What is the origin of the idea that Michael is Jesus?

There is much negative information on the internet on this subject making it very difficult to earnestly study it and where the belief that the Archangel Michael is Jesus Christ originated.

The Jehovah's Witnesses surely inherrited it from Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the movement that led to the formulation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

He equates Michael with Christ in one of Daniel's prophecies:

  The Time is at Hand Page 145 - Written 1889
  The same events are referred to in Daniel’s prophecy: “And at that time shall Michael [Christ] stand up ...

Russell doesn't plainly say "Michael is Jesus" but I think his use of brackets implies it well enough that it was a position he held or was considering.

The Seventh Day Adventists surely inherrited this bit of theology from Ellen G. White, their prophetess, whom they hold in high regard.

She plainly states in several of her writings that Michael is Jesus.

  Patriarchs and Prophets Page 761 - Written 1890
  Again: Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1-3. He is so called because God gave His revelations to man in all ages through Christ. It was His Spirit that inspired the prophets. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. He was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord's host, Michael the Archangel.

  The Desire of Ages Page 99 - Written 1898
  The words of the angel, "I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God," show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, "There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince."

  Prophets and Kings Page 572 - Written 1917
  For three weeks Gabriel wrestled with the powers of darkness, seeking to counteract the influences at work on the mind of Cyrus; and before the contest closed, Christ Himself came to Gabriel's aid. "The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days," Gabriel declares; "but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

Neither White nor Russell were the first to say this. There is much disinformation claiming that the concept is an old Arian doctrine, however, there is no evidence for that in the history books, and I can find no evidence that it predates the 18th century, though you found John Calvin discussing it in the 16th century.

The oldest source I can find on this subject is "The Glory of Christ as God-Man" by Isaac Watts. The linked source below was printed in 1795, but Watts died in 1748, so he clearly penned it earlier than 1748.

When examining the story of Daniel in the Lion's Den, Watts suggests it as a possibility that the Archangel Michael is Christ on page 223

  The Glory of Christ as God-Man Page 223 - Written before 1748 from an edition printed 1795
  And may not Christ himself be this Michael the Arch-angel, the Prince of Israel? It has been observed by some writers, that the scripture never speaks of arch-angels in the plural number; perhaps there is but one arch-angel and that is Christ.

Interestingly, in a footnote on page 224, Watts notes that some think that the angel that appeared to Daniel was not Gabriel, but was Christ. Also interesting, Watts does not seem to be giving his own theology, but parroting what he has read or heard elsewhere. The fact that John Calvin was discussing it 200 years earlier is evidence of that.

Moving on with another, pre-White, pre-Russell source ...

A man named William Kinkade wrote "The Bible doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, atonement, faith, and election" in 1829, predating White and Russell by over 50 years. I cannot find any information on this particular man except that he wrote this book. In it, he dedicates an entire chapter to Michael and Jesus and the theology that they are the same person.

  The Bible doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, atonement, faith, and election Page 153 - Written 1829
  To me this evidence proves beyond resonable dispute, that Michael is one of the names of Christ; because if the Church is the seat of this war, and if Christ is the Captain of our salvation, and the leader of his people, he must be the person who is here mentioned under the name of Michael.

Kinkade is not the only person of this time to hold this view, he claims.

  ibid Page 152
  I am not alone in this opinion; most of the principal writers of the Trinitarian school have advocated the same doctrine.

Kinkade goes on to mention more than a few sources that support his theology. Here are some that go beyond calling Jesus an Angel and actually call Jesus and Michael the same person, according to Kinkade [the numbers are mine, but the text is Kinkade's]:

  ibid Page 152 and 153

  Brown’s dictionary of the Bible on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the archangel.
  Woods Spiritual Dictionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown’s does.
  Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.
  Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. 12:7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
  Doctor Watts in his Glories of Christ, pp. 200-202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same doctrine.
  Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible ... asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ.

The numbers below are for a brief description on the above sources listed by Kinkaid.

Wikipedia's article on John Brown lists his dictionary as first in print in 1769 and having numerous editions through 1868. This is the earliest edition I could find dated 1866. There is really no way of knowing which edition Kinkade was referring to.
I cannot find a "Spiritual Dictionary" written by someone named "Wood".
John Butterworth's Concordance is from 1812. Curden's Condordance, written by Alexander Cruden is around 1849. The edition that Kinkade used could be any one of many. John's Taylor's concordance is an Hebrew concordance. I cannot find an online source.
Guyse's paraphrase is in several volumes and the one linked does not seem to contain the related parts (Revelation). Wikipedia lists the dates for the volumes as 1739-52.
Isaac Watts was quoted above as the earliest source found. He had a desire to bring the Church to an Arian view, which may be the reason that there is confusion that the "Michael is Jesus" perspective was originally an Arian perspective.
Thomas Scott began writing his commentary (or notes, as Kinkade called them) in 1788. Searching the source linked does not reveal anything mentioning Michael. It may be the wrong source, or perhaps his notes on that subject have not survived.

Now whether White or Russell learned this theology from Kinkade or another source is unknown. We do know that both were very well read so they may have learned if from any of them. They also may have independently conceived it, though I doubt it.

Observations on the development of this theology

John Calvin in the 16th century mentions that "some think" Michael is Jesus then discusses it a bit further, but he clearly denies to hold that theology himself and further notes that it "is not generally admitted." Watts is also careful to flatly claim it as his own theology, but is clearly not hesitant to discuss it at length. It is not until the 19th century that various theologians began claiming it as their personal belief, while discussing it, and sometimes, in the case of Kinkade and White, even preaching it to convince their readers.

So what are we to make of this? The only option that makes sense is that no prominent theologian was willing to discuss this idea until Calvin, though he wrote at a time when "heretics" were still being burned. Before Calvin, I suspect it was something that insignificant or amateur theologians discussed quietly among themselves to avoid persecution and accusations. But, slowly, as the Catholic church lost its grip on the stately matters of its Church-State, theologians holding this view came out of the shadows, no longer fearing persecution for the implications that this theology makes on the nature and divinity of Christ.

But this still leaves the original question: Where did this theology originate? As it sits now, we do not know. But by my reasoning above it surely originated before Calvin, must have been somewhat known among theological circles, but quietly discussed, and was not openly professed until the 19th century. Because we cannot find any other theologians before Calvin mentioning it, or even the Catholic Church condemning it, I find it difficult to believe that it would remain a quiet or secret matter for more that 200 years before Calvin. I reserve the right, however, for the history books to disprove me.

Conclusion

It would seem that the earliest surviving work to mention this subject is from the early 16th century. It does seem quite possible, however, that less popular theologians were teaching that the Archangel Michael is Jesus Christ before that time. Though, possible, however, the only evidence is Calvin's word that "some think". Even today, the belief is not common among Christians and is considered exclusive to non-trinitarian sects, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, but this is not true, Seventh Day Adventists being classic trinitarians. These two groups together, make a meager 25 million persons among the billion plus Christian population.

Notes on the differences that JW's and SDA's look at this bit of theology.

The Witnesses would say that Michael is Jesus to support their belief that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but rather a god, and He has manifested Himself under the name Michael at times. To the Witness, they cannot reconcile Michael and Jesus being the same person and Jesus being the eternal God. Adventists can and do.

Adventists (I use this term to mean the modern SDA's) are classic trinitarians. They do, in fact, believe in the full divinity of Christ (though there is some evidence that there progenitors did not). And at the same time they believe that Michael the Archangel is actually Jesus Christ under a different name. They see no reason that the view that Michael is Jesus should affect the divinity of Christ.I have written more on this and much more on Adventists in general here: What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches?

I feel compelled to give some credit to this blog post. Without it I would not have found Kinkade's work, which means I would not have found Watts' work either.


Did the apostle James the Greater travel to Spain and was he martyred in Jerusalem?

Whether or not James the Greater traveled to Spain is highly contested.

The entry on St. James the Greater in the Catholic Encyclopedia from newadvent.org lists some reasons why this is contested.

  With regard to the preaching of the Gospel in Spain by St. James the
  greater, several difficulties have been raised:

  St. James suffered martyrdom A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and, according to
  the tradition of the early Church, he had not yet left Jerusalem at
  this time (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI; Apollonius, quoted
  by Eusebius, Church History VI.18).
  St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58) expressed the
  intention to visit Spain (Romans 15:24) just after he had mentioned
  (15:20) that he did not "build upon another man's foundation."
  The argument ex silentio: although the tradition that James founded
  an Apostolic see in Spain was current in the year 700, no certain
  mention of such tradition is to be found in the genuine writings of
  early writers nor in the early councils; the first certain mention we
  find in the ninth century, in Notker, a monk of St. Gall (Martyrol.,
  25 July), Walafried Strabo (Poema de XII Apost.), and others.
  The tradition was not unanimously admitted afterwards, while
  numerous    scholars reject it. The Bollandists however defended it
  (see Acta    Sanctorum, July, VI and VII, where other sources are
  given).

The fact that James the Greater was martyred in Jerusalem is pretty widely accepted since it is mentioned in the Bible.

  Acts 12:1-2 NIV
  1 It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to
  the church, intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother
  of John, put to death with the sword.


What is an overview of the main interpretations of "day" in Genesis 1?

There are three primary views that explain the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1. I will describe each one, and some of the purported Biblical evidence supporting each, briefly here. After all, this is a topic on which many books have been written.

24-hour Day Theory

This view, which is held by many Young Earth Creationists states that each of the 6 days were 24-hours long. Although they admit that the Sun was not created until the third day, this does not mean that the first two days could not have been 24-hours long, just the same.

A small sample of Biblical evidence to support this theory includes:

Genesis 1 mentions the passing of "morning" and "evening", this suggests literal days
A study of other Biblical texts which use the phrase "evening and morning" (38 not counting Genesis 1) all refer to 24-hour days
The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1, whenever attached to a number elsewhere in scripture, it refers to a 24-hour day

See the book Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross by Mark A Van Beber and Paul S. Taylor for more discussion on this, and relevant topics. Note: not to be confused with the book Creation and Time by Hugh Ross, to which the aforementioned book is a rebuttal.
1000-year Day Theory

Another view held by many Young Earth Creationists, it is essentially the same as the 24-hour Day Theory, with the exception that it acknowledges that God's perspective of time is different than the human perspective of time, in light of 2 Peter 3:8:

  But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Therefore, the Genesis 1 days may refer to 1000-year time periods, rather than 24-hour time periods.
Day-Age Theory

This view, a subset of Old Earth Creationism, is the view that the word "day" in Genesis 1 is metaphorical, and represents an arbitrary amount of time. Consistency with scientific evidence is frequently cited, but also often criticized by Young Earth Creationsts as taking too liberal a view of scripture.

A small sample of Biblical evidence to support this view includes:

The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1 has many meanings: (a) Some portion of the daylight (hours), (b) Sunrise to sunset, (c) Sunset to sunset, (d) A segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch) [i.e. "In my grandfather's day" or "in the day of the dinosaurs]
In rebuttal to point #2 above, the argument is made that none of these 38 mentions of "evening and morning" use the same Hebrew word for day (Yom), so drawing parallels is inappropriate
In rebuttal to point #3 above, the argument is made that when used elsewhere in the singular (as it is in Genesis 1) the Hebrew word (Yom) is always in reference to human activity, therefore drawing parallels to this usage in Genesis 1 in this case is also inappropriate
The fact that the seventh day never ended suggests that we are still living in the seventh day, which would clearly indicate that the seventh "day" is many years long.
The Genesis 2 re-account of creation has Adam naming "all the wild animals and all the birds" (Genesis 2:19-20 NIV) between his own creation and before Eve was created, thus all on the 6th day. This would be impossible in a 24-hour period (Young Earth creationists often argue that God may have given Adam supernatural speed or abilities, or that prior to the fall man naturally had greater abilities that might allow this task to be completed in one day.)

See the book A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross for additional discussion of these topics.


Is there a biblical reason to limit information about creation to Genesis?

There is no reason to limit information about the creation week to Genesis, but...

1) There are a number of good reasons to limit information about the creation week to Scripture. For instance, philosophically, the word of God is truth, and all men are corrupt and limited, which makes the revealed word of God the only reliable source for truth.

2) There is good reason to give preference to historical narrative over image-rich, emotional songs, etc. If it is a psalm, its purpose may be to praise God, but may not be to relay historical information about the creation week in a straightforward and sequential manner. (See, for example, Psalm 6:6)

3) Whenever you interpret Scripture, it is always wise to consider the purpose of the passage in question. Genesis 1 is the only passage in Scripture whose primary purpose is clearly to provide information about the creation week.

4) There is good reason to believe that most (if not all) of the information about the creation week that appears subsequent to the first two chapters of Genesis is based on the first two chapters of Genesis.

For these reasons, Genesis can easily be regarded as the best source of information about the creation week, and is certainly the first place I would go in studying the topic.


Did Paul recognize Peter as the earthly leader of the Church?

Galatians chapter 1 is a declaration supporting the authenticity of Paul as a servant of Christ (verse 10) sent by God to preach Christ to the Gentiles (verse 16).  Three years after Paul’s dramatic conversion, he went to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter for fifteen days (verse18).   Fourteen years later Paul returned to Jerusalem to speak with “those who seemed to be leaders” about his revelation to preach to the Gentiles (Chapter 2, verse 2).

Galatians 2:7-9 shows that Paul recognised Peter as an apostle and a servant of God:

  For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.  James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me.

However, he nowhere suggests that Peter has the highest authority within the church.  Later, when Peter came to Antioch, there was a serious difference of opinion between Peter and Paul.  Had Paul recognised Peter as the earthly leader of the Church it seems unlikely that he would have opposed him to his face (verse 11).  But no, he accused Peter of hypocrisy.

The conclusion of the matter is that Paul did not give in to Peter.  In Galatians 6:12 Paul condemns the Judaisers of trying to make a good impression outwardly in order to avoid being persecuted.  The only authority Paul recognised and submitted to was the authority of Christ Jesus, who is the one and the only head of his church:

  And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.


How is Hal Lindsey regarded in the Christian faith?

It is considered invalid by many Christians. It's also considered valid by many Christians. The closest you'll get to an objective answer is to look at the Amazon book star-reviews, which is what I encourage you to do. It indicates that the book is very polarizing. And I suspect that the answers which will accumulate here will look very much like the written reviews there.

There is absolutely no way to "decide" whether Lindsey's view holds up, so the question is impossible to answer. As you may predict from the book's reviews, you are sure to get quite polarized answers. For example, a random Catholic from the internet says:

  I recommend Catholics stay away from Lindsey's stuff and go read something by a saint instead.

And from an article on general subject matter:

  The Church does not endorse pre-millennialism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: "The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism." Indeed, the Nicene Creed, which is said at every Sunday Mass, appears to reject pre-millennialism, holding that Christ will return "to judge the living and the dead," not to reign on earth for a thousand years and then judge the living and the dead. Since the Church is not pre-millennial, the question of a pre-trib Rapture does not arise, as pre-tribulationism is a variant of pre-millennialism.

From all this we can only assume that mild answers will range from the mild "well, many consider him ok" that Narnian presents, to the mild "read something better" I quoted above.

Questions you may consider asking instead:

"Is Hal considered a prophet by any body of Christians?"
"What is the view presented by Hal in ... called?"
"Why does the Catholic Church reject pre-millennialism?"
"Do [insert denomination that you identify with the most]s like Hal?


What is the biblical basis for the belief in incubus and succubus (sex demons)?

What is the biblical basis (if any) for the many reports by people about being sexually assaulted at night by succubus/incubus?
I believe that there very few, if any  Christian denominations that explicitly teaches that a demon succubus or incubus exist.
It is a little far fetched, but I give it a reasonable try at answering the question.
First of all, the Book of Tobit has an interesting story about Tobias, Sarah and the demon of lust, Asmodeus ("the worst of demons")!

The Book of Tobit is listed as a canonical book by the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), the Council of Carthage (397) and (A.D. 419), the Council of Florence (1442) and finally the Council of Trent (1546), and is part of the canon of both the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Catholics refer to it as deuterocanonical.
Augustine (c. A.D. 397) and Pope Innocent I (A.D. 405) affirmed Tobit as part of the Old Testament Canon. Athanasius (A.D. 367) mentioned that certain other books, including the Book of Tobit, while not being part of the Canon, "were appointed by the Fathers to be read".
In Judaism
Before the 1952 discovery of Aramaic and Hebrew fragments of Tobit among the Dead Sea Scrolls in a cave at Qumran, scholars believed Tobit was not included in the Jewish canon because of late authorship, estimated to A.D. 100. Qumran fragments of the text, which were copied between 100 B.C. to A.D. 25, evidence a much earlier origin than previously thought. These fragments evidence authorship no later than the 2nd century BC and, likely, contemporary with the date ascribed, by modern scholars, to the final compilation of the Book of Daniel, which did attain canonical status.
Summary
This book tells the story of Tobit, a righteous Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali, living in Nineveh after Sargon II had deported the northern tribes of Israel to Assyria in 721 B.C. In the two Greek versions, the first two and a half chapters are written in the first person; in the Vulgate version, they are written in the third person. Tobit, raised by his paternal grandmother, Deborah, remains loyal to the worship of God at the temple in Jerusalem, refusing the cult of the golden calves that Jeroboam, king of the northern kingdom of Israel, set up at Dan. He is particularly noted for his diligence in attempting to provide proper burials for fallen Israelites whom Sargon's successor, Sennacherib, has slain. For this behavior the king seizes his property and exiles him. After Sennacherib's death, Tobit is allowed to return to Nineveh, where he buries a man who has been murdered on the street. That night, he sleeps in the open and is blinded by bird droppings which fall into his eyes. His blindness subsequently leads him to falsely accuse his wife, Anna, of stealing a baby goat she had received as partial payment for work she had done. This strains his marriage and, ultimately, he prays for death.
Meanwhile, in faraway Media, a young woman named Sarah has prayed for death in despair. The demon of lust, Asmodeus ("the worst of demons"), abducts and kills every man Sarah marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated. God sends the angel Raphael, disguised as a human, to heal Tobit and free Sarah from the demon. - Book of Tobit

The only other possible source that may again be a remote answer involves the  Nephilim from the books of Genesis and Ezekiel. The possibility only exists as to how some interpret Sacred Scripture.

The Nephilim (Hebrew: נְפִילִים) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4.
A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as "Nephilim" by some scholars, or as the word "fallen" by others, appears in Ezekiel 32:27.1
When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version
The word is loosely translated as giants in some Bibles and left untranslated in others. The "sons of God" have been interpreted as fallen angels in some traditional Jewish explanations.
According to Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.
The Lord said to Moses, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites" ... So they went up and spied out the land ... And they told him: "... Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there." ... So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, "The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." — Numbers 13:1–2; 21; 27–28; 32–33. New Revised Standard Version.

And now let us look at what the Sons of God may mean:

Sons of the God (Hebrew: בני האלהים) literally: "sons of the Gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.
Hebrew Bible
Genesis 6
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, KJV
The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1–4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.
This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism:

Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism "Sons of God" usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.

Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

According to Scripture “sons of God” means “persons who are begotten independently of any creature’s decision”. All angels can appropriately be called “sons of God”, but not all characters called “sons of God” in the Bible can appropriately be considered angels. The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are undoubtedly human, and it is fitting to consider that they were created directly by God through transformation of human-like animals into persons.

Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. - Luke 3:38

Thus if the Nephilim were the descendants of the Sons of God (sons of Adam) and the "daughters of men" surely not all of them were evil. Some of them would have had good and upright souls. Someone could ultimately link them as being succubuses or incubuses, but that is really stretching it!


What is the origin of the "religion vs. relationship" dichotomy?

Summary

The dichotomy started when some Christians (notably, evangelicals) began to define "religion" along the lines of this one:

  Religion is a set of rules that people must follow in order to obtain God’s blessing.

Since Christians are saved by grace (and not by works), Christianity would not be a religion according to this definition.  Source: Dictionary of Christianese.

The rest of this answer attempts to trace possible origins of the re-definition of religion which in turn produces this dichotomy.  Disclosure: Key insights in this answer (Karl Barth, John Stott, metonymy) I obtained from Dr. Randal Rauser's Christian Post newspaper opinion article which is worth reading word by word.

Dichotomy as competing definitions

"Christianity as religion" has been contrasted not only with "Christianity as relationship" but also with "Christianity as the gospel" or with "Christianity as Christ".  The common motivation is clearly to zoom into the essence of Christianity by excluding other elements of religion, as James A Fowler, a pastor and PhD in Biblical Studies, attempted to do in his 1998 book Christianity is NOT a religion shown by the table of contents (pdf here).  The book started with this epigram:

  Christianity has mistakenly been defined and described as a religion in which morality and belief-system in correspondence to the Book are regarded as the basis of the role-playing and problem-solving of the Christian life.

  Not true!

  Christianity is Christ!

and then delve into these chapters: Christianity is Not Religion, Christianity is Not a Book-Religion, Christianity is Not Morality, Christianity is Not a Belief-System, Christianity is Not Epistemology, etc.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of definition as this blog article and another article argued the reverse position of how historically (as the OP pointed out) people have been referring to Christianity as a "religion".  Both articles in fact advocate that we should refrain from spreading "Christianity is not a religion" because by doing so we will lose the status of Christianity as "the one true religion", or "the religion of religions".

Because it's a matter of definition that no official institution seems to promote, the problem of tracing the origin of the dichotomy will be similar to tracing how certain idioms became popular.  So this becomes a problem of etymology, and the tools to find the origin will be similar to what lexicographers use when building an etymological dictionary.

Dichotomy usage in the wild

While doing research for this answer, I came across the Dictionary of Christianese - The casual slang of the Christian church... authoritatively defined.  I think the phrase "Christianity is a relationship not a religion" can indeed be seen as a "Christianese" (delightfully constructed word, BTW), so naturally the dictionary has an entry for it, prefaced by a blog-article style introduction which like the 2 articles above is also arguing that it's a matter of definition.  True to its name, the official entry has usage citations from published sources (journals, books, encyclopedias, etc.) starting from 1958 as the earliest citation.

  1958 Episcopal Church, Diocese of Fond du Lac J. of the Annual Convention 86 : May we go forward remembering that Christianity is not a religion which merely lays upon us weak, human beings the hopeless task of living an impossibly good life helped only by the example of a man who lived a perfect human life 2,000 years ago, but rather that Christianity is a relationship to God whereby He communicates to us His strength and vitality which enables us to live on a higher plane.

It also includes a citation from Billy Graham as well (as the OP suspected):

  1971 Graham The Jesus Generation 148 : [Consider] the novel thought that Christianity was not so much a “religion” as a relationship with a Person.

Dichotomy origin in specific definitions of religion

Can we do better in finding the earlier origin of the dichotomy, maybe not so much in the explicit use of the phrase "Christianity is a relationship not a religion" but a thought, a concept, a distinction, or an idea that prominent theologians used to construct a thesis related to "religion" which in turn lend itself to the dichotomy?  So this becomes a task that Bible background / theological dictionaries tackle, such as articles describing what Religion / Law / Repentance / Messiah / After-life meant to various groups of people around the time of Jesus.  The articles typically will also address a cluster of ideas around those concepts, citing key documents, movements, or people that could have contributed.  Therefore we are looking for theologians with widespread influence who could have contributed to defining "religion" in a way that makes it contrary to "relationship".

Karl Barth as a possible origin

Dr. Randal Rauser, a professor of Historical Theology writing the Aug 2019 opinion article I mentioned above, offered an implied definition of "religion" which could serve as the opposite of "relationship" in the dichotomy, and thought that Karl Barth used that definition in his 1918 Romans commentary:

  The speaker, in this case, is clearly not adhering to a conventional dictionary definition of “religion”. Instead, she is invoking a rhetorical use of the word, one popular among some Christians. It seems to me that it can be defined roughly like this:

  religion. n. Those beliefs one holds and actions one undertakes to address the human problem and relate rightly to ultimate reality which are inconsistent with the revealed beliefs and practices commended by God and which seek to redress that human problem primarily through human effort.

  This usage was famously invoked by Karl Barth in his much-lauded theological reflection on the book of Romans in which he “translated” Paul’s reference to the Law as “religion”. Thus, in Barth’s calculus, the law/religion are what we do to relate rightly to God while Jesus Christ is what God does to relate rightly to us.

For those who want to dig deeper into Karl Barth's contribution to this understanding of "religion", I found these 3 helpful resources which can serve as a starting point:

Karl Barth's commentary on the Romans (first English translation edition was in 1918).  This OCR'd PDF scan is the 6th edition of the English translation (1932).
2015 notes on Karl Barth's thoughts on religion referencing the Romans commentary as well as Church Dogmatics (of course) plus other scholarly references by a retired Methodist pastor George Plasterer.
A 2012 paper on Karl Barth's position on world religions, in terms of the common threefold typology (exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism) used in religious studies: Karl Barth's Theology of Religion -- An Analysis of the Church Dogmatics I & IV.

John Stott as a popularizer

The same Christian Post opinion article plus others I found on the net points to popular quotes attributed to John Stott, like the following, which seems to be taken from a book / interview (unfortunately I cannot find the definitive origin of the quote in John Stott's writings, so I don't know the date):

  “I’ve learnt very early on that Christianity is not a religion and it is not an institution, it is a person. It was enormously helpful for me to discover that Christianity is Christ and and that what matters is a personal relationship to Christ.

  So the verses which came to mean much to me were Philippians 3 verses 8,9, where the Apostle Paul says, “That what was gain to me I counted loss for Christ. Indeed I have counted all things but loss in comparison with the overwhelming gain of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord for whom I’ve suffered the loss of all things (Paul went on) and count them as refuse or rubbish in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness based on Law, but the righteous that comes from God through faith in Christ.”

  It’s all Christ, Christ, Christ, Christ. Knowing Him, loving Him, serving Him, trusting Him, gaining Him. ‘To me to live is Christ’, Paul said, and I think, I hope without boasting I can say the same, it is a Person.”

But I did find this quote from his 1992 book The Contemporary Christian, recipient of Christianity Today 1994 Critics Choice Award.  The book was recently (June 2019) republished by IVP in 5 smaller books, the first being The Gospel - A Life-changing Message, and I found what looks like a publisher excerpt here.  As you can see, IVP even prominently started the summary of the book as follows:

  What is the authentic gospel? How do we answer the sceptics?

  Christianity is not a religion, but God's good news for the world. This implies that it has both a divine origin and a human relevance: it comes from God and it speaks to our condition.

Here's the first paragraph of the book's introduction to the first part (The Gospel), which was already present back in 1992:

  Christianity is not a religion, let alone one religion among many. It
  is God’s good news for the world. The Christian gospel has both a
  divine origin (it comes from God) and a human relevance (it speaks
  to our condition). So, before we ask the question, ‘What is the gospel?’,
  we must explore the logically prior question, ‘What is a human
  being?’

  ...

Conclusion: dichotomy origin as an effect of the evangelistic ethos

Now that we have identified several prominent personalities influencing the community which promoted a particular meaning of "religion", the next step is to inquire the motivation of that change, since ultimately language is a human product.  From the survey of usage it does not look like it is a temporary change; the change seems to be gaining force toward permanence, at least within certain Christian groups.  The Wikipedia article on semantic change includes a list of types as well as motivations of semantic change.  In the article, Dr. Rauser pegged the type of change as metonymy.  How about motivation?  Below is my personal argument that the motivation is the fervent desire to spread the gospel, which resulted in a semantic change to better fit the group's ethos.

Regardless of the terms used to describe Christianity, it is a unique "religion" which breaks a lot of attempts to categorize it.  It is also an intensely proselytizing "religion" because Jesus, the founder, was Himself providing the imperative to bring God's good news (the new covenant) to the end of the world in order to gather all sheep into his Kingdom at the end of time.  Who can beat God when He Himself sets His will to call us to Him?

All the persons quoted in the articles and books above were "on fire" from within to communicate this good news, and have to face a multitude of challenges from a variety of audiences who have "prejudiced" themselves against this good news by trying to put the Good News in a box, a category that will make this Good News "safe", that will put them "in control" by barricading themselves in a comfort zone of their own making.  Thus an academic makes his/her own notion of religion using high-sounding scholarly language to recast the good news as a respectable "systematic theology" that he/she can attend to whenever comfortable, at the cost of a real encounter with God.  A non-intellectually inclined person falsely thinks of God as a being to be "appeased" by prayer & fasting & sacraments done mostly in a behavioral / ritualistic manner, also at the cost of a real encounter with God.  In both cases, the Good News would not have produced the effects that the real God intended within the person.

But God's way to save a person (through the Holy Spirit) is to initiate the action from above, literally pursuing the target like a hunter, and demolish any categories that become an idol / barrier to the full effect of the good news, which includes the full personal revelation of God's being to a potential convert's heart.  It is sometimes necessary for the Holy Spirit to reconfigure this person's mind and ideas so this full personal revelation can touch the person's heart.  It is then no wonder that many committed Christians including heavy-weights like Karl Barth, Billy Graham, and John Stott felt free as ambassadors of God to adjust the long-standing dictionary definitions of "religion" when they feel that the definitions are obstructing the force of God's redemptive actions in human hearts & minds.

In the final analysis, it's not that the older definition of "religion" is bad or wrong; it's clear that dichotomy wouldn't work without a re-definition of "religion".  The dichotomy also doesn't imply that theology, sacraments, and activities are in themselves bad; the dichotomy is a rhetorical device to put those things in perspective so the "relationship" aspect which implies Christ and the God-initiated Good News can truly shine.


What are the important gifts and graces given to Mary to become Mother of the Church?

Mary is universally acknowledge by the Catholic Church as the Mother of the Church, and this year our beloved Pope Francis officially declared the title a  Feast having calendar it's commemoration the next day(Monday) week after Pentecost Celebration.

Mary, Mother of the Church: A New Celebration

Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church

  963 Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503

  502 LG 53; cf. St. Augustine, De virg. 6:PL 40,399.
  503 Paul VI, Discourse, November 21, 1964.

. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

  967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive >work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the >Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly >unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" >(typus)510 of the Church.

  968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. >"In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and >burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. >For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."511

  969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly >from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she >sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of >all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but >by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal >salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under >the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

The above article of faith & teaching comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

To answer biblically some important passages why Mary is the Mother of the Church Genesis3:15 provides the starting point. Mary is the Mother of Christ, and Jesus is the 'HEAD OF THE CHURCH".
Jesus was born in the most pure womb of Mary.

The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ is born thru Mary's too, How?
Biblically speaking Catholic Church always point to John19:27 and the Pentecost experienced at the Upper Room.

But since Genesis3:15 passages point to Mary as the Mother of the Savior.

The succeeding verse gives us the reflections how can Mary become our Mother right after the Fall of Adam & Eve.Genesis3:16

  "To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee." (Genesis3:16)

Now let's  look at the word "IN SORROW SHALT THOU BRING FORTH CHILDREN"

Mary by Her fullness of grace, knows the Mission of Christ in the Redemption of Mankind, and in Her "sea of bitter sorrows" experienced in Calvary. Mary united the sufferings of Her Immaculate Heart to the Heart of Jesus in redeeming all sinners.

That's why AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS, the agonizing Jesus seeing that Mary accepted all the redeemed in Her Immaculate Heart said the words "Woman, behold your son". Jesus knew Mary wants to follow further the Will of God not just in Redeeming the sinners but all the way to the Salvation of Souls.

While God prepared a body and preserve the sanctity of Mary's womb a fitting vessel or tabernacle for the Logos/Incarnate.

Mary's Immaculate Heart by Her perfect offering of her Seven Sorrows, Her Immaculate Heart becomes the fiiting vessel for the Holy Spirit to dwells fully.

So, in the words of St.Louis De Montfort if the HEAD of the Church comes from the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary the Church the Mystical Body of Christ must come from the same body too.

  St. Louis De Montfort states " all the elect are in the womb of Mary".

Jesus the Head of the Church was bore in the most pure womb of Mary and all the redeemed was bore by Mary's perfect sorrows in Her Immaculate Heart.

To the question can Mary hear all the prayers of all the Redeemed numbering billions for Catholic alone, the answer can be found in Wisdom1:7.
Mary merited in Her Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart the fullness of the Holy Spirit dwelling more than Overshadowing.
The Sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit empower Mary to hear every utterances of every soul;

  Wisdom 1:7 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

  "For the spirit of the Lord fills the world,
      is all-embracing, and knows whatever is said."

  Mary having a "glorified body" as envisioned by St.James the Greater in the year 40AD which is called the "Pre-Assumption Apparitions", and the Sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit this two Great Gifts enables Mary the Mother of the Church to transcends space & time and hear all the utterances of all believers in the power of the Holy Spirit.

These gifts, graces and unique role of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the pending 5th Dogma of the Catholic Church.

  Mary is the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate.


From a Catholic perspective, did Adam's body undergo any change after the fall?

Did Adam's body undergo any change after the fall?

  26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Geneses 1 26-31)

Physically Adam (and Eve) remained the same after the fall, but on a spiritual level many things changed. As we see, Adam and Eve were able to eat food in paradise as well as to copulate without sinning.

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

  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).

Adam and his wife were created with all the physical attributes to be normal human beings in paradise, plus more. But, once they sinned pain and suffering entered the world. Man became susceptible to illness and disease.

  The chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God was sanctifying grace, which made them children of God and gave them the right to heaven.

  Together with sanctifying grace God gave Adam and Eve the super natural virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

  The other gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God were happiness in the Garden of Paradise, great knowledge, control of the passions by reason, and freedom from suffering and death. - Questions and Answers on the Creation and the Fall of Man

All these were lost when Adam and Eve first sinned.

Some say that prior to the fall they clothed in light. This too was lost as a result of sin.

  It seems this interpretative tradition goes back millennia to the ancient Jews. BioLogos has a short article on the development of the tradition that Adam and Eve "wore" garments of light, attributing it to the Jewish squeamishness regarding the naked body, then exacerbated by Greek culture, rampant with nudity, flooding the Jewish populations at the time of Alexander the Great.

  The article does not list any ancient Jewish sources as having discussed this topic, but it does mention and quote one Christian: Ephraem, the 4th century Syrian theologian. The most revealing quote is:

    It is because of the glory with which they were clothed that they were not ashamed. When it was taken away from them—after they had violated the commandment—they were indeed ashamed, because they were now naked (Commentary on Genesis, 2:14). [Other quotes are offered in the article]

  In a different vein of "study", nearly 1500 years later, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich had an extensive and very vivid personal revelation in which she described Adam and Eve as clothed in light.

    They were like two unspeakably noble and beautiful children, perfectly luminous. and clothed with beams of light as with a veil. From Adam's mouth I saw issuing a broad stream of glittering light, and upon his forehead was an expression of great majesty. Around his mouth played a sunbeam, but there was none around Eve's. I saw Adam's heart very much the same as in men of the present day, but his breast was surrounded by rays of light. In the middle of his heart, I saw a sparkling halo of glory. [More at Shield of Faith]. Fredsbend's answer to Adam and Eve Clothed in Light Before the Fall - Origin of Teaching?

As a result of the fall of our first parents the human nature was weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). See the Catechism of the Catholic Church for more details on original sin.


How could a loving, just, merciful God have created such an unfair test for humans?

I believe the best way to address your question is to take apart what you've written, and address it piece by piece, looking especially at the assumptions you have made going into your argument. Please understand that while you may not agree with many of the statements I will make here, they do represent a Christian perspective. In particular, I will be writing from a Reformed Protestant perspective, and using some of their language. Most of the major concepts can be found in many other Christian traditions as well, although the presentation and emphasis varies. Also, you will not find unanimous agreement on these points, as many conflicting ideologies make a claim to be Christian. At some point, you must dig into the evidence and decide who's holding the picture right-side-up. I don't claim to have everything right, but I do claim that the following major points both answer your question and represent the way the world really is -- that when you look at the world this way, you suddenly find the view is in focus.

Let's start with your first point:

  "God is love"

This is true. However, the definition and nature of love is often misunderstood in secular culture, and the theological claim that God is love must be understood inside the context of what else we understand about the nature of God. Most importantly, in order to love, one  must also hate. Love is a defining feature of God, but in order to love a good thing, one must hate whatever is opposed to that thing. You cannot love Jews without hating the Holocaust. You cannot love babies and not hate when they are murdered. You cannot love good without hating evil. You cannot love righteousness without hating sin.

This brings up an issue you skipped over in your second point. 2 Thessalonians 1:6 deserves a little attention before we move on to the merciful bit you emphasized:

  "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you"

The justice of God is a big topic, but it strikes at the heart of your question. You ask, "How could a just God do something unfair?". Christianity's answer is that he did not. What God does is entirely fair, and he even explains why. Even the second part of this verse has a clue about what's going on. He groups men into more than one category. The verse is NOT addressed to all of humanity. It is addressed to a group of believers -- in this case, a specific gathering of believers (or church). With this in mind, you can see -- even in the fragments of text that you quoted -- that God treats some people one way, and some people another.

Your question goes on to emphasize the ways God shows compassion. For example, you used Deuteronomy 4:31:

  "[God] will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors..."

Even here, I hope you see a hint of the answer. That covenant he references wasn't something God made with humankind, it was something he made with a subset of the human race. Originally, this promise was focused around one line of family descendants (Abraham to Isaac to Jacob etc.). Through history, you can trace this promise that is now open to a much broader swath of humanity -- namely, all of those that, through Jesus, have been adopted into that same family.

So let's move on to your issue with John 14:6:

  "being a good person [...] is not enough"

This highlights the biggest piece of the puzzle that you are missing. There are no good people. None. Anywhere. From Adam, right on down the line to you and me, all have sinned and missed the mark, fallen short of the standard of what a good person must be in order to qualify to be accepted by God. All, that is, except one. Jesus Christ. The thing that is most emphatically different about Him is that He was without sin.

Let's stop there, and go back to 'fairness'. One of the core tenets of the Christian faith is the unapologetic claim that ALL MEN, having trespassed against God, justly deserve His wrath. In fact, it would be unjust of God to not punish all men. In this sense, to be merciful would be a disgrace to justice. So how can God also be merciful? For that, we go back to Jesus.

Jesus satisfied the divine demands of living a 100% sinless life, then He surrendered Himself, and was made to be sin in our place. Having rightly deserved everything we do not, He took on Himself the iniquities of men, and was punished for them. The wrath of God was emptied upon him. Forget the cross and the Romans and the whips and the crown of thorns for a minute, because those were only props -- hints and clues at what the real story is about. He drank from the cup of God's wrath, so that men wouldn't have to.

So now we come to the issue of who. All of humanity stood condemned. Jesus came and said "See that man over there, and that one too, and those over there ... I want them to be mine -- and I'm willing to pay." God granted Him His wish, allowed Him to pay the price (even though it meant subjecting His own beloved Son to torture and death, both at the lowly hands of created men, and at His own hand, as He crushed Him with the punishment for sin).

So if Jesus says "I paid for that one.", who are we to argue and say it isn't fair that He doesn't choose another? We do know several things about His choice:

He doesn't base His choice on the good works or worthiness of individual people.
He does not leave it up to men to find Him, but goes out and hunts down His lost sheep, however far out of the fold they might be.
He does often extend His mercy and call through to descendants of ones He has already called and saved, but this is not a guarantee. Some that grew from the same branches are also pruned.
It isn't the job of Christians to do the picking and choosing. In fact, quite the opposite: those who have been chosen are also commanded to go out and proclaim what Christ did to ALL: announcing to them that there is One who has taken away the sins of the world, and that through Him they might be saved.

There are quite a number of other points that could be made about your question. I'll address a few more in brief:

  "those who are simply unable to believe in any god"

The Bible does not acknowledge the validity of atheism. On the contrary, it states that all men, whether they acknowledge it or not, have an innate knowledge of God. It also says that all of creation declares Him, albeit in a general way. Quite simply, this is not a valid excuse.

  "Belief isn't a choice..."

After a fashion, I would actually agree with this, but not in the way you are thinking. I would say men did have a choice, and they choose wrong. And now you don't have the power to make a right choice. In that sense, without God's intervention, you cannot just up and decide to change your fate. One theologian humorously addresses this point this way:

  Augustus Toplady: “A man’s free will cannot cure him even of the toothache, or a sore finger; and yet he madly thinks it is in its power to cure his soul.”

Adam was a prototype; you are of the same stock. You choose, and continue to choose, sin. Your own free will, left to its own ends, will never choose anything else. Yet Christianity calls men to make a new choice, to believe in Christ, to put their trust in Him, and stake their lives on the work that He did in removing our guilt from sin in the eyes of God. It also holds that this is only possible through a supernatural work --the intervention of the Holy Spirit-- in which God rips out your faithless heart of stone, and gives you a heart of flesh that is able to believe, love and obey -- but this, being His work, does not excuse you from searching out, wanting, and submitting to this new birth.

  "the fair way would be for him to appear to every human at birth"

Who are you to say what is or isn't fair? What is a pot to say to the potter that "you should have made me with a handle"? There are some aspects of faith that are a mystery --that we don't have answers for-- but even human logic could present an argument about this scenario being 'fair'. If the outcome you expect is for everybody to be united under one unanimous belief, then whatever God must have done to make that happen would have destroyed any pretense of free-will they had. Would you have us all be robots? Is being a free-willed but fallen human who is then chosen to be resurrected from a living death and eventually restored to perfection in Glory not enough drama and beauty for you? Will you not bow in recognition that the Christ who did this is Lord -- and do so now willingly... before being left no other choice?

TL;DR: All of God's creation stands in rebellion of Him, and justly deserves to be destroyed. Only one Man was ever sinless, and that Man laid down His life so that others might live. How He picks who to adopt isn't the business of the newly adopted children. It is their job to turn around and tell others that He's still in the adoption business. If "fairness" is being stretched, it is being stretched in the direction of no-one deserves anything, so anything we get is all grace.


Are there any statistics that show how many scientists are Christians or otherwise believe in a personal God?

In 1998, Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham published an article in the leading scientific journal, Nature, their findings on the percent of believers among scientists in the National Academy of Sciences:

  We found the highest percentage of belief [in God] among NAS mathematicians
  (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the
  lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with
  physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in
  immortality).

In regards to the question being asked, however, a Pew Survey in mid-2009 found that 33% of all scientists in America (not just those elected to NAS) believe in God, compared to 83% the American public. 18% believed in some sort of "higher power" (unaffiliated with any religion) and 41% are atheist. This suggests that the "average" scientist is more likely to believe in God than the most esteemed scientists.

This interesting article summarizes some of the findings from the Pew data.


Is there any biblical basis for the Church to depict Jesus as a European or some other ethnic race?

Is there any biblical basis for Churches in the West (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Protestant) to depict Jesus as European or some other ethnic race?
It seems to a certain point that men tend to maintain different depictions of Jesus, sometimes reflecting local racial characteristics, as do the Catholic and Orthodox depictions. As to whether there is any Scriptural references for depicting Jesus as a European is doubtful. There could be an indirect passage in Scriptures for maintaining he was of dark complexion (black) [I am black but beautiful, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Cedar, as the curtains of Solomon. (Song of Solomon 1:4)], but I will get to that further on.

Certain local traditions have maintained different depictions, sometimes reflecting local racial characteristics, as do the Catholic and Orthodox depictions. The Coptic Church of Egypt separated in the 5th century, and has a distinctive depiction of Jesus, consistent with Coptic art. The Ethiopian Church, also Coptic, developed on Coptic traditions, but shows Jesus and all Biblical figures with the Ethiopian appearance of its members. Other traditions in Asia and elsewhere also show the race of Jesus as that of the local population (see Chinese picture in the gallery below). In modern times such variation has become more common, but images following the traditional depiction in both physical appearance and clothing are still dominant, perhaps surprisingly so. In Europe, local ethnic tendencies in depictions of Jesus can be seen, for example in Spanish, German, or Early Netherlandish painting, but almost always surrounding figures are still more strongly characterised. For example, the Virgin Mary, after the vision reported by Bridget of Sweden, was often shown with blonde hair, but Christ's is very rarely paler than a light brown.

An 18th-century Ethiopian image of Jesus
Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created. Beliefs that certain images are historically authentic, or have acquired an authoritative status from Church tradition, remain powerful among some of the faithful, in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism. The Shroud of Turin is now the best-known example, though the Image of Edessa and the Veil of Veronica were better known in medieval times. - Depiction of Jesus

As I have already mentioned, there is not direct biblical basis for the West to depict Jesus as being European in their art. It is both a cultural sentimentality and a local tradition.
Jesus looked like a Roman to the Romans.

Jesus without a beard in the Catacombs of Rome. Third-century fresco from the Catacomb of Callixtus of Christ as the Good Shepherd.

Reconstruction of the Chinese Nestorian painting of Jesus Christ, 9th century.
Depicting Jesus and Mary as being Caucasian in European communities is by far not a universal tradition. Although not based on biblical proofs, it does remain a solid tradition in the West.
In fact, the term Black Madonna or Black Virgin tends to refer to statues or paintings in Western Christendom of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Infant Jesus, where both figures are depicted as black.

The term Black Madonna or Black Virgin tends to refer to statues or paintings in Western Christendom of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Infant Jesus, where both figures are depicted as black. The Black Madonna can be found both in Catholic and Orthodox countries.
The paintings are usually icons which are Byzantine in origin or style, some made in 13th- or 14th-century Italy, others are older and from the Middle East, Caucasus or Africa, mainly Egypt and Ethiopia. Statues are often made of wood but occasionally made of stone, painted and up to 75 cm (30 in) tall. They fall into two main groups: free-standing upright figures or seated figures on a throne. There are about 400–500 Black Madonnas in Europe, depending on how they are classified. There are at least 180 Vierges Noires in Southern France alone, and there are hundreds of non-medieval copies as well. Some are in museums, but most are in churches or shrines and are venerated by believers. Some are associated with miracles and attract substantial numbers of pilgrims.
Black Madonnas come in different forms, and the speculations (mostly by white scholars) behind the reason for the dark hue of each individual icon or statue vary greatly and are not without controversy. Though some Madonnas were originally black or brown when they were made, others have simply turned darker due to factors like ageing or candle smoke. The Jung scholar, Ean Begg, has conducted a study into the potential pagan origins of the cult of the black madonna and child. Another speculated cause for the dark-skinned depiction is due to pre-Christian deities being re-envisioned as the Madonna and child.
Studies and research
Research into the Black Madonna phenomenon is limited due to a wide consensus among (white) scholars that the dark-skinned aspect was unintentional. Begg has a different view: he links the recurring refrain from the Song of Solomon, ‘I am black, but I am beautiful’ to the Queen of Sheba. Recently, however, interest in this subject has gathered more momentum.
Important early studies of dark-skinned holy images in France were by Camille Flammarion (1888), Marie Durand-Lefebvre (1937), Emile Saillens (1945), and Jacques Huynen (1972). The first notable study of the origin and meaning of the Black Madonnas in English appears to have been presented by Leonard Moss at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on December 28, 1952. Moss broke the images into three categories: (1) dark brown or black Madonnas with physiognomy and skin pigmentation matching that of the indigenous population; (2) various art forms that have turned black as a result of certain physical factors such as deterioration of lead-based pigments, accumulated smoke from the use of votive candles, and accumulation of grime over the ages, and (3) residual category with no ready explanation. -Black Madonna (Wikipedia)

Moreover Mary has been associated with the Old Testament text from the Song of Songs which reads:

I am black, but beautiful.
Nigra sum, sed formosa. (Song of Songs 1:5)
These lyrics were commonly sung as a short refrain (called an ‘antiphon‘) in the feasts of the Virgin. But despite the association of the Mary with the ‘nigra sed formosa’ woman of the Song of Songs in Liturgy, I do not know of any depiction of the Virgin Mary as dark skinned in stained glass, or, for that matter, in any manuscript illuminations, wall paintings or embroidery.
In only two media in medieval art does the Virgin appear, at least on the face of it, to have been depicted with dark skin: wooden statues common in Western Europe, especially in France from the twelfth century onwards, and later, icon-like paintings to the east.

The Virgin of Montserrat, housed at the monastery of Santa Maria de Montserrat, Spain.
It is clear that over the course of the Middle Ages, there was a developing tradition of depicting blackness in medieval European art. But why, if the Virgin Mary was associated with the ‘nigra sum sed formosa’ text, did medieval artists not depict her as a sub-Saharan African woman?  Was it because dark-skinned people were unknown to the artists? -  The Virgin Mary: Beautiful and Black?


Did St. Paulinus of Nola sell himself into slavery to redeem one slave?

The story appears in Butler's Lives of Saints, a standard reference for many saints' histories. The relevant part of the (brief) Butler's entry reads:

St. Gregory the Great tells us that when the Vandals of Africa had made a descent on Campania, Paulinus spent all he had in relieving the distress of his people and redeeming them from slavery. At last there came a poor widow; her only son had been carried off by the son-in-law of the Vandal king. "Such as I have I give thee," said the Saint to her; "we will go to Africa, and I will give myself for your son." Having overborne her resistance, they went, and Paulinus was accepted in place of the widow's son, and employed as gardener. After a time the king found out, by divine interposition, that his son-in-law's slave was the great Bishop of Nola. He at once set him free, granting him also the freedom of all the townsmen of Nola who were in slavery.

Saint Gregory's relation of the story is in Greek; but the editors of the Patrologia Latina have kindly provided a Latin translation, which appears in Volume 77 of the Patrologia, in Chapter 1 of the third of the "Four Dialogues".
The Latin version of the story begins:

Cum saeventium Vandalorum tempore fuisset Italia in partibus Campaniae depopulata, multique essent de hac terra in Africanum regionem transducti, vir Domini Paulinus cuncta quae ad episcopii usum habere potuit captivis indigentibusque largitus est. Cumque iam nihil omnino superesset quod petentibus dare potuisset, quodam die vidua advenit, quae a regis Vandalorum genero suum filium in captivitate fuisse ductum perhibuit, atque a viro Dei eius pretium postulavit, si forte illius dominus hoc dignaretur accipere, et hunc concederet ad propria remeare.
Sed vir Domini magnopere petenti feminae quid dare potuisset inquirens, nihil apud se aliud nisi se invenit, petentique feminae respondit, dicens: Mulier, quod possim dare non habeo, sed memetipsum tolle, servum me iuris tui esse profitere, atque ut filium tuum recipias, me vice illius in servitium trade.

That is (my own translation):

When, in the time of the cruel Vandals, Italy was depopulated in the region of Campania [Nola is in Campania], and many people were carried away from this country into the regions of Africa, Paulinus, a man of God, offered up to the captives and the needy everything he had that was meant for the use of the bishopric. And even though there was nothing left over which he could give to those seeking [help], one day a widow came [to him], who indicated that her son had been taken into captivity by the son-in-law of the king of the Vandals; and requested this man of God [to offer] his ransom, if perhaps that lord would deign to accept it, and to allow this one [i.e. her son] to come back to his own.
But the man of God, questioning the lady seeking his help about what she might be able to give, found that she had  nothing on her except herself; and he responded to the lady, saying: Woman, I do not have anything that I might be able to give; but take me, myself; say that I am your servant by law, and so that you can receive your son, exchange me for him in slavery.

The story is rather long, but it goes on by relating how the widow initially laughed, but was eventually won over by Paulinus' eloquence. When they went to see the king in Africa, Paulinus claimed that he was good at gardening; and because the king's son-in-law loved gardens, the king agreed to the exchange. After Paulinus had worked in the garden for quite some time, and gained the son-in-law's confidence, he told him to make sure that the kingdom was set in order, since the king would soon die. The son-in-law mentioned this to the king, who decided he wanted to talk to him. Gregory reports that as soon as the king saw him, he began to tremble, saying to his daughter that he had seen in a dream this man and others sitting in judgment over him, and having him whipped for what he had done to them.
The king constrained Paulinus to tell who he truly was (after Paulinus tried to avoid the question), and when the king discovered that he was a bishop, he was very afraid of possible divine consequences, and offered to send Paulinus back to his homeland with whatever gifts Paulinus wanted to ask for. Paulinus responded that the only gift the king could give him was the freedom of all the captives from the city of Nola. The king managed to get all of these captives in Africa gathered together, and sent home with Paulinus on ships loaded with grain.
Gregory then points out the parallel between Paulinus and Christ, who had also taken on the form of a slave so as to free many people from slavery. The existence of this parallel, in a book of dialogues with religious purposes, doesn't in itself indicate that the story is mere fable; but his narration does seem to be the only source we have for the story—Gregory doesn't indicate any source he himself is using. Wikipedia reports that the Vandals did not invade north Africa until 429, two years before Paulinus' death, and only began attacking the Italian peninsula after this time; so the story may not be factual.


Do Catholics believe that Jesus' time in the wilderness was meant as an allegory?

Catholics believe in the four senses of Scripture and that all Scripture should be interpreted, firstly by the literal sense (not literalistic, as in every must be taken as having literally happened).  Allegory is only one of the spiritual senses of Scripture.  See the reference to the Catechism beginning in paragraph 101.  You may want to continue reading in the catechism to get a more developed idea of the four senses of Scripture.

  116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” [St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th I, 1, 10, ad I]
  117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. 1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. [Cf. I Cor 10:2] 2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”. [I Cor 10:11; cf. Heb 3:1 - 4:11] 3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. [Cf. Rev 21:1 - 22:5]


How do non-trinitarians respond to the argument that God is love necessitates the eternity of the Son?

The problem with this argument is that it's not based on Scripture. It's based on the unsupported assertion that "there must have been an object that could be loved by him throughout all eternity."

Jehovah's Witnesses are non-trinitarian, but they don't reason on things that the Bible doesn't comment on, such as the details of what God did before the beginning of creation. They do agree, however, that God is love (1 John 4:8) and that his identity and personality does not change. (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6;  Isaiah 43:10; 46:4)


Is it possible for an atheist to be moral?

If it is impossible for Atheists to be moral because they don't acknowledge the same source of morality that Christians recognize, then I would argue that it is also impossible for Christians to be moral, because neither do they fully understand the source of morality that they claim to attempt to adhere to.  And without full understanding, it is impossible to fully acknowledge the source of the morality.

Perhaps Christians can be "more" moral than Atheists (since they have a greater understanding of the source of morality), but since the question is asked in binary terms, I believe the binary answer is the same for both groups.

If on the other hand, morality is simply acting in accordance to a moral code, then it is certainly possible, if only in isolated incidents, for either Atheists or Christians to behave according to any given moral code.

Anyone is likely to behave according to any "code of conduct" occasionally, even by accident.

So my elevator answer would be: It is just as possible for Atheists to be moral as it is for Christians to be moral.


Promises of God that help us partake in His divine nature

The first part of this answer comes from Calvin's Commentaries on 2 Peter 1:1-4.  Before we can address verse 4 we need to deal with the first three verses to put everything into context:

  Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
  Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
  According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
  Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Verse 1 - Like precious faith, through the righteousness of God:

  This is a commendation of the grace which God had indiscriminately shewed to all his elect people... He adds, through the righteousness of God, in order that they might know that they did not obtain faith through their own efforts or strength, but through God's favor alone.

Verse 2 - Through the knowledge of god and of Jesus our Lord:

  He [Peter] connects together at the same time the knowledge of God and of Christ; because God cnnot be rightly known except in Christ according to that saying.

Verse 3 - All things that pertain unto life and godliness:

  So Peter does not speak hereof thenatural gifts of God, but only mentions those things which he confers perculiarly on his own elect above the common orderof nature... the common conditio of human life is not here referred to, but the peculiar endowments of thenew and Spiritual life, which derive their origin from the kingdom of Christ... he leaves to us not even the least particle of any virtue or merit.  It was Peter's object expressly to ascribe the whole praise of our salvation to God, so that we may know that we owe every thing to him.

Verse 4 - Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises:

  It is doubtful whether he refers only to glory and power, or to the preceding things also... the meaning will be, that first the promises of God ought to be most highly valued; and, secondly, that they are gratuitous, because they are offered to us as gifts.  And then he shews the excellency of the promises, that they make us partakers of the divine nature, than which nothing can be conceived better... But we, disregarding empty speculations, ought to be satisfied with this one thing, that the image of God in holiness and righteousness is restored to us for this end, that we may at length be partakers of eternal life and glory as far as it will be necessary for our complete felicity.

  Source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/2_peter/1.htm

Another Reformed Theology source of information concerning sanctification says this:

  Two features are central to sanctification: Jesus Christ himself is our sanctification or holiness (1 Cor 1:30); and it is through union with Christ that sanctification is accomplished in us... .  It is those who have received God’s promises who should purify themselves “from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God” (2 Cor 7:1)  [5] Calvin Institutes 3.1.1.  Source: https://www.uniontheology.org/resources/life/the-reformed-view-of-sanctification

So, what are the "exceeding great and precious promises" that God gives "to them that have obtained like precoious faith"?  All these promises have to do with our salvation.  It is through those promises that believers are made "partakers of the divine nature.  Here are a few:

When we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we are saved (Acts 16:31)

We experience a radical spiritual transformation which comes by virtue of becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)

We are made new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17)

We are born again, spiritually (John 3:3)

We die to our old sinful nature and our lives are hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3)

As partakers of the divine nature, believers are made part of God's family (John 1:12)

We are conformed to the image of Christ Jesus (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 6:18)

The greatest promise of all is that believers who have experienced the new birth have the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling them (Romans 8:37; John 14:16) and know that they will never be forsaken (Hebrews 13:5).

This is what empowers the born again believer to "escape the corruption that is in the world by lust".


Can one pray for something "bad" to happen to yourself?

Short Answer

As a child of God who is right in asking God for joy and fulfillment, do not ask God to remove a desire unless you simultaneously ask for a better one, because God is most glorified when we are satisfied in Him.

General principles

John 14:13-14 has been abused by many not-so-Christian groups so we should be very careful to understand what the writer himself (Apostle John) meant by it.  There is already a fine answer about it, so I will not repeat it here other than saying that it hinges on what "asking in Jesus name" means:

  So when we pray "in Jesus' name" we are praying "according to who Jesus is", that is to say according to his nature as the revelation of God; the salvation of his people; the way, the truth and the life; the gate of salvation. We are praying according to who Jesus most fundamentally is. To pray in Jesus' name is to conform ourselves to that identity.

Another aspect to consider is who is praying: is the person someone who has made Jesus his/her Lord?  Does the person want the "gift" or the "Giver"?  Does the person consider how the request is aligned with the purpose of the Kingdom, one of the utmost reasons why Jesus came to earth?  Even Santa Claus would not give a child a gift that would harm the child, would he?

About "gift of salvation", some Christian groups teach that after we have joined the Kingdom of God (because Jesus has redeemed us) we are now eligible for the blessings that pre-fall Adam forfeited AND the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant because we have been grafted into the olive tree (Rom 11:11-24). This includes receiving answers to our prayers made in Jesus name as long as they are aligned with Jesus's own heart.

Proper way of relinquishing

In my opinion, there are 2 ways of relinquishing a desire.  One is the Buddhist way: simply kill it, because increasing desire is increasing "self" which makes one further away from obtaining Nirvana, conceived as losing one's self (a drop of water) into the vast ocean of "bliss" (but the wrong kind of bliss, according to Christianity).

The other way is the Saints's way, illustrated by Ken Graham's St. Bridgid example.  She relinquished beauty for a better desire, similar to a monk's taking a vow of poverty.  Buddhist poverty is very different than a Christian saint's poverty.  Right desire for a Christian is to align ourselves with what Jesus desires, not to kill it.  The Saints desire the growth of the Kingdom which is established on earth in many ways, which explain why Saints's lives are radically different from one another.  Some worked in the world (like the Jesuits), some retreat into the desert to pray for believers, some build hospitals, some minister to the despised like Mother Teresa, etc.  But all Saints relinquish something personal for a greater good that pleases God.  All Saints don't just ask for something "bad"; they simultaneously ask for something greater to replace the "bad" with.

Application and responses to your questions

Applying the above to the situation you were talking about requires us to know what the event is about.  Rather than reconciling to "futility", the person should instead ask himself how God would have used the event to bless him and others participating in the event.  God works in mysterious way, opening and closing the doors, which should NOT discourage us since our trust is in the Giver.  So rather than NOT asking, the person should instead ask God to reveal His purpose for him in relation to the event.

  Rather than asking your parents to have some chocolate, you give up and just never ask, and never eat chocolate, and accept that as normality. Where is the benefit in this?

I agree with you; there is no benefit in this.  If a parent does this to a child, the parent has harmed the child psychologically!  I personally feel that behind the invitation of John 14:13-14 is a revelation from God to His Kingdom people, who are experiencing hardship in the world of suffering, to NOT give up asking.  Assuming the desire for chocolate is healthy (i.e. not driven by obsession / greediness / substitute for nutritious food), God wants us to keep asking and to praise God when He delivers.  Instead of giving us chocolate, God may want to give us something else that is better for us in the long run, such as chocolate ice cream after we finish a work of mercy to others.

  losing an interest is something I consider "bad" if it is not replaced with something else meaningful.

I totally agree.  So unless relinquishing desire for the event is for a "greater good" (like Ken Graham's St. Bridgid example), then it is suspect.  In St. Brigid's example, her request to make herself look ugly was to pave the way for something far more meaningful: being a consecrated virgin for Jesus.

  Would it be ok for a child tell Santa Claus "Don't bother with this and that toy, I won't be getting it anyway." Would Santa Claus be ok with that, or would he be miffed? And how would that serve Santa other than his Elves don't have to make the toy? God has no material costs incurred when fulfilling a prayer, so how can God benefit from "Pack it in, God. I don't want it any longer!", and how can this serve His kingdom if no such intent is implied in prayer? Lastly, can the rejection (read: giving up) of anything purely due to its unattainability be a token of mercy to the person praying?

Santa Claus / Jesus would be sad. There are a few things wrong with that view:

That attitude seems like a mask for accepting destiny, which is not Christian. Serving in the Kingdom is instead a joyful participation with fellow believers following Jesus to victory! If the thing to be given up is morally wrong, that's a different story.  But giving up a potential blessing to me is contrary to being a child of God.  God may say no to our request (when it's not aligned with his purpose), but He would give us other avenues to bless us.  So closing door would open our desire for another opportunity, not leaving us unfulfilled.
Yes, because of God's unlimited wealth of blessings, God wouldn't "incur material costs" when fulfilling prayer, but it's God's will to share his blessings with us, as is clear in the parables of Jesus and elsewhere in the Bible.  If the blessings don't come in the form we expect then probably we need to adjust our expectation, but ceasing to ask is not the way.
About "token of mercy" it's possible if God considers the request to be harmful for us, but that implies that we ask Him first. As a matter of courtesy, we shouldn't ask God with a stoic expectation / stiff upper lip that it wouldn't matter whether God gives it or not. That's a beggar's mentality, not suitable for a child of God !  What parent likes a child who asks with that attitude?  At best, God would be sad.  We should instead be like Jacob who asks for what he desires and not give up, or like David (when his & Bathsheba's kid was dying) until he found out God says "no".

  It seems like God opened a prayer trap, as it appears that it is easier to just pray for an increasingly empty life and receive it, rather than have it fulfilled with the joys God can give through his mercy.

I agree that praying for empty life (and receive it as though it's God's answer) is WRONG.  Instead, joy should be primary.  For an antidote of that feeling please check out What is Christian Hedonism? by John Piper who says: "Over the years the name that I have given to my understanding of the massive role joy plays not only in the Christian life, but in all of creation and    God’s purposes in it — is Christian Hedonism. And the shortest description  of Christian Hedonism is God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."


Did it ever happen that a Christian died simply because he had no food at his disposal?

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is 95% Christian. The recent conflicts have killed as much as 5.4 million people. A summary of the details states,

  more than 90% were not killed in combat, dying instead from malaria,
  diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition, aggravated by displaced
  populations living in unsanitary and over-crowded conditions that
  lacked access to shelter, water, food and medicine.

One could argue that the death toll is wrong, and some people have done so. Or, one could argue that for the deaths that were due to malnutrition and starvation were only among the remaining 5% who weren't Christian. One could also argue that the statistic is inaccurate by saying that those who died weren't real Christians. None of that seems convincing to me. At least one Christian died from hunger-related causes in that conflict.

For individual, anecdotal cases, you may refer to this list. Perhaps none were Christian. Thomas Johnson seems like one, but maybe forced starvation doesn't count? Granted, one can explain away individual cases all day, so I prefer the statistical answer, but sometimes both are useful.

My tongue-in-cheek comment, "Has a Christian ever stubbed his toe?" is intended as a joke (for which I meant no offense), but it's related to this issue. Coming from the same chapter as my glib (and probably bad) joke, Psalm 91:3 states,

  Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly pestilence.

If you interpret verses that insist on God's protection and provision as being for our physical needs, you will only be right some of the time. Christians die from car accidents; Christians die from cancer; Christians die from starvation.

What did Jesus mean in Matthew 6? I'll suggest emphasis on his question in the last part of verse 25, "Is not life more than food?" Surely food is required for life, yes? He is not referring to physical food. In John 6:35, I think this is more clear:

  Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Jesus did not claim that those who follow him would never go (physically) hungry.


How did Moses write the events which happened ~2000 years before him?

Pretty clearly, there has to be a mixture of revelation and tradition in Genesis. There are several time periods written about in Genesis, and these should be examined individually:

Creation

Clearly the only observer to the Creation was the Creator. (Or no-one if you are disinclined to believe in a Creator, but from a Christian perspective, no one other than the Creator is even claimed to be present.)  That said, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Creator spoke to Adam about his Creation process, and that an oral tradition would have developed around it.

Seeing as we exist, and most people are going to ask 'How we came to be' at some point, it is very easy to assume that a narrative tradition would have been passed down at some point. Indeed, pretty much every culture has a narrative myth of some kind - the Egyptians, for example, thought the world was masturbated into existence - passed down from generation to generation.

Thus the fact that there is a Creation story is not unique.  That the world is created ex nihilo is, however, usually attributed uniquely to the Jews. That alone is a sufficiently startling claim to either be passed down or be something revealed. The startling dissimilarity to other local myths leads many scholars to assume something difference happened to the Jews - regardless of the scholar's status of belief.  This culture either composed something unique or was given a special revelation.  Which it is a clearly a matter of faith in either direction.
Antedeluvian Period of Cain & Abel, Enoch, the Flood, and Babel

One could ask how we "know" that William Wallace tried to liberate Scotland against the rule of Edward Longshanks.  The paper records are scant, but the story is strong and compelling - much like the tales of Genesis 1 - 12.  Indeed, many scholars see this as a special case within Bible, and so if any part of Scripture is going to be questioned for its historical value, it is this one.

That said, it is not an impossibility that this faithfully records the witness of the period.  Indeed, the "list of kings" in Genesis 5 bears a striking resemblence to the historical record of the Sumerian kings of antiquity, lending credence to the idea of traditional narrative being passed down. Christians obviously disagree over how to read Scripture as a whole but there is no compelling archeological or extrabiblical evidence in either direction.

Indeed even "dialog" from these Pilgrim and Settler experiences is "documented", in much the same fashion as appears in these stories, showing that tradition can be documented in an "historical" fashion, even if not with the same precision as modern historians can do with modern history.
The Abrahamic Narrative (Genesis 13 - 50)

By the time of Abraham in Genesis, a qualitative difference appears in Genesis.  While 2000 years of history is glossed over in scant detail in the first 12 chapters, the remainder of the book concentrates on just 4 generations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.  The events here probably may take place around 1800 - 1700 BC, and begin to take a much more detailed perspective.  Here, for example, we know the names of all the children and the wives.  We learn about their rivalries and their rise to power.

The situation, from Moses' perspective, would be much more akin to that of a modern American to say, the Pilgrims and Myles Standish, or the founding of Jamestown and Pocohantas.  As part of the founding mythos of Moshe's culture, it is not all surprising that these events would be part of family history, passed down from generation to generation.  And, if Moses lead his people out of Egypt in 1440BC, it would be surprising the history - especially in an oral culture - had not been passed down.  Here, no revelation would have been necessary, as it would have been as common knowledge as say, George Washington "chopping down a cherry tree".

Thus, in sum, Moshe probably would have relied on a combination of passed on historical narrative and special revelation in order to write about the things that happened before him.  But we do the same things today, so it isn't surprising in the least.


What is the meaning in the Bible for the "Branch"?

Jesus is prophetically referred to as "the branch of David" (Is 11:1) and a "branch from the roots of Jesse" (Jer 33:15).

In general, "branch" can refer to offspring and "root" to parents (think "family tree"). Children can be referred to as "fruit" ("be fruitful", "fruit of the womb", "house of Judah ... bear fruit", "fruit of my body")