Was St. John Vianney the first parish priest to become canonized?

St. John Vianney was not the first "parish priest" to be raised to the altars.

I am sure that one can find several with time permitting, especially in groups of martyrs.

St. Ivo of Kermartin (1253-1303) was also a parish priest.

  Ivo Helory, a legal scholar from Kermartin, France, served as an ecclesiastical judge in the dioceses of Rennes and Treguier, becoming known as an advocate of the poor. Following his ordination, he served as a parish priest for eighteen years. Each day before celebrating Mass, and at other times as well, he would prostrate himself before the altar, tearfully offering fervent prayers. Similarly, he would prepare for his sermons on his knees. In his preaching, Ivo habitually included examples drawn from the lives of the saints. He kept his breviary and his Bible at his side almost constantly. Ivo generously gave his time to his priestly duties of hearing confessions and bringing Viaticum to the dying, carrying the Eucharist in a silver pyx over his heart. On his deathbed, Ivo kept his eyes fixed upon a crucifix placed before a window of his room. Upon hearing a bystander speak of asking for a doctor, Ivo responded that his only doctor was Jesus Christ. He repeatedly made the sign of the cross before breathing his last. Ivo is venerated as a patron saint of lawyers. - St. Ivo of Kermartin

St. Ivo of Kermartin was canonized in June 1347 by Clement VI3 at the urging of Philip I, Duke of Burgundy.

St. Ivo worked amongst the poor of his parish.

  Saint Ivo of Kermartin, T.O.S.F. (17 October 1253 – 19 May 1303), also known Yvo or Ives (and in Breton as Erwan, Iwan, Youenn or Eozenn, depending on the region, and known as Yves Hélory (also Helori or Heloury) in French), was a parish priest among the poor of Louannec, the only one of his station to be canonized in the Middle Ages. He is the patron of Brittany, lawyers and abandoned children. His feast day is 19 May. Poetically, he is referred to as "Advocate of the Poor".

Just as St. Ivo worked much with the poor so the Cure d'Ars worked amongst the needy of his day. He established La Providence, a home for orphaned girls.

  Vianney had a soft spot for the forgotten as well. La Providence, an orphanage for young girls that John Vianney started in 1824, can be found across the street from the church. At the end of the Napoleonic Era, France’s grave economic woes gripped the country. Countless women and girls roamed the streets selling themselves as prostitutes.

  In the true spirit of Saint Vincent de Paul, La Providence was John Vianney’s response to the social injustice of national poverty. The orphanage is a modest, white, two-story French country house where numerous young teenage and orphan girls in need of spiritual direction and shelter learned skills such as housekeeping from Catherine Lassagne, who headed the house.

  One of John Vianney’s great pleasures was his noontime catechism to the orphan girls. In fact, once Ars became a hot spot for pilgrims, Father Vianney’s midday chat with the girls became a crowded affair, one that had to be relocated to the church.

Even though these two priests were "parish priests", their spiritual and practical influences extended well beyond the borders of their parishes. The tentacles of grace are always far reaching in times of need.


This question is indeed very broad. I'm new over here but I would really want to try and give you some thoughts.

To answer briefly : It is essentially the same Sacramental act

I would begin by saying that as you can see in John 20:21-23, it is said:

  Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” [...] If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”`

The Council of Trent (1551) declares that before the coming of Christ, penance was not a sacrament, nor is it since His coming a sacrament for those who are not baptized. The Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, he breathed upon His disciples saying what is cited here-above. See Fourteenth Session - Chapter V of the Council of Trente

The Council then expresses that Christ left priests, etc. that may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness.

What is important is to note that this power does not belong to the laity. This is evident since the Papal Bull of Martin V Inter cunctas (1418).

This is more however like 'how come the Confession Sacrament is now established?' as it is and might be off-topic.

On the methods of doing it: It doesn't seem to have changed much

You should look at some articles on this old manuscript which is called the Didache. Section 14 of the Didache states:

  On every Lord's Day—his special day—come together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.

Which seems to say that the first Christians did indeed confess their sins to the first priests, themselves named from the Apostles.

I would be delighted to enhance this answer if it's not precise enough.


Who first explicitly understood "works of the law" in Galatians 3:10 as referring to only the ritual law, and not the Mosaic law generally?

Marius Victorinus
The earliest clear instance of this interpretation of this verse that I've found appears to be in Marius Victorinus's commentary on Galatians (written mid-4th century).  He describes the "works which belong to Christianity" as:

those works which the apostle frequently commands (and also what has been commanded to him: let us be mindful of the poor) and the additional precepts for living which are included in this apostle's writings.  Each one of these works is commanded by the apostle to be fulfilled by every Christian.

Against these moral instructions he contrasts the "works of the Law":

The works of the Law, then, are something else: religious observances, obviously, offerings of a lamb (although the Passover has now been fulfilled through Christ); and there are further works which they do as well, pertaining to circumcision and foods to be observed or prepared. (source, emphasis in original)

Sadly, a large gap appears in Victorinus's commentary immediately after this section, so we don't know how he develops the theme.  A modern editor, Stephen Cooper, argues that he is pointing out "that there are other works whose obligatory performance by Christians do not bring a curse," not that justification comes from such works.  Even so, the distinction is made – Victorinus makes it clear that he sees at least some aspects of the moral law as not in view in Galatians 3:10.
Origen
An earlier example of this view is found in the writings of Origen (early to middle third century).  Unfortunately, his commentaries on Galatians have been lost, but it seems likely that something like the following would have been included in them.  In his commentary on Romans, 8.7.6, he writes:

One should know that the works that Paul repudiates and frequently criticizes are not the works of righteousness that are commanded in the law, but those in which those who keep the law according to the flesh boast; i.e., the circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial rituals, the observance of Sabbaths or new moon festivals. (source)

So we see that this is certainly not merely a "medieval" interpretation; at least some in the early church held to it as well.


Which U.S. bishops are unfaithful to Church teaching on homosexuality and LGBT ideology?

Bishops unfaithful to Church teaching on
homosexuality

The Catechism teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Persons who suffer from same-sex attraction are called by the Church to live chaste lives. Homosexual “marriages” undermine God’s plan for the family, which is oriented to the rearing and educating of children through the indissoluble union of one man and one woman.

Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archdiocese of Chicago
Bishop Robert W. McElroy, Diocese of San Diego
Bishop Emeritus Patrick J. McGrath, Diocese of San Jose
Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory, Archdiocese of Washington
Archbishop John C. Wester, Archdiocese of Santa Fe

“LGBT” ideology

The so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender” agenda attacks the traditional understanding of man as created in the image and likeness of God. The Church draws its unchangeable teaching on sexuality from Scripture, which states that God created them “male and female.” Pandering to this ideology is harmful to the faithful and endangers souls.

Auxiliary Bishop John P. Dolan, Diocese of San Diego
Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life
Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin, Archdiocese of Newark
Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archdiocese of Chicago
Bishop Robert W. McElroy, Diocese of San Diego
Bishop John Stowe, Diocese of Lexington
Bishop James F. Checchio, Diocese of Metuchen
Bishop Gerald R. Barnes, Diocese of San Bernardino
Bishop Emeritus Patrick J. McGrath, Diocese of San Jose
Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory, Archdiocese of Washington
Archbishop John C. Wester, Archdiocese of Santa Fe

source: LifeSiteNews's Faithful Shephards initiative, which tracks the standing of bishops on many issues:

Abortion politics
Amoris Laetitia
Contraception
Education
Homosexuality
Liturgy
Marriage and Family Life
Pro-life leadership
Viganò testimony
“LGBT” ideology

Visit Faithful Shephards to urge these bishops to convert.


I am not sure what you mean by "semi-official", but here are some writings of the Church Fathers that may be of interest:

John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, II.12
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection
Anathasius the Great, Against the Heathen, II.30-34
Gregory Palamas, Philokalia, Vol. 4
Diadochus of Photike, Philokalia, Vol. 1

The first three references can be found at CCEL.

I don't think that any anathema would have been issued against a doctrine of the soul having parts, as that is stated clearly in some of the above (e.g. that the spirit is the higher part of the soul).  Origen was anathematized for professing the pre-existence of souls, but that doesn't sound like what you recall.


Relationships between God the Father, Mary and the two natures of Jesus Christ

I'd imagine that would be a heresy of the heresy of modalism or arianism or something, but that's not a very precise answer since a heresy of a heresy could be anything.

So, if you want to identify a heresy to the doctrine of the incarnation it would have to deny that Mary is the Holy Mother of God.  The heresy that denied that was Nestorianism. You can read St. Cyril give him the business in his 12 Anathemas.

The miracle of the Incarnation of Jesus took Mary's flesh and made Jesus, like God took part of Adam and made Eve, except in reverse; this is all very fitting and proper and a completion of the work of the OT, as it should be. Moreover, it is a mystery and a miracle that cannot be understood by reason alone, as it should be.


If rules in the Bible can change, shouldn't Bibles be arranged chronologically so we know which one is right?

To answer the question directly, yes, there are Bibles arranged in "chronological order." This book for example, seeks to arrange every passage of the Bible chronologically.  That said, I'm not sure that's really the best approach.

Firstly, by cutting and pasting passages from multiple books by multiple authors, one destroys the uniqueness of each book.  Imagine, for example, if someone were to arrange Wagner's Ring Cycle, the movie 'Europa, Europa', the Diary of Anne Frank, and random information from 'The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich' "chronologically.  The mish-mash would do justice to none of it.

As it is, the Bible is arranged roughly right:

The "historical" books of Genesis through 2 Chronicles + Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther is basically in order, with the caveat that 1 & 2 Chronicles are basically repeats 1 & 2 Kings.
The "writings" aka "Wisdom literature" of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccelesiates are not chronological at all, and thus ordering would not make sense.  Futhermore, the only "rules" in this category would be Proverbs - and even here, you'll find that wisdom != rules.  (Proverbs, for example, admits that bribes work!  It doesn't say that they are right, only that they are effective.
The "prophets" from Isaiah to Malachi are the most troublesome ordering, for the traditional ordering is not chronological, but rather based on length, importance, and keywords.  Still the "rules" again, really aren't the issue.  If you want a "rule" it is simply "Be just, not corrupt!"  Historically it would be more interesting, I'll admit, but not vital to the message.
The Gospels historically represent a shift from Jewish to Christian thought.  Jesus does alter the terms of the covenant to be sure, leading many (not me, but many) to say "NT supercedes OT."  That division is useful for those who see a dichotomy.
Acts is historical, and is placed correctly.
The Epistles of Paul, Peter, and the others are arranged by length, not order, but they all fall within a period of 40 years at most - nothing like the 4000 years of the OT.  As such, again, there is no particular "order" nor contradiction.
Finally, Revelation is apocalyptic, not "rule" based.

As such, I disagree that a reordering of books is necessary.

Finally, progressive revelation doesn't actually say that God "changes" so much as we more fully understand what God wants.  In the OT, the afterlife is  only a vague reference at best - but it is clear in the NT.  Is this a "contradiction"? Well, I suppose you could turn it into one.  Likewise, the issue of child sacrifice - from norm to being abhorrent - was that really God or Man?  Indeed, one could even make a case that the bible condones slavery, I don't believe it, but the case is made.  Still, Christians eventually realized it contradicted God's deeper law.  People change!  The "rules" sometimes even reflect that.  But that is not exactly what the progressiveness of revelation is really about. It's about us understanding God better - not Him giving better rules.


Does "gospel-preaching church" have a shared meaning?

The term is not one that has an official definition across the board.  However, there are two meanings that are generally implied by the phrase.  One is a bit.. inflammatory, even if it's not really "meant to be taken that way".  It is tied up with the idea (common to most Christians) that some Churches are preaching a false "gospel".  (I say it's common to most Christians because if it weren't, we wouldn't have so much division within the umbrella of what's called "Christianity".)  The other is less inflammatory.

Starting with the inflammatory meaning, to get it out of the way:

It's something usually said by mainstream evangelicals, and in typical usage, it means "A church that preaches what my Church preaches.

To clarify that, most denominations agree on the central tenets of Christianity, but there are disagreements on certain points.
 - Some denominations teach a works-based salvation, or faith+works salvation.
 - Others are perhaps unfairly accused of teaching a works+faith salvation message.
 - Some denominations preach a Gospel message at the end of every service, and may include an invitation, while others don't.  (I don't recall any such thing ever occurring in a Catholic or Lutheran service, come to think of it.  Just the fiercely evangelical denominations.)

But typically, when you hear this phrase, it's a standard Evangelical protestant, who is a strong believer in salvation by faith alone.  And they're saying, in effect, "Go ahead and go to a Baptist Church, or an Evangelical Free, or an Assembly of God, even, they all differ in some ways, but they all have the right message on what it takes to be saved.  But don't go to that Catholic Church, they teach that you're saved by obedience to the Church, ordinances, and believe all kinds of wacky stuff like praying to saints and Transubstantiation.  Steer clear of them and stick to the churches that teach the real Gospel message.  And don't even get me started on them Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.  Go find you a Church that teaches that you're a sinner, that you need to repent and put your faith in Jesus, and trust in that alone!  Don't go to some Church that teaches anything not found in the Bible".

(Again, shorter version, "Go to a Church that teaches what I believe.")

It can also have a less "I'm right, those heathens are wrong" meaning.  It can also simply mean, a Church whose focus is evangelism.

As noted above, I don't recall ever hearing a message about having to repent, put my faith in Christ, and get saved in a Catholic Church.  (They may preach that, but I've just missed it...)  By contrast, every Baptist service, wedding, funeral, or pot-luck I've ever attended has a message, or at least a prayer that does this.  Also, you don't see a lot of Catholics going door-to-door handing out tracts, inviting people out to Church.  I see that in Baptist and other strongly Evangelical Churches (As well as with LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses) all the time.  So in that context, "Gospel Preaching Church" can simply mean a Church whose focus is on sharing the Gospel.


Sources on Historical Reliability of the New Testament

If you mean events: much of the NT concerns small groups of average people. We would not expect independent validation, so any question of historic accuracy is limited to a single source (or, if you like, a few intertwined sources) (which has inbuilt bias, if evaluating from a clinical perspective). Simply: for much of NT I would expect simply: no one can say for certain, beyond faith.

The grave-openings in Matthew 27:52 are massively unreported, though; from a historic evidence perspective, that is something you might expect people to have noticed and reported, enough to be visible today.

Ultimately, we have only a fragmented set of documentary sources from the time period - the luck of whatever survived 2000 years (whether in original form, or via copying). There honestly isn't an awful lot of parallel evidence to look at (which says nothing about the accuracy of events, or not, other than to say: it is hard to know).

Additionally, any evidence or counter-evidence for any individual event does not prove or disprove any other events. For example, while there may be some independent mention of the crucifixion, that from an evidence basis says nothing about the resurrection.

Likewise, because it is written that something was witnessed by (say) 100 people, does not prove that this is the case; numbers (and events) can be subject to embellishment, so many of the events are, from an evidence perspective, not certain to be reliable.

  I want to spend some time looking at the new testament independently of my Christian bias

That simply does not exist, as such; the key sources are Christian, and it is perfectly well known that the documents selected for inclusion in what became The Bible were selected; among this selection, being "in line" with the dogma was a factor. Unless you mean something like a Jefferson Bible (and I don't think that is what you mean). This is obviously something that a lot of people have looked at lots of times, over lots of years. To date, I am honestly unaware of any compelling evidence that has not faced significant criticism, usually for uncertain logic, cherry-picking over the (scant) evidence, and making some fairly large assumptions (in particular with the motivation of characters or authors).

If you are a believer, I suggest: base your beliefs on your faith.


All the references where Jesus is offered worship

First of all - Jesus Christ is Jehovah. He states about him "I am" and when He pronouces it it makes his captors fall to the ground. So the name of God "I am" is the name of Jesus, not only of Father.

At least two fragments I can come up with now:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; (Philippians 2, 10)

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last (Revelation 1, 17, note that unlike angel from the same book, Christ doesn't forbid falling at His feet)


Does the Old Testament law prohibit marriage among step siblings?

The prohibited forms of incest are found in Leviticus 18.

Verse 9 is of the most concern:

  9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

Verse 11, however is also interesting:

  11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

Here, only children born of the father are considered. As such, a step sibling sired by another man (such as the case you posit) would appear to be fair game.

The complete list disallows:

your mother
any woman your father marries (honor)
your sister, or the daughters of either of your parents
your children's daughters (honor)
your father's wife
your aunt on either side (she is "a close relative")
your daughter-in-law
your sister-in-law

In many cases, the point seems to be "don't dishonor your family."  I suspect (and here I put on my Rabbi hat and accent), the idea would be that you could not seek out your step-siblings, but if the marriage were to occur before your father and her mother were to marry, that they would be dishonoring you, not you them.

All of this, of course, is far more legal and lawerly than Christianity normally gets, but you asks the question, you gets the answer...


How are eschatological beliefs distinguished in the Evangelical churches?

You've placed a tall order, to be sure!
Having grown up in Evangelicalism, I am more than a little familiar with the various eschatological schemes embraced and taught by more-conservative Evangelicals. When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, Dispensational theology was taken for granted among the Plymouth Brethren, a movement of anti-Church-of-England Christians in the British Isles in the early 19th century. (The Plymouth Brethren, by the way, is the "non-denominational" denomination with which I identify.)
A Bit of History
One of the early leaders of my denomination was John Nelson Darby. He is credited with making Dispensationalism the go-to eschatology of the Plymouth Brethren. I guess you could say that dispensational theology birthed a renewed interest in eschatology in the last 200 years and made such terms as rapture, millennium, the Great Tribulation, pre-trib, post-trib (even mid-trib!) and the Day of the Lord important buzzwords in any discussion of eschatology in many conservative Evangelical churches around the world.
Darby, by the way, was a summa cum laude graduate (actually a "Classical Medalist") of Trinity College in Dublin at the age of 18. According to Larry V. Crutchfield,

Brilliant, gifted, and with all the right connections, Darby had been groomed for and was practically assured a successful career in law. But a deep spiritual struggle gripped the budding young barrister in his eighteenth year and caused him to abandon that profession after only one year of practice between 1822 and 1823. Darby's spiritual odyssey lasted until 1825 when he received ordination as deacon in the Church of England. The following year, he was elevated to the priesthood and assigned a curacy in remote County Wicklow, Ireland.

Darby was a brilliant linguist, and his eponymous version of the Bible (viz., The Darby Translation) is universally respected to this day (the complete Bible being published in 1890, eight years after his death). Darby also was a respected leader and pastor who planted churches in Germany and France. He influenced the theology of many American churchmen, whose names are perhaps more familiar to Evangelicals than Darby! Men such as James Hall Brookes, Adoniram Judson Gordon (namesake of Gordon College and Gordon Conwell Seminary) Arno C. Gaebelein, William E. Blackstone, Cyrus I. Scofield (to whom Blackstone introduced dispensational theology shortly after Scofield was converted). Scofield, of course, is remembered fondly by millions of Christians as the editor of the Scofield Reference Bible. I suggest that virtually every study Bible published ever since Scofield's first came on the scene in 1909 (published by Oxford University Press--citation) owes a debt of gratitude to C. I. Scofield!
Although Darby is credited with being "the father of Dispensationalism," the concept of biblical dispensations (or ages, or eras, or differing economies in the outworking of God's plans and purposes for Planet Earth), goes back to the writings and teachings of some of the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Turtullian (citation). Moreover, according to Charles C. Ryrie, author of Dispensationalism Today and emeritus professor of theology at a bastion of dispensational thought, Dallas Theological Seminary, in the approximately 150 years before Darby came on the scene,

an increasing number of theologians were articulating dispensational schemes of Biblical history (pp.71-74; cited here by Dr. Thomas Ice).

The key terms pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, rapture, millennium, pre-mil, post-mil, not to mention the names for the seven dispensations into which salvation history is divided within the dispensational scheme (e.g., Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, and Law) and the interpretation (often labeled pejoratively--and unfairly--"literal" interpretation) of the Bible's doctrine of eschatology (i.e., the study of future things, such as the return of Christ, both "in the air" and "to the earth") are part and parcel of the dispensational mode of "rightly dividing [or accurately handling] the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Let's pause here to address a heart-felt concern of mine and--I hope--many other believers worldwide. Some Christians today ridicule the dispensational approach to Scripture. They find the notion of a "secret rapture" risible, and they slough it off as if it came from a fairy tale. I find this sort of behavior troubling and inappropriate. Just because some of our brothers and sisters in Christ happen not to espouse all the tenets of covenant theology and of the Reformed Christian faith does not automatically make them dummkopfs.  I've read articles online, written by Christians,  which could fairly be labeled invective. These diatribes include strident railing against such defenders of the faith as C. I. Scofield! Clearly, these things ought not to be! Since when are ad hominem arguments and cheap shots appropriate when discussing other Christians' heartfelt beliefs or comparing their beliefs to yours?
While there are undoubtedly and inappropriately vociferous critics on both sides of the aisle, eschatologically speaking, my concern is that some Christians seem to have become unwilling and/orunable to agree to disagree agreeably with their fellow Christians? If so, then I believe we fail to show love and to demonstrate grace to our fellow believers whose interpretations of Scripture (particularly regarding eschatology) just happen to be different from ours.
It's not as though the two camps are at odds vis a vis the "Big Five":  the deity of Christ, his miraculous conception and virgin birth, his resurrection and promised return, and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement as the basis for salvation by God's grace alone through faith alone.
If, then, we are agreed on the major, essential doctrines of Scripture, I suggest that eschatology, which in my opinion is not even in the "Big Ten," allows for a good bit of wiggle room and can tolerate at least a soupçon of compromise. The only aspect of eschatology on which I am not willing to compromise is the promised return of Jesus Christ (John 14:1-4). I have a feeling most Christians feel similarly.
In short, I believe that sincere Christians of every stripe and tradition are all interested in "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). No Christians worthy of the name set out deliberately to botch their task of being unashamed workers in the way they construct their heuristic devices, schemas, and paradigms in order to interpret the Scriptures. This is not to say that every interpretation is just as good as any other interpretation. Nevertheless, for some Christians to engage in character assassination simply because some other Christians do not agree with them on doctrinal issues which are not even in the top five, or ten, or twenty. Enough said.
A Quick Overview of Evangelical Eschatology
What follows is a quick and dirty overview of some of the high points of eschatology from the perspective of a somewhat typical, middle-of-the-road dispensationalist.

The default method of interpretation in Dispensationalism is a literal reading of the biblical text. This is not a wooden literalism which ignores figures of speech, poetic language, symbols, types, and anti-types, but a literalism which assumes, for example, that three-and-a-half years is literally three-and-a-half years in duration. The prophetic book of Daniel includes such segments of time within its unique eschatology.

Dispensationalists believe there is a difference between God’s plan for the church universal and his plan for Israel. This may sound glib, but I imagine that Christians of the Reformed faith think the church universal started in Abraham’s tent, whereas dispensationalists believe the church started on the day of Pentecost. Notice I did not just say “the church universal started on the day of Pentecost.” I draw your attention to the omission of the word universal because dispensationalists believe that God’s saints who lived and died prior to Jesus Christ’s atoning death at Calvary are just that: saints of God. They are as much children of God as are those folks who receive and believe in Jesus Christ on this side of Calvary.

As for the two different plans—one for Israel and one for the Church, the basis for this belief, in part, is Israel’s having rejected Jesus as their Messiah. (And no, the Jews didn't kill Jesus, any more than the Romans did. Jesus laid down his life on his own accord and with the approval of his Father in accordance with the Scripture.) John tells us in Chapter One of his Gospel, that Jesus "came unto that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (v.11). The central question in the minds of many non-dispensationalists at this point might be, "Just how serious was Jesus in his proclamation of the Kingdom of God (or Heaven) to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel'?" Another question might be, "Had his people largely embraced Jesus' offer of a kingdom here on earth, would he have set up his kingdom on earth then and there in first century Palestine?" Interestingly, even after Jesus' resurrection his disciples expected him to restore the kingdom to Israel (see Acts 1:6). How did Jesus answer their inquiry? He said, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you . . .." Even at that point, the disciples were thinking of the power associated with an earthly kingdom. Jesus assured them of a different kind of power, however, a power which resulted in his disciples turning the world upside down through a kingdom of the Spirit in the hearts of people worldwide!

The term rapture, which captures in a single word the phrase "caught up together" as found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, signals to dispensationalists the end of the "church era." The rapture features the Lord Jesus descending from heaven, the dead in Christ rising from their graves, and the living saints being caught up together with the resurrected saints "in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so [, Paul concluded,] we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words"

Following the rapture, the world will for a time be without the leavening influence of the church universal (leavening in the sense of a diverse and enlivening influence of the saints in the world, whom Jesus called both "salt" and "light"). Without the sanctifying presence of the people of God and the Spirit of God, the world will begin to experience a time of great tribulation, lasting perhaps seven years. This time of unprecedented distress among the peoples of the world, to which Daniel referred in Daniel Chapter 12, and to which Jesus referred in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, surpasses by far the tribulation which Jesus and others in the New Testament promised to those believers who lived godly lives in an ungodly world (see, for example, Jesus' words in John 16:33, and Paul's words in 2 Timothy 3:12). Persecution, in general, is a given during the church age, and it has been a part of the history of the church from the very beginning. The Great Tribulation, however, is worldwide and catastrophic on an unheard of scale. In John's Revelation of Jesus Christ, we read of God's bowls of judgments being poured out on the unbelieving world, and they beggar description in their scope and severity.

The "Day of the Lord" is another way of describing the time when God pours out his judgments on humanity during the Great Tribulation. That oft-repeated phrase in the prophetic books of the Old Testament, as in Zechariah 12-14, indicates whose day it is and to whom the Day belongs: the Lord God. In dispensational thought, the Day of the Lord extends from the beginning of the Great Tribulation to the Battle of Armageddon (Revelation 20:7-10) and beyond. The Day of the Lord ends with the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15, which is the Last Great Judgment, or assize, after which God ushers in "a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth [have] passed away . . . " (Revelation 21:1).

The Millennium is a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, which precedes Satan's last gasp at the Plain of Megiddo in Israel as he battles the forces of God in the battle to end all battles (Revelation 16:14 and 16). During the Millennium, however, with Christ on his throne in Jerusalem, the the world will experience a time of unprecedented peace, in large part because during Christ's thousand-year reign, Satan will have been bound and cast in the abyss, or "bottomless pit." After ten centuries of unrivaled peace, Satan will have been loosed from the pit and evidently will lead an insurrection against the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. Satan and all those who join with him in his revolt will be defeated once and for all. Like the people who remain on earth after the plagues described in the earlier chapters of Revelation, who refused to "repent of the works of their hands" (9:20 ff.) despite the horrors they have witnessed and survived, those who align themselves with Satan during his last gasp will also refuse to repent and will suffer the consequences; namely, being thrown, along with death and Hades, into the lake of fire, where they will be in torment forever (Revelation 20:7-10, 14, and 15).

Time will not permit me to get into the finer points of dispensational eschatology, such as the differences between a "pre-trib" rapture and a "post-trib" rapture; the reasons why dispensationalists believe in a literal, thousand-year reign of Christ on earth whereas "amillennialists" do not; how to characterize the various resurrections spoken of in Revelation alone; the difference between Christ's coming in the clouds, on the one hand, and coming to earth a second time, on the other hand; and finally, how Christians can wade through the often symbolic language of the descriptions of the end times, differentiating between what is symbolic and what is literal, and yet do so in a hermeneutically and exegetically responsible, consistent way.

Concluding Thought
In conclusion, about the only thing all Christians can agree upon is that Jesus Christ has promised to return to take his children to his Father's house, which he promised to prepare (John 14:1 ff.). All that is involved in that return, the stages in which it will unfold, and the details of each stage are subject to interpretation. Every interpretation, however, will inevitably be informed by presuppositions, schemas, and paradigms which once embraced by their adherents, can and often do become points of contention among Christians.
I think I am safe in saying that even wildly divergent theories of how the end times will play out  should not make a scintilla of difference in how Christians are to live their lives in the present church-age, or "time of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24). A unifying theme is, and should be, that Christ is coming again, and in light of his imminent return we all should be striving to keep the main thing the main thing; namely, living holy lives before God, living as salt and light before a watching world, and being fruitful in the work of the Lord by seeking to advance his kingdom and the expansion, both numerically and qualitatively, of the church universal, which despite our doctrinal differences the Holy Spirit unites into one body, the body of Christ.


How old was Timothy when he became a Christian?

How old was Timothy when he became a Christian ? The question?

when he converted to Christianity?

Some people think he was a child?

Some people think he was a teen?

Some people think he was a young man.?

Is there any Biblical evidence, to support any of these assumptions?

  2Ti 1:2  To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (Not here...)

He has grandmother Lois, and mother Eunice; who were in the faith first, cause.....it say so here.

  2Ti 1:5  When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also. (Nope, not here either...)

We could speculate, but they frown on that here.
I'm pretty much outta ideas.

So, no, there is no biblical evidence to prove any of these assumptions; which is really odd, 'cause you have a whole bunch of people that you cited there that think he was a child, a teenager, and a young man. That covers nearly half his life. And yet with all of these questions, and several speculative witnesses I can find no evidence of any of it. At least nothing substantial with respect to his age, or when he became a Christian.

We do, however, have him narrowly pegged; anywhere from a child to a young man, over a period of approximately twenty years. We can't really say any of that though; we must try to be precise when answering questions here, so as strange as it may seem there is absolutely no evidence for any of these assumptions. I'm surprised, I thought I would be able to find more.

I'm also surprised that no one else has answered this question yet. I almost never make it to a post before the moderators do; and this one is only seven months old. Weird.

Addendum:

By curtesy of Bruised Reed, we do also have this verse:

  1Ti 4:12  Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

This is good evidence that Timothy was a youth at the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy.

Also from Bruised Reed, I should have let him answer this one, we have incontrovertible evidence that:  Timothy was familiar with the Holy scriptures from infancy. That's pretty close to a definitive answer there, if it weren't for that pesky doubt about whether or not Paul was speaking in the context of Judaism. Hek with it, I am going to change my answer in light of this new evidence.

Answer: Timothy was an infant when he became a Christian; there is plenty of evidence to support that assumption.

Thank you Bruised Reed.

  2 Timothy 3:14-15New International Version
  14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.


According to Biblical Literalists, who is Satan? Where did he come from? What is he? And what will happen to him?

#1 & #2: Who is he? Where did he come from? Satan was/is the highest created angel, with God from the beginning, along with the other angels (Ez. 28:13). Sometime before the creation of mankind, Satan convinced 1/3 of the angels to rebel against God, ultimately with God and the remaining angels winning (Rev. 12:3-9). After this occurs, we know that Satan takes the form of a serpent in the Garden of Eden and convinces Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Life (Gen. 3:3-5), thus starting "The Fall".

#3:Where is he going or what will happen to him? Satan will always be in rebellion to God. Near the end of the days, a false prophet and a beast will be given authority to rule for forty-two months (Rev. 13:1-5), who will convince "the kings of the earth" to fight against God (Rev. 19:19) in the "Battle of Armageddon". God and his angels will defeat them, and they will be "thrown into the lake of fire"; Satan will be chained for 1000 years, and Jesus Christ will rule the Earth for this time (Rev. 20:2-3). Satan will again be released for a short time, for one more attack against God, but "fire from Heaven will consume the rebels". Finally, at this point, Satan will be cast into the lake of fire, to be tormented day and night, forever and ever (Rev. 20:7-10).


How to determine a genuine call from God?

We have Scripture by which we can test these revelations.

  “The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream;
  And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully.
  What is the chaff to the wheat?” says the Lord.
  “Is not My word like a fire?” says the Lord,
  “And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?
  (Jeremiah 23:28-29)

God calls people within the context of His revelation. If a person tells me out of the blue that God told him this and that, I have no reason to believe him; but if this call came from a context of God showing His presence and power, I need to look more closely.

Since the question refers to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, lets look at the context of that command:

God guided him from his homeland to the place promised to his descendants (Genesis 12)
God promised him a son, though Abraham and Sarah were too old (Genesis 17)
The Lord appeared to Abraham, and Sarah also saw and heard Him (Genesis 18)
The destruction of Sodom and preservation of Abraham's nephew Lot (Genesis 19)
God preserves Sarah from being violated as a result of Abraham's lie (Genesis 20)
A nonbeliever converses with God in a dream concerning Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 20)
Sarah has a son! (Genesis 21)

All of this comes before God tells him to sacrifice his son. God has proven himself to Abraham; Abraham obeyed because he trusted God.

It's much the same way with Jesus -- if you walk up to me and tell me that you are the son of God, I'm not going to believe you -- without anything in your life to support the claim, how can I believe it? But the context of Jesus' life makes it possible (even probable). God reveals Himself, then wants us to trust Him. He doesn't normally demand obedience without showing Himself to be trustworthy (though He does have every right to do so).


In Catholicism, is the Eucharist observed during funerals?

A funeral Mass is a common practice

A Mass is by definition a Eucharistic Celebration

As @AthanasiusOfAlex pointed out, a funeral is not required to be conducted in the form of the Mass, but for Catholics it is a common practice. (Anecdote: In the past five years, I've been to nine Catholic funerals, and all were celebrated as funeral Masses). In the case where a deacon, rather than a priest, is the clergyman present for the funeral, a funeral would not be performed as a Mass.

  As ministers of Sacrament, deacons baptize, lead the faithful in
  prayer, witness marriages, and conduct wake and funeral services. (Source = US Conference of Catholic Bishops)

There are also certain days that a funeral Mass will not be held, Holy Thursday through Holy Saturday included.  (Thanks @Eques and @AthanasiusofAlex)

When the funeral rite takes that form, it is worth remembering that a funeral Mass is still a Mass, which is a Eucharistic celebration.  When celebrated as a Mass, it follows the usual form of the Mass -- Liturgy of the Word followed by Liturgy of the Eucharist -- which includes receiving Communion for those who are Catholic, and who are not under the burden of mortal sin.  During the second half (after the homily) the liturgy of the Eucharist includes the celebrant offering and the faithful receiving the Body of Christ and the Most Precious Blood of Christ.

There are a number of references in the 3d edition of the Roman Missal that provide additional guidance and instructions to the clergy concerning the funeral Mass (a word search finds 26 separate uses of the word "funeral"), none of which make particular mention of Communion.  On pages 1371 and 1372 of the linked version are some recommended prayers for the occasion of a funeral Mass.

Your friend was worried for no reason, however, being unfamiliar and even puzzled with the Roman rite is not uncommon for those who do not usually attend Catholic Mass.  It is not surprising that he wasn't completely at ease with a celebration foreign to his tradition and practice.  (When I attended my first few Masses, before I became a part of the Church, it took a bit of getting used to).

Funerals are for the living, so the best one can do at such an occasion is to be respectful of the family and friends of the deceased, and to be as polite and kind as possible.


Famous Pre Reformation Christian Pastors (Non Catholic)

Famous Pre Reformation Christian Pastors (Non Catholic and Non Orthodox)

Just how far back does one desire to go? Here is one example from the second century:

Marcion of Sinope  (c. 85 – c. 160) was an important figure in early Christianity. His theology rejected the deity described in the Hebrew Scriptures and in distinction affirmed the Father of Christ as the true God. The Church Fathers denounced Marcion, and he was excommunicated from the proto-orthodox Church. He published his own list of New Testament books, making him a catalyst in speeding up the process of development of the New Testament canon by forcing the early Church to respond to his claims. His movement was known as Marcionism

All in all, I believe what you are looking for is to be more informed about Proto-Protestant leaders and preachers.

  Proto-Protestantism, also called  pre-Protestantism, refers to individuals and movements that propagated ideas similar to Protestantism before 1517, which is usually considered the starting year for the Reformation era. Major representatives were Peter Waldo (c. 1140 – c. 1205), John Wycliffe (1320s–1384), Jan Hus (c.  1369–1415) and the movements they started.

  Peter Waldo and the Waldensians

  In the early 1170s, Peter Waldo founded the Waldensians. He preached for strict adherence to the Bible, for simplicity and poverty, against Catholic dogmas, like the purgatory and transubstantiation which led to conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church. He initiated, and contributed to, a translation of the New Testament into the vernacular, the Arpitan (Franco-Provençal) language.

  The Waldensians had adopted ideas that in the late 1130s, Arnold of Brescia, an Italian canon regular, had developed in an first attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church. His teachings on apostolic poverty gained currency among Arnoldists. By 1215, the Waldensians were declared heretical and subject to persecution.

  John Wycliffe and the Lollards

  John Wycliffe (1320s – 1384) was an English theologian and professor at the University of Oxford who developed many ideas similar to those later promoted in the Reformation. He rejected papal authority over secular power, translated the Bible into vernacular English, and preached anticlerical and biblically-centred reforms. Wycliffe's teachings were spread by his followers, known as Lollards.

  Jan Hus and the Hussites

  Beginning in the first decade of the 15th century, Jan Hus, a Czech Catholic priest and professor who was influenced by John Wycliffe's writings, founded the Hussite movement. He was burned at the stake as a heretic in 1415 by secular authorities. After his execution, a revolt erupted. Hussites defeated five continuous crusades proclaimed against them by the Pope.

  Later on, theological disputes caused a split within the Hussite movement. Utraquists maintained that both the bread and the wine should be administered to the people during the Eucharist. Another major faction were the Taborites, who opposed the Utraquists in the Battle of Lipany during the Hussite Wars. There were two separate parties among the Hussites: moderate and radical movements. Other smaller regional Hussite branches in Bohemia included Adamites, Orebites, Orphans and Praguers.

  Less influential early reformers

  Throughout the Middle Ages, there were many Christian sects, cults and movements whose teachings foreshadowed later Protestant movements. Some of the main groups were:

  Paulicians – an Armenian group (6th to 9th centuries) who sought a return to the purity of the church at the time of Paul the Apostle.
  Tondrakians - an Armenian group (9th to 11th centuries) who advocated the abolition of the Church along with all its traditional rites.
  Bogomils – a group arising in the 10th century in Bulgaria, Macedonia[citation needed]and the Balkans who sought a return to the spirituality of the early Christians and opposed established forms of government and church.
  Arnoldists – a 12th century group from Lombardy who criticized the wealth of the Catholic Church and preached against baptism and the Eucharist. Named after Arnold of Brescia (c. 1090 – June 1155).
  Petrobrusians were 12th century followers of Peter of Bruys in southeastern France who rejected the authority of the Church Fathers and of the Catholic Church, opposing clerical celibacy, infant baptism, prayers for the dead and organ music.
  Henricans were 12th century followers of Henry of Lausanne in France. They rejected the doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the church, did not recognize any form of worship or liturgy and denied the sacraments.
  Brethren of the Free Spirit – a term applied in the 13th century to those, primarily in the Low Countries, Germany, France, Bohemia and northern Italy, who believed that the sacraments were unnecessary for salvation, that the soul could be perfected through imitating the life of Christ, and that the perfected soul was free of sin and beyond all ecclesiastical, moral and secular law.
  Apostolic Brethren (later known as Dulcinians) – a 13th to 14th century sect from northern Italy founded by Gerard Segarelli and continued by Fra Dolcino of Novara. The Apostolic Brethren rejected the worldliness of the church and sought a life of perfect sanctity, in complete poverty, with no fixed domicile, no care for the morrow, and no vows.
  Neo-Adamites – a term applied in the 13th to 15th century to those, including Taborites, Picards and some Beghards, who wished to return to the purity of the life of Adam by living communally, practicing social and religious nudity, embracing free love and rejecting marriage and individual ownership of property.


Did John Calvin ever read Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica?

A smoking gun is in the references that John Calvin makes to Thomas Aquinas in his own book, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (II.11.4 and III.22.9).  This is evidence that Calvin at least knew of Aquinas, which suggests that Aquinas' most important work had reached France or Switzerland and that he would probably have read it.

Mark J. Larson says in Calvin's Doctrine of the State, page 27, that Calvin read Aquinas either directly or through intermediate sources (citing Lane and Wendel as his own sources). Larson says that although Calvin did not explicitly connect his teaching on the just war with Aquinas, it could well be the case that he had read his treatment De Bello in Summa Theologica.


Is being "sinless" the same as "being perfect"?

The word perfect rarely means sinless in the Bible, it generally means well rounded, or mature. The idea of a sinless Christian is foreign to the Bible, except of course those in heaven.

For example Paul uses the words translated into English as perfect here:

  12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. (ESV Philippians 3:12)

Here paul uses the Greek τελειόω teleioō ; to complete, i.e. (literally) accomplish. It means 'to fulfil', 'to carry out' a required course in the sense of a received commission.  As this rare context does actually imply actual sinlessness in that he aims for heaven, Paul, as our example avoids possible confusion saying he has in no way achieved it, but aims for it.

In the case mentioned:

  You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (ESV Matthew 5:48)

The Greek word for perfect is similar, it is τέλειος teleios.  Again it means something similar to complete, it means totality or undivided.  It does not mean sinless. From the context immediately before this verse we can understand the logic. God is unrestricted in His goodness, so according the disciples of should be 'total' in their love, even loving their enemies. The totality has to do with loving, not just some, but all.  This love would never have been presumed to be a sinless, pure love; just a total love in its well rounded and broad application without favouritism.


Does Mark 16:9-20 Prove the Bible is not the infallible word of God?

Short answer, no.  Not at all.

It would count as plausible deniability to the straw-man definition of "the inspired and infallible word of God", but only to the false straw-man understanding.

The problem is that, almost no denomination believes that inspiration and infallibility are attributed to modern versions/translations of Scripture.  Inspiration and infallibility are attributed only to the original manuscripts, as recorded by the original authors.  We have always allowed for the possibility of copyist errors, mistakes, etc.  This is explained in great detail here: From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase "Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God" mean?

(That is from a Fundamentalist perspective, but most denominations and traditions agree that infallibility and inerrancy are only attributed to the original manuscripts.)

This does leave the question of "If the current versions could contain mistakes, how do we know that we can depend on them?  How do we know they haven't changed over time so much that they can no longer be trusted?"  That's also an answered question: What is "Manuscript Evidence" and how is it useful?


According to LDS (Mormon) teaching, what is the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer?

The LDS theological view is that God, the Eternal Father, created all spirits, including Jesus the Firstborn, Lucifer, and all the rest of us, as His spirit children. Further, God is a separate being from Jesus and the Holy Ghost, who are all individual personages.

These three beings constitute the godhead, which is different from the usual Trinity belief.

These teachings are in harmony with at least the following scriptures:

Col. 1:15 (Jesus the Firstborn of every creature, image of the Father)
Isaiah 14:12-14 (Lucifer-son of the morning-rebellion)
D&C 76:25-27 (Lucifer, an angel in the authority of God, fell)
D&C 93:21 (Jesus is the Firstborn)
Moses 4:1-4 (God tells Moses what happened in the pre-mortal life with Lucifer)

For context: there was a council in heaven regarding God's plan for all His spirit children. God's plan was presented, and a Savior was needed to fulfill it. Jesus was Chosen by the Father to fulfill that role.

Satan opposed, declaring his plan, which was contrary to the will of the Father. War ensued between "the dragon" (Satan) and the Christ's followers, which war is still ongoing today, here in mortality. It's a sibling rivalry, if you will, which Jesus and His disciples will win in the end.


Does John 6:44 imply that there is no free will when it comes to salvation?

Short Answer: No, John 6:44 does not imply that there is no free will when it comes to salvation.

What the text itself implies (theology aside) is that a person can only come to Jesus if the Father draws him. It says nothing about whether free will plays a part in salvation, or (if so) how it does. (In fact, it doesn't even really say anything about predestination.)

To illustrate, here are three possibilities for how free will might be understood with respect to this verse:

A) A person must, out of their own free will, desire to be reconciled to God, and then God must subsequently draw them to Jesus to get saved.
B) God must draw a person, and as He does so, the person must concurrently allow themselves to be drawn out of their own free will.
C) God must draw a person by convicting them of their sin and presenting them with the Gospel, and then the person, out of their own free will, must respond appropriately to the Gospel and be saved.

These are only a few possibilities, chosen to show that the answer is, in fact "no." (Each of these explanations are popular Christian positions.) There are other perspectives on free will and predestination as well, which yield different explanations of this verse. For example, some would say:

D) God must draw a person -- and must cause that person to be saved -- before they can have (or exercise) "free will." Note, however, that this perspective uses a different definition of "free will" than the colloquial meaning.

Summary

Essentially, all that this verse implies about "free will" is that our free will cannot be understood as the end of the story regarding salvation. It doesn't really imply anything about free will beyond that, and it can easily be reconciled with any major theology on free will, as shown above.


Is a "skeptical viewpoint" more objective than "Christian viewpoint" in matters of theology?

Definitions
Lets start with some definitions:

"Skepticism or Scepticism has many definitions, but generally
refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or
opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are
taken for granted elsewhere."
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been
variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to
be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are
"mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious
entity or subject.
Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.

Also worth noting is the difference between objectivity and bias:

Biased means a personal preference is expressed.
Objective means both or numerous sides are expressed without a preference being expressed.

And for "Christian viewpoint", one could refer to one of two positions (one more moderate and one more devoted):

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.

So what is the main difference between a skeptic, and a Christian theist? A theist believes that God of the Bible and Jesus exist (therefore, it is a "fact" to them, nor a mere "possibility"), whereas a skeptic takes no assumption (is neither agnostic, saying that one can't know if God exists, nor atheist stating that there is no God, but is open to the possibility that God might or might not exist).
What is a difference between a Christian theist and a Christian apologetic? An apologetic defends the faith against objections, and exposes the perceived flaws of other views. An apologetic is therefore biased towards his or her system of belief.
Good or bad at answering questions
What makes an apologetic better for answering theological questions? Quite often they know a lot on the subject of the given religion they support, and can present numerous claims supporting their viewpoints. They are devoted to proving their point right, so they will not try to omit any evidence supporting their claim, no matter how insignificant. So in general, they can present all there is about a given subject from the point of view of what they are supporting.
What makes an apologetic worse for answering theological questions? As per definition, they defend their faith against objection, which can be accomplished by not presenting alternatives to their views, or by misrepresenting some facts in their favour (for example, Kitzmiller v. Dover and claiming ID is not a religious belief). Moreover, sometimes apologetics resort to using faulty logic to prove their point (for example, even if one can prove that evolution is wrong, that would not prove intelligent design, despite some people implying that).
What makes a theist better for answering theological questions? By definition they believe in something, so they have to know at least a bit about the subject. They can be devoted to giving answers about their faith and could enjoy talking about the subject. Depending on their world view they can be more open to alternatives than apologetics and admit that some believes are not based on facts.
What makes a theist worse for answering theological questions? Some might not consider alternatives to their beliefs, some might choose not to mention it, or would be uncomfortable talking about it (taboo)
What makes a skeptic better for answering theological questions? They hold nothing as fact until it is proven, so they can consider and present more alternatives to a given problem. This can provide an insight that could be omitted by a theist (for example, Polish Catholics idolize pope John Paul II, but would seldom acknowledge him being conservative on doctrine, sexuality and ordination of women). Generally, they are comfortable exploring both sides of an argument and reaching their conclusion from it.
What makes a skeptic worse for answering theological questions? Generally, being a skeptic says nothing about one's interest or knowledge, so the person in question might not have any knowledge on a given subject. Sometimes skepticism can be close to pyrrhonism ("nothing can be known"), or contemporary cynicism (lack of faith and hope in human race), therefore rendering the "answer" into an open-ended "debate" with oneself. Skeptics disparage in regards to values hold sacred by theists can be viewed by some as trolling, or attempts at personally attacking them.
Which view is biased?
By definition, apologetics are strongly biased. Theists can be biased, but have an easier time being objective. Skeptics by definition are not biased in favour of the thing they are skeptic about, but they can be biased against that thing.
Which views are useful?
All of them. If one is looking for answer to a theological question based on a specific doctrine ("What does the Bible say about..."), an apologetic and a theist can present an exhaustive answer on the subject, as they are interested in learning a lot about their faith and scripture. If one is looking for an answer to a question that bridge between religious and non-religious world view ("Is there scientific evidence for creationism?"), a theist and a skeptic can remain objective on the matter and present a balanced opinion. Each view should be applied where it is relevant.
TL;DR
Apologetics are strongly biased, theists can be biased in favour of religion, skeptics can be biased against something. All can give good answers, but most in their area of expertise.


Is a Roman Catholic allowed by Church law to receive sacraments from other Churches in full communion with Rome?

In short: yes, you can validly receive any of the sacraments in any Church that is in union with Rome.
From the Code of Canon Law:

Can.  844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

Catholic minister means any properly ordained person from a Catholic Church in union with Rome (see "Can. 846 §2. The minister is to celebrate the sacraments according to the minister’s own rite.")

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

This means that in cases it is impossible to find Churches in Union with Rome, it is permissible to receive them from non-Catholics whose sacraments are valid (basically the Orthodox Churches), but only of they allow that. The fact that a Catholic is allowed to, say, receive communion, in an Orthodox Church, does not mean that this Church automatically allows this Catholic to participate and/or receive.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

Similar to the above point, but the other way around.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

And this waives (to some extent) the restrictions on §3 and §3 in case of mortal danger, meaning that also members of protestant churches whose sacraments are not recognized as valid can approach Catholic priests, if they present faith in the relevant sacrament and are properly disposed.

As to the second question in regards to singular sacraments (baptism, confirmation and matrimony), as stated above those sacraments are valid and recognized if administered in a Church in union with Rome. This does not automatically change the rite of the child: if Latin parents go to an Eastern rite church (which they freely can), and have their child baptized there, the child still remains Latin.

Can. 111 §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.
Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:

[...]

Can 111 §2. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

There are other consequences attached to going to other rites, for instance the fact that if belonging to a Latin rite, children aren't allowed to receive in Eastern Rite churches until they fulfill the Latin Rite conditions for such, which differ from the Eastern rites (even though Eastern rite children not meeting those Latin Rite criteria are still allowed to receive communion in Latin Rite churches).
So while the short answer is indeed 'yes', it isn't a matter of 'free-for-all' cherry-picking for some of those other sacraments. One remains officially part of their own Church sui iuris, and thus subject to all the requirements in accordance to that Church.
Important to note is the following:

Can. 112 §2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.

Repeated receipt of sacraments in other Churches does not change your own affiliation.


In which country is the Garden of Eden located?

Per Genesis 2:

  10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

While Mesopatamia (i.e. Iraq) is where the Tigris & Euphrates are, the remaining two rivers (Gihon is in Israel, and the Pishon is, I believe unknown, though some scholars think it is the Nile) are not.

There are thus two possibilities:

The Flood altered where these rivers flowed
The location is not meant to be literal

In any event, the Flood probably did wipe out the Garden of Eden, and even if it didn't, there was an angel (in Genesis 3:24) who is guarding the entrance.

Update: For an interesting excursion into the idea of "mapping" Eden, check out this article showing maps of Eden from 1914.  They are highly speculative, but show the diversity of thought around where Eden might be.


What is the LDS Church's instruction concerning debt?

The Church's Stance on Debt
The official stance of the LDS Church regarding debt is summarized in the following statement from the Church's website:

Since the early days of the Church, the Lord's prophets have repeatedly warned against the bondage of debt.... When it is necessary to incur debt, such as a reasonable amount to purchase a modest home or to complete one's education, the debt should be repaid as quickly as possible.
~lds.org/topics/debt

There are no caveats or exceptions for Church officers or other leadership.
Concerning the Verses in Doctrine and Covenants
I can't find any specific, authoritative statements regarding the meaning of the verses referenced from Section 64. Here is how I read it as a member of the LDS Church.
First we have to back up a little bit and read the preceding verse:

26 And it is not meet that my servants, Newel K. Whitney and Sidney Gilbert, should sell their store and their possessions here; for this is not wisdom until the residue of the church, which remaineth in this place, shall go up unto the land of Zion.

The Lord is speaking to two specific members of the Church in these verses: Newel K Whitney and Sidney Gilbert, both of whom ran some small businesses on the behalf of the Church. The three verses quoted in the question are actually three separate but related statements directed at the two businessmen:

27 Behold, it is said in my laws, or forbidden, to get in debt to thine enemies;
28 But behold, it is not said at any time that the Lord should not take when he please, and pay as seemeth him good.
29 Wherefore, as ye are agents, ye are on the Lord’s errand; and whatever ye do according to the will of the Lord is the Lord’s business.

Verse 27 is a clear denunciation of debt, which is still taught in the Church today. This may have been an important reminder for the two businessmen.
Verse 28 is, I believe, an almost parenthetical reminder to the two men of their own position before the Lord; a rephrasing of the Lord's proclamation, "My ways [are] higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah  55:8). After all, He has given men everything, and men are eternally indebted to Him; therefore, anything man does for Him does not require recompense (though He may give it anyway in His love and mercy). He is effectually saying, "Remember who is in charge here."
Verse 29 is similar to verse 28 in that it reminds the businessmen that they are working under the direction of the Lord. It also emphasizes that they are His agents doing His business, as long as they follow His will.
Each verse conveys a distinct idea. The Lord instructs these two men to: 1) avoid debt; 2) remember that the Lord is God; and 3) remember that you are an agent of the Lord, and that you should follow His will.
I do not read in these verses that the Lord is giving permission to his officers to refuse paying their debts. To my knowledge, Church officers have never refused to pay their debts by referencing these verses, and I don't see any reason to believe that the Church interprets these verses in that way.


Distributing the bread before consecrating the wine

I don't think there is any problem with the order Martin Luther used, as it is the same as the order used by Christ in the Last Supper.  I do believe the 1324 order is likely used due to it scaling a little better when the bread and wine are distributed after consecrating them.

The Last Supper was only a few people, compared to a Sunday service which could be hundreds of people.  By receiving the bread and the wine at the same time, you can cut the time needed for communion to nearly half.

As @warren mentioned in his answer, my current church actually distributes the bread and wine/juice, then the pastor will say a blessing over the bread and we will consume it.  Then the pastor says a blessing over the wine and we consume that.  I believe this is similar to Martin Luther's method, except it is distributed (to hundreds) before the blessings.

On a smaller scale, I believe Martin Luther's ordering would be wonderful.


Which denominations believe that John 19 indicates that the crucifixion had the date of Nisan 14?

All denominations, as far as I'm aware, agree that John 19 places the crucifixion on Nisan 14. John 19:14 is clear that this was "the day of Preparation for the Passover," that is, the day the sacrificial lambs were slain before the Passover feast officially began (see Exodus 12:5-6). Since Passover begins on Nisan 15, Preparation Day is the 14th.

The Quartodecimian controversy was whether Christians should celebrate essentially a "Christian Passover" on the 14th every year, or whether they should celebrate the resurrection day, the first day of the new week following the Passover.

The practice of celebrating Easter Sunday was soon adopted by the majority of Christians, though some churches continued the Quartodecimian practice for centuries.

Today many churches celebrate a Passover or Seder meal on Thursday evening before Good Friday, but as far as I'm aware only the Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate as the Quartodecimians did, with a meal on the 14th and no special celebration on the following Sunday.


What did Jesus mean by saying "the works of God might be displayed" in the man born blind?

Commentators tend to take two views: that the works of God refer to 1) Jesus healing the man or 2) God's working throughout the man's life.  Your suggestion fits nicely into the second option.

Representatives of the first view include John Gill:

  That is, that Christ might have an opportunity of working a miracle in the cure of him (source)

Adam Clarke similarly focuses on the current event of the healing and salvation of the man:

  [The blindness] shall now become the instrument of salvation to his soul, edification to others, and glory to God. (source)

Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between several types of afflictions, two of which being to "encourage virtue" and "manifest the divine glory." He thus sees them as distinct, and sees this passage as an example of the latter, via the healing of the blind man. (source, §1302 ff.)

Representatives of the second view include Albert Barnes, calling attention to providence acting throughout his life:

  By the works of God, here, is evidently intended the miraculous power which God would put forth to heal the man, or rather, perhaps, the whole that happened to him in the course of divine providence first his blindness, as an act of his providence, and then his healing him, as an act of mercy and power. (source)

But John Calvin clearly points to the man's blindness in itself as being a way for God to teach others:

  He does not, say a single work, but uses the plural number, works; for, so long as he was blind, there was exhibited in him a proof of the severity of God, from which others might learn to fear and to humble themselves. It was afterwards followed by the benefit of his cure and deliverance, in which the astonishing goodness of God was strikingly displayed. (source)

Though he does not specifically mention your idea of it encouraging sympathy in others, that concept fits nicely with this understanding of God's work in the blind man.


What is the right word, Jesus assumed a human soul or have a created rational soul?

Is Jesus human soul created or assumed?

Jesus, at the Incarnation, assumed a human soul:[1]

  Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed",97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ's human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ's human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from "one of the Trinity". The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity.

[1]: The Catechism of the Catholic Church:


According to Catholic Church, did the Eucharistic celebration of Early Church consist of an entire meal?

Catholics do not receive "small pieces of sacramental bread", but the Body of Christ (i.e., consecrated Hosts), under the appearances of bread.
Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., on 1 Corinthians 11:21:

at the time of S. Paul, in imitation of Christ, who, after the common meal* on the Passover lamb, instituted the Eucharist, the Christians instituted before the Eucharist a meal common to all, rich and poor alike, in token of their mutual Christian charity.

*1 Cor. 11:25: "In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped…"Cornelius à Lapide on that verse: "the heathen offer their sacrifices after a banquet, as giving thanks to God for their feast, and offered Him libations and sang His praises crowned with garlands. […] The ancient ritual records of the Hebrews show that they did the same in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. […] Christ supped first and instituted the Eucharist last of all. Now, however, through reverence for so great a sacrament, the Eucharist, by Apostolic tradition, is always received fasting."
St. Paul is condemning those who do not believe in the Real Presence but think the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is no different than a common meal of ordinary food.


What is the biblical basis against a child's right to privacy?

According to the Bible, children are supposed to be obedient to their parents. (Colossians 3:20, Ephesians 6:1-3) So the parents get to decide how much privacy to give or not to give their children, and children are not automatically afforded a certain amount of privacy. A parent that is living by Bible principals would consider what is best for their child. Some parents feel that a certain amount of privacy will earn their child's trust and help their child to open up to them about important matters.

There are certain extreme situations where a child would have the right to privacy if the parent would abuse the lack of privacy in a wicked way. Even though the parent has authority over the child, God has authority over the parent and the child. So if the parent tries to use their authority over the child in a way that contradicts God's expressed will, there might be a reason for the child or others to protect the child's privacy against that parent. (Acts 5:29). But generally, unless this is an extreme situation, the Bible is not always giving other people permission to assign the child privacy from their parents, even if it is questionable whether or not the parent is acting in harmony with God's will. At the same time, the government also has authority over both the child and the parent, so they could give the child certain privacy rights, as long as those rights don't make it impossible for the child or the parent to be obedient to God. (Romans 13:1)


Why does the LDS church  (Mormon) put so much more emphasis on the family than most other denominations do?

I'm answering this only because of the year I spent in a Mormon (LDS) church.  If anyone who is LDS would like to post a different answer, please do.  This is based only on what I observed and learned during that time.

There are actually a few reasons for the emphasis on family.  The first section below is presented to add emphasis to the "meat" of the answer found later on.

The first has to do with the fact that LDS doctrine teaches that you have to add works on top of the free salvation presented by Jesus' sacrifice if you want to attain to the highest level of Heaven (also referred to as the highest degree of glory.

This underlies a lot of why members of the LDS Church are such stellar examples of how to behave, or at least why so much emphasis is put on "being good".  Doing the will of God and actually following the commandments is seen as necessary to achieve the highest level of glory.  One of the basic principles of the LDS Church is that other denominations are false, because Christianity went into full apostasy.  They view the concept of salvation by grace through faith apart from works as a false doctrine that encourages people to continue sinning while believing they are saved.  I can't tell you how many times I heard Matthew 15:8 quoted in Sunday Schools and in services.

The emphasis on being a good person springs from this belief.  This is, from what I've experienced, the most crucial aspect of LDS doctrine, and the belief that good works are necessary to future glory underlies a great deal of the emphasis on goodness.  Part of the emphasis on family springs from this.  Quite obviously, it is good to love your family and to have a close family.

Their teachings also include the idea that your family life continues on in heaven, and they want to be able to spend eternity with their families. This  feeds the emphasis on family, because close families are less likely to drift away from the Church. Since the view is that a person who leaves the Church is going to attain a lower level of glory, they want very much to maintain close ties to keep their children and loved ones in the fold.  The best way to do this is to encourage family time, and closeness in the family.

You can read the official LDS statement on the importance of family  while a more "evangelical" and less "doctrinal" explanation can be found here.


What is the biblical basis for classifying the Eucharist as an offering or sacrifice?

Among other scriptures, the biblical basis for the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper being an offering (προσφορά) or sacrifice (θυσία) is derived from 1 Cor. 10.
In 1 Cor. 10:18, the apostle Paul wrote,

Consider Israel according to the flesh. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers with the altar? 1
βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα οὐχὶ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν

"Israel according to the flesh" refers to those Israelites physically descended from the patriarch Israel (Jacob) and his son Levi who participated in offering and eating the sacrifices at the altar in the Temple (cp. Deu. 18:1; Lev. 7:15-18).
The apostle Paul was concerned with the Corinthians partaking of heathen sacrifices offered to demons. By doing so, they would be partaking of the same sacrifices with demons.
In 1 Cor. 10:20, he wrote,

But [I say] that the things that the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. But I do not desire for you to be partakers with the demons.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ θύει τά ἔθνη, δαιμονίοις θύει καὶ οὐ θεῷ οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι

The apostle Paul describes how sacrificing to an entity causes one to be a partaker of that sacrifice with the entity. Ergo, because the heathens sacrifice to demons, they become partakers of that sacrifice with the demons. One of the fundamental beliefs concerning sacrifices was that the entity to whom the sacrifices were offered also participated in the sacrifice, this by means of the altar upon which the sacrifice was offered. The altar in Judaism, as well as heathen cultures who practiced sacrifices, represented the deity to whom the sacrifices were offered.
In Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian Faith and Practice, Ch. XVI, p. 310, Robert Baker Girdlestone wrote,

The altar, θυσιαστήριον, is mentioned in about twenty passages, in most of which the Jewish altar is referred to. In 1 Cor. 10.18, St. Paul reminds the Corinthians that in the case of Israel those who eat the sacrifices becoming in so doing partakers with the altar. By this he evidently means that while the altar (which represented God) had part of the victim, the sacrificer had another part; thus the sacrifice, being consumed partly by God (through means of the fire on the altar) and partly by man, forms a bond of union between the one and the other.

Finally, in 1 Cor. 10:21, the apostle Paul wrote,

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων

The Greek word τράπεζα, translated as "table," is a synonym for "altar" (θυσιαστήριον). For example, in Mal. 1:7, it is written,

You offer polluted bread 2 upon My altar. And you say, "Wherein have we polluted You?" When you say, "The table of Yahveh is contemptible."
מַגִּישִׁים עַל מִזְבְּחִי לֶחֶם מְגֹאָל וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה גֵאַלְנוּךָ בֶּאֱמָרְכֶם שֻׁלְחַן יהוה נִבְזֶה הוּא

In his commentary on Mal. 1:7, Franz Delitzsch wrote,

The table of Jehovah is the altar, upon which the sacrifices (i.e., the food of God) were laid.

Likewise, in his commentary on Mal. 1:7, Rabbi David Kimchi wrote,

"The table of Yahveh" - It is the altar, and so it said in Eze. [41:22] regarding the altar, "This is the table that is before Yahveh."
שלחן יהוה - הוא המזבח וכן אמר ביחזקאל על המזבח: זה השלחן אשר לפני יהוה

Having established that "table" = "altar," how does one partake of the table of demons (1 Cor. 10:21)? Evidently, it is by offering sacrifices to demons (1 Cor. 10:20). If one partakes of the table of demons by sacrificing to demons, how does one partake of the table of the Lord (i.e., table of Yahveh)? By analogy, one partakes of the table of the Lord by offering sacrifices to the Lord.
partake of the table of demons : offer sacrifices to demons ::
partake of the table of the Lord : offer sacrifices to the Lord
Of course, what are these sacrifices to the Lord? There can be no doubt that the apostle Paul is referring to "the cup of blessing which we bless," that is, "the communion of the blood of Christ," and "the bread which we break," that is, "the communion of the body of Christ" which he mention only two verses earlier (1 Cor. 10:16). In other words, the cup and bread of the Eucharist are indeed sacrifices offered to God on His altar/table.

Footnotes
1 Henry Alford: "in a strict and peculiar sense,—the altar having part of the animal, the partaker another part; and by the fact of the religious consecration of the offered part, this connexion becomes a religious connexion."
2 Franz Delitzsch: לֶחֶם, bread or food, does not refer to the shew-bread, for that was not offered upon the altar, but is the sacrificial flesh, which is called in Lev. 21:6, 21:8, 21:17, the food (לֶחֶם) of God


What does the Church say about the statements that the Pope Benedict XVI made in the book "God and the World"?

Benedict XVI said that Genesis is based on a myth

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in his 1995 book, "In the Beginning ...: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall" (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, $13), has expressed well the view I am espousing here. He writes: "It has become clear that the biblical creation narratives represent another way of speaking about reality than that with which we are familiar from physics and biology." The creation stories "represent truth in the way that symbols do -- just as, for example, a Gothic window gives us a deep insight into reality, thanks to the effects of light that it produces and to the figures that is portrays."
Cardinal Ratzinger is not saying that the creation and fall stories are "just a myth," but that they are divinely inspired symbolic narratives that communicate reliable truth about the origins of the world. These stories cannot be dispensed with or cast aside, but have permanent and enduring value. (src)

Benedict XVI said that Heaven and Hell are not actual places
Here is a scanned copy of those pages of his book where he is supposedly said this (hosted on a non Catholic website). If you read what he said in its context, you might understand that he is talking about omnipresence of God. Not the reality of heaven/hell. This is taken out of context as with most of Church's teachings.
Benedict XVI abolished Limbo of the Children.
Nope he did not. The Church has explicitly said that it DOESN'T KNOW what happens to them. So limbo will always remain a valid theory. In other words it is not a dogma of Faith in the first place for Benedict to abolish it. It is just a theological opinion. That's it.

Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith. Personally - and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation - I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for the faith, namely, the importance of baptism. …. One should not hesitate to give up the idea of 'limbo' if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed 'limbo' also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for the faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be." -  Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Francis says that atheists can be saved.
No he did not. He actually never used the word "save" (or salvation) in that conversation.(src). That is he did not say atheists don’t need to believe in God to be saved.
In conclusion
The actual statements are inline with the magisterial teachings of the church and are no way controversial if you are a Catholic. After all peter has the power to bind and loose.


What do Orthodox Christians mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

We Eastern Orthodox take Christ at His word that "if you do not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you." Indeed this is a hard saying---who can accept it? In my limited understanding as a babe in Orthodoxy (I entered the Orthodox Church but a year ago), we just accept it as a holy Mystery and try not to qualify it in philosophical terms. From my limited understanding and knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrine, this distinguishes our dogmatic approach towards the Holy Mysteries from theirs. However, I think the Eucharist is a mystical experience for both of us.

First and foremost, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus are not objects to be understood cataphatically or apophatically, but instead they are our food, and God Himself in us. They are primarily to be experienced (insofar as one experiences food), and only secondarily to be understood.


Are there any Church traditions or legends that state what species of fish Tobias caught in the Book of Tobit?

Anchor Bible by Lopukhin (Толкование на книгу Товита) says that some people attribute it to "sabot" or "alsabut" in Arabic language, others think it is pike. The latter is especially due to the fact that pike is common among Jews and is a clean fish.

Please note that the success of usage of that fish was not due to the nature of the fish itself, as noted in that Anchor Bible later, but due to the prayer, as note A. Glagolev and Prof. Drozdov in the cited works.


To the LCMS Lutherans, how is the Bible the word of God?

View A reflects the LCMS view.

  We believe, teach and confess that all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit and that God is therefore the true Author of every word of Scripture.  [Emphasis mine]

Concerning the use of the personal pronoun 'l', this may be on point:

  We therefore reject the following views:
  ...
  That the Holy Spirit did not inspire the actual words of the Biblical authors but merely provided these men with special guidance....

Further, the LCMS acknowledges that this position is not explicitly stated in the Book of Concord, but believes it to be the correct, historical Lutheran position:

  We recognize that the Lutheran Confessions contain no distinct article on the nature of Holy Scripture and its interpretation, but we acknowledge and accept the confessional understanding of the nature of Holy Scripture and of the proper theological principles for its interpretation.


How could Satan be cursed to crawl on the ground, yet walk before God in Job?

I guess when you consider that Revelation clearly identifies the serpent in the garden as Satan, then this might appear to be a problem. However when you consider that Satan is a spiritual being that according to scripture can "enter" people, as well as Romans 16:20:

  The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Then it seems that there would be a dual fulfillment of this prophetic curse pronounced against "the serpent": one enacted immediately against the creature that Satan possessed (you are not alone in thinking that its form must have been transformed at this point); a second still to be fulfilled as per this verse acting on Satan himself.

The narrative in Job lies between the initial fulfillment in Genesis and the final fulfillment reaffirmed in Romans.