israel was the servant of God, chosen and upheld by [God], with the purpose of being a light to the nations” (Wright, 162). As Jesus became the embodiment of Israel he also took on the global mission and yoke of Israel. This is the weakest part of Wright’s argument for the purpose of Jesus through the Old Testament. While he provides some Biblical examples in the chapter about Jesus’ purpose, this is the area of his book where he treats the Bible figuratively. Wright produces a firm argument for his case but loses ground in his over-employed metaphor of Jesus acting as every aspect of Israel.


What method can we consistently use to identify the literal verses from the non literal?

There is no surefire, mechanical, grammatical method, because Scripture was constructed so as to require patience, wisdom, personal holiness, the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and personal experience in order for one to understand it fully.

  Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say
  anything to them without using a parable. (Matthew 13:34)

To his disciples, Jesus explained the sense of things and the deeper meaning. To the crowds, he spoke in parables. If you want to move from tripping over parables with the rest of the crowd towards understanding the Bible plainly, you must become a disciple.

Taking your 1 Kings example, yes, God did send the deluding spirits to the king. He did deceive the king. And yet God did not lie. Both are true and there is no contradiction or paradox.

The demons are a writhing mass of evil and vile volition, constantly seeking to advance on the world and bring destruction and torment. God perpetually restrains them. When he sees a situation where punishment must be meted out to fulfill his will, he temporarily releases his grip on a few demons that specialize in a certain type of mayhem and lets them loose. He sets up fences to keep them from attacking anyone who is not His target. Then those demons use their normal means - in this case lying -  to address the many false prophets. The demons are responsible for their lies - not God. God's responsibility here is passive - for the results of the lying that he permitted, which is the just punishment of a wicked king. God's active response is to send a true message to a true prophet. God is merciful because the king is given a choice, a way out. But the King had the habit of surrounding himself with false prophets, so his bad habits stacked the deck against him.

Thus God can set up situations where he permits a person to be deceived. The immediate cause of the deception is not God, but instead the free actors that participate in the drama. The ultimate cause is subject to God's sovereignty, so you can say that God deceived, because he permitted the strong deception to be opposed by a weaker advocate for truth. Isn't that our world? Lies are broadcast on TV and in the papers and in our schools all the time, and the truth is whispered by a few. God is permitting it, as judgment against those who refuse to listen to the truth, but he makes sure that truth is broadcast so that some will hear and believe.


Is there any historical evidence of Sabbath keeping by Gentiles during the first centuries of Christianity?

The question of whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses surfaced right at the beginning of the church.  This is to say that some Gentiles were in fact following the Law, including keeping the Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday).

And being brought on their [Barnabas, Paul, and others] way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:3-5

The conclusion was this.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:28-29

So, there was an attempt by certain ones to enforce the Mosaic Law onto the Gentiles and no doubt they were trying to follow the Law, but the Jerusalem Council decided it was not necessary.
Subsequent to that episode, this conflict about the relationship of the Law and grace continued to fester.  Here is Philip Schaff on Eusebius' comment about the Ebionites.

The Ebionites were not originally heretics. Their characteristic was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, separated them from Gentile Christians. Among the early Jewish Christians existed all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the law and the Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised Gentile Christian to the bitterest insistence upon the necessity for salvation of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as by Jewish Christians.
-source-

In sum, there is historical evidence of Sabbath keeping by Christian Gentiles.


Are there any secular historical references to the natural phenomena that occurred at the crucifixion and resurrection?

Julius Africanus was an early third century Christian historian.  He says that a pagan historian named Thallus mentions the darkness that occurred during Jesus' crucifixion, and that Thallus explained it as an eclipse.  However, Africanus correctly notes that an eclipse is not possible during the Jewish Passover when Jesus was crucified (see: On the Circumstances Connected with Our Saviour’s Passion and His Life-Giving Resurrection).

Africanus also mentions another historian named Phlegon who wrote about the darkness and earthquake.  James Ussher, in his Annals of the World (first published in 1658), writes: "“Phlegon stated that in the 19th year of Tiberius (as Eustathius Antiochus noted in Hexaemeron) and the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (that is 33 AD), the following events took place... 'There was the largest and most famous eclipse that had ever occurred. The day was so turned into night at the sixth hour (noon), that the stars were seen.  Also, an earthquake in Bithynia destroyed many houses in the city of Nicaea’” (Annals of the World 6503).

In addition, Pliny the Elder, a first century Roman historian and naturalist, wrote that "“[t]he largest earthquake happened in the principate of Tiberius Caesar when twelve cities in Asia Minor were razed to the ground in one night” (Pliny's Natural History 38).

So, while there are secular accounts of the darkness and earthquake, they are quoted and preserved by Christian writers (with the exception of Pliny's writings, which were preserved independently; yet, Pliny doesn't date the earthquake except to say it was during Tiberius' reign).


What is the scope of gambling prohibitions for JW's?

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

We don't gamble because:

We avoid greediness.
We don't want to put our faith in the "god of Good Luck" (Isaiah 65:11).
We don't want to take someone else's money in exchange for nothing.

This does not include a radio contest because the other radio listeners in the contest aren't losing any money if they don't win the prize.

With regard to your follow up question, "would a football team of Jehovah's Witnesses be able to participate in the coin toss to decide which end they started from?" - Yes they would as long as they weren't doing something similar to what is mentioned in this paragraph taken from a 2011 Watchtower: "For example, auspicious numbers are chosen for lottery tickets; the uttering of certain words is forbidden among superstitious mah-jongg players; and a puff of air is blown over dice before they are thrown. Why? Gamblers often believe that luck will, or at least might, influence the outcome." (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011167)

Here is an article that gives more details on how far to take the prohibition:
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002808


How does Pope Francis's popularity compare to Pope Benedict XVI's?

I will not give you my opinion, but rather my understanding of Pope's reception from the reading of the catholic resources on the topic, which I suggest you study yourself as well.

In general, Pope Francis is very much liked by all but "the traditionalist". He is a pastor more than a theologian so he resonates better with a "common catholic". So an average catholic, appears to like Pope Francis's approach more than his predecessor's.

The "traditionalist" or "conservative" Catholics (I hate these terms, hence the quotes), those who liked JPII's or Benedict's philosophical (apparently rigid & dogmatic), theology, especially Benedict's seeming support for pre Vatican II practices like Latin mass, have strong reservations or hostility to Pope Francis; there are some groups ready to call him the antichrist. for those views, go to www.Gloria.tv.

He is also very much liked by liberal Catholics who wrongly interpret some of the things he says as supporting changes that they want to make; while those same Catholic's despised benedict's "conservatism"

Many "moderate" "thinking" Catholics are concerned how the Pope's remarks are being twisted, but hold Pope Francis in great esteem.


When did physical Death come to the world?

The Bible teaches that death entered into the world because of Adam's sin:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. (Romans 5:12-14)
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

There are debates over what type of death was involved in the fall. I believe that it was holistic death. It clearly involved spiritual death, as Adam was a sinner needing redemption. But earlier in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says that if the resurrection we are hoping for isn't physical then our hope is in vain:

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:16-19)

The solution matches the problem, and so if it required the Son of God to be resurrected to give us life, then I believe that physical death is a result of sin too.
Is death natural or a curse? There's a very real sense in which it is natural. So I would say that death's naturalness is a curse. The curse changed the world from a world where death was unnatural to one where it is the most natural thing of all.