Does the Catholic Church teach that modern churches have guardian angels?
We even have a Feast of the Guardian Angels. But as such, it has never been defined by the Church, and is, consequently, not an article of faith.

That every individual soul has a guardian angel has never been defined by the Church, and is, consequently, not an article of faith; but it is the "mind of the Church", as St. Jerome expressed it: "how great the dignity of the soul, since each one has from his birth an angel commissioned to guard it." (Comm. in Matt., xviii, lib. II).
In the Bible this doctrine is clearly discernible and its development is well marked. In Genesis 28-29, angels not only act as the executors of God's wrath against the cities of the plain, but they deliver Lot from danger; in Exodus 12-13, an angel is the appointed leader of the host of Israel, and in 32:34, God says to Moses: "my angel shall go before thee." At a much later period we have the story of Tobias, which might serve for a commentary on the words of Psalm 90:11: "For he hath given his angels charge over thee; to keep thee in all thy ways." (Cf. Psalm 33:8 and 34:5) Lastly, in Daniel 10 angels are entrusted with the care of particular districts; one is called "prince of the kingdom of the Persians", and Michael is termed "one of the chief princes"; cf. Deuteronomy 32:8 (Septuagint); and Ecclesiasticus 17:17 (Septuagint).
But in the New Testament the doctrine is stated with greater precision. Angels are everywhere the intermediaries between God and man; and Christ set a seal upon the Old Testament teaching: "See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 18:10). A twofold aspect of the doctrine is here put before us: even little children have guardian angels, and these same angels lose not the vision of God by the fact that they have a mission to fulfill on earth.
Without dwelling on the various passages in the New Testament where the doctrine of guardian angels is suggested, it may suffice to mention the angel who succored Christ in the garden, and the angel who delivered St. Peter from prison. Hebrews 1:14 puts the doctrine in its clearest light: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?" This is the function of the guardian angels; they are to lead us, if we wish it, to the Kingdom of Heaven. - Guardian Angel (Catholic Church)

If various nations have a Guardian Angel, I would think that various parish churches (communities) have a Guardian Angel also.

It is taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as many Fathers and Doctors of the Church, that every country has its own Guardian Angel. In fact, St. Clement of Alexandria goes so far as to state that whole "regiments of angels are distributed over nations and cities" (cf. Fr. Pascal Parente, The Angels, p. 119).
It should be noted in particular that Portugal has had a strong and deep devotion to its Guardian Angel for centuries. In fact, that nation was given approval by Pope Leo X in the sixteenth century to introduce a special feast day in order to honor its Guardian Angel. The feast day falls on June 10th of each year. France, similarly has consecrated itself over the centuries to St. Michael the Archangel as her patron. This consecration goes back to King Charlemagne in the early years of the 9th Century.
What's more, all Americans should be aware of the fact that a statue has been erected at the National Shrine of the World Apostolate of Fatima in Washington, NJ, in honor of the Guardian Angel of the United States. The statue stands ten feet tall and weighs five tons. It is carved out of carrara marble by a world famous Portuguese sculptor. It was consecrated on July 4th, 1982. - Do individual countries and nations have their own Guardian Angel?

Portugal has a Guardian Angel and as such, it would follow that other nations would have a Guardian Angel likewise.

The Guardian Angel of Portugal is also referred to as the Angel of Portugal, the Holy Guardian Angel of Portugal, the Custodian Angel or the Angel of Peace. All of these designations are attributed to Saint Michael the Archangel representing "Portugal", that is, the spiritual essence in the figure of an archangel who protects the Portuguese nation.
History
In 1504, by request of King Manuel I of Portugal, Pope Julius II created the feast of the Custodian Angel of the Kingdom (Anjo Custódio do Reino), whose cult would already be ancient in Portugal. The request having been made to Pope Leo X, he authorized the feast, celebrated on the third Sunday of July.[citation needed]
Devotion to the Guardian Angel of Portugal almost disappeared after the 17th century but was restored in 1952, being inserted into the Portuguese Liturgical Calendar by Pius XII.
The angel made his first appearance in the Battle of Ourique, and its devotion gave such a victory to D. Afonso Henriques's forces on the Muslim invaders that gave him the opportunity to self-proclaim himself King of Portugal.
Apparitions in Fátima, 1916
In her Memoirs, the Portuguese Carmelite nun Sister Lúcia, seer of Our Lady of Fátima, tells that, between April and October, 1916, an angel, identifying himself as the Angel of Portugal (or Angel of Peace) appeared three times to her and to Francisco and Jacinta Marto, in Fátima, Portugal, inviting them to prayer and penitence. One could say that this Angel is none other than Saint Michael himself since the titles used in honour of the Archangel mention him as "The Angel of Peace" and "The Guardian Angel of the Holy Eucharist and the Holy Father". - Guardian Angel of Portugal

The Feast of Angel of Portugal (Memorial) is on June 10 as seen in Wikipedia's General Roman Calendar for Portugal.

Representation of the Angel of Portugal (or Angel of Peace) in the apparitions to the three children in Fátima.
For those Catholics that adhere to the belief in Guardian Angels, there is no problem in believing that each Catholic Church has it's own Guardian Angel for that community.
We can see by the prayer in the Rite of Asperses in the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass that each church does indeed have an Guardian Angel that looks after the community dwelling there.

Oremus.
Exaudi nos, Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, æterne Deus; et mittere digneris sanctum Angelum tuum de cœlis, qui custodiat, foveat, protegat, visitet, atque defendat omnes habitantes in hoc habitaculo. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
 Hear us, O holy Lord, almighty Father, everlasting God, and vouchsafe to send Thy holy Angel from heaven, who guards, cherishes, protects, visits and defends all that are assembled in this place: through Christ our Lord. Amen.

This prayer asks God the Almighty Father to send the Holy Angel from Heaven who guards  this community!  Thus recently constructed Catholic Churches would have a patron saint as well as a Guardian Angel to aid all it's parishioners in all that they do.
Blessed Catherine Emmerich, in her visions also confirms this in the affirmative:

She saw that each parish and diocese, each city and country has its own particular and powerful guardian angel.


How far advanced was the Virgin Mary's Pregnancy when she returned to Nazareth?

Luke 1:56 says that she stayed with Elizabeth for 3 months. We know for certain, then, that Mary was at least 3 months pregnant with Jesus. She went to Elizabeth when Elizabeth was in her 6th month of pregnancy (Luke 1:36; 1:39). The NIV says that Mary left immediately and stayed for 3 months. The trip from Nazareth to the town that Elizabeth lived in was a week apart. So we know that, unless she conceived at another time other when the angel talked to her, she was in her 3rd and 1/2 month when she left.

The NIV (New International Version) tells us that at that time Mary got ready and hurried to Elizabeth (Luke 1:39), suggesting she left ASAP.
It is very likely, although irrelevant, that Mary was able to witness the birth of John the Baptist. (She may have been not too excited about giving birth to Jesus) She went to Elizabeth when Elizabeth was at least 6 months along in her pregnancy (Luke 1:36). Mary stayed 3 months (Luke 1:56), so she most likely saw the birth of John the Baptist.
If she left immediately to Elizabeth, when she came back it is unknown to me if it would have been obvious. The Bible gives no indication that she was obviously pregnant.
Mary was at least 3 1/2 months along (Luke 1:56). You said in your question that the trip was about a week away; so she traveled for a week, stayed for 3 months and traveled home for another week. This would actually total to 3 1/2 months. Therefore Mary had to have been at least 3 1/2 months along in her pregnancy by the time she returned to Nazareth.


Does James contradict Jesus when he says some foods should not be eaten?

There seem to be two different questions addressed by the New Testament relevant to this issue:

Does eating certain foods defile a man?
Should certain people abstain from certain foods?

I don’t think the New Testament teachings contradict. Jesus’ teaching in Mark 7 declares that the first question is answered ‘no’: there is nothing inherent in certain foods that makes them defiling.

However, the answer to the second question is a tentative ‘yes’. Certainly Jews before the time of Christ were expected to keep the kosher laws. In the period directly following Jesus’ death, Jewish Christians were not about to give up their customs in an instant; they would continue to observe the kosher laws. As long as they didn’t fall prey to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees condemned by Jesus, there would be nothing very wrong with that.

The question then was: what about the Gentile Christians? Were they to keep the same laws as the Jewish Christians?

This more general question was brought up at the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (see Acts 15). (The particular case addressed at that council had to do with circumcision, but their rulings had a broader impact than that. This is the decision they reached (Acts 15:19–20 NRSV)

  [James speaking:] “Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.”

These restrictions placed on the Gentiles in no way encompassed all the precepts of the Torah; they are there to address the few violations which were particularly abominable to the Jews. The council did not declare that certain foods can defile a man; they only declared that at this place and time, it is better for the Gentiles not to offend the Jews by observing the things mentioned.

The issue is brought up again, once more with respect to food, in Romans 14. In this passage, Paul acknowledges the right of each Christian to act according to his own conscience. At the same time, he recognizes that the food itself is not what defiles a man (this agrees with Jesus’ teaching); he also says that those who do eat must not look down on those who don’t, and even that they should abstain if it becomes a point of contention.

The takeaway from both the Acts and the Romans passages is that extra restrictions may be placed upon certain people at certain times. However these reasons are pastoral and in no way nullify Jesus’ basic claim that no food, in and of itself, can be considered ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’.


Was it Adino or his army that killed eight hundred at one time?

Considering that the three generals listed each did fantastic things, it would appear that Andino killed 800 by himself.

For more about the other generals, and the men following them you can read this:

http://www.southernspiritonline.org/inspirational-stories/the-original-band-of-brothers/


Are Catholic priests not supposed to get paid or have any belongings?

Parish priests do not take a vow of poverty and thus may possess a bank account and have belongings. They also receive a stipend from the parishes they work in. I do not know how much the average stipend is, but I do not think that it is very much. They also receive a Mass stipend for offering the Mass for a particular intention.

Religious priest from a particular Religious Order do make vows of Poverty and may not possess  any belongings. They simply have the use of various things, like a car.


How does spiritual maturity affect our hermeneutic (how we interpret the Bible)?

To answer the difference between the interpretation of the Bible from a child in Christ, compared to a man in Christ, we must first acknowledge that the Bible adheres to two forms of wisdom, heavenly and devilish. Both kinds of wisdom can come from studying scripture. The first comes from studying with faith and submission, the second comes from study not mixed with faith:

  13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
  17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace- loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness. (James 3:13-18)

From this we see that doctrine is not just intellectual but spiritual.  In fact the first thing to do to attain wisdom is not to go to Bible College (although that is good to do) but to pray for wisdom.

  I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. (Ephesians 1:17)

And

  If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. (James 1:5)

Therefore, when we realize wisdom does not come primarily from study and learning but by God, through His Spirit, we can appreciate that faith is a kind of knowledge, and without it, the Scripture will become meaningless to its reader.

  18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)

What this means to a believer is that obedience to faith in Christ will provide more wisdom than study.  In fact, a person may seek God through His word, obey Him for many years, and attain great wisdom in love and the fruits of the Spirit, then lose most of it through sin.  Just as Samson eventually lost His strength through constant neglect, so we can lose the knowledge we have. Yet Samson (was) renewed in strength again.

So how does this affect 'How we interpret the Bible?'  How does our level of spiritual growth, or strength, affect our interpretation?

First, when we habitually sin, we lose sight of God's grace in Christ.  We no longer believe it the way we did, no matter what we say to ourselves.  Second, the basic things, the milk of God's Word becomes the only thing that remains sensible to us.  We think about what we have done, how we ought to live, How we have been faithful, how we have failed. We no longer have faith to rest our eyes upon God and what He has done. Our focus turns inward in weakness, rather than Godward in joy.

Therefore, the child looking at the Bible can only see the rules, what he can do, what he cannot do. The child worries about how he might be punished, and how to avoid it. The adult can only see Christ, what He has done, how glorious He is.  The adult will believe and give His life over to God for that great love, which has been made known to Him in Christ's dying love. The child will judge others, become puffed up through an appearance of wisdom, will argue motivated by jealousy. A child will be envious of the adults' freedom through their faith.

From these different perspectives, the child will rarely see the same things from the Scripture that the adult sees.  Children are fascinated by novelties; the adult is absorbed in realities. The child will question if their parents in Christ understand anything. They will easily follow new theological trends and discount godly men from the past, as being irrelevant to our world today. Yet most children will eventually grow into adults and realize:

  What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.(Ecclesiastes 1:9)

The adult will see nothing but Christ in everything, and all else will be considered folly and shame. This will affect his interpretation of every Scripture, from every angle. This can't be explained under a technical theory of exegesis; it is spiritual.

  This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit- taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:13-14)


Is the bonebox called the "James Ossuary" authentic? Is it truly the bonebox of James, the brother of Jesus Christ?

Paleographic and epigraphic examination of the ossuary by the Israeli Division of Identification and Forensic Science clearly indicate this is a forgery.

First, the inscription of James (above) is dissimilar to the inscription of the sentence "brother of Jesus":

The second is visibly shallower than 'James son of Josef'. The difference in depth is almost double. Character depth in the first part of the inscription is uniform, but in the second half the engraving depth varies. An extreme example of this is the Aramic letter “Khet” in akhui (brother) in which the upper portion is deeply engraved and the lower portion is shallow.
When examining the letter forms in each portion of the inscription, two script systems were identified. The letters forming 'James son of Josef' are more stylized, uniform depth of stamping and ornate than those in the second portion. For example, the Aramic letter “Ayin” in Yeshua and in Yakov (James) are superficially similar; however, a microscopic examination of the letter “Ayin” in James revealed a circular embellishment engraved at the top edge of the letter and a lower line that is finer and shallower than the upper lines forming the letter. The letter “Ayin” in Yeshua lacks all these elements, which were common during the Second Temple period.
Further examination by microscope showed other significant differences in the way the letters were engraved. In the first half of the 'James son of Josef' inscription, the craftsman used circular motions in carving the stone and created letters with circular edge-points, but the engraving strokes in the 'brother of Jesus' portion are visibly linear and lack the circular edge-points. This significant difference in engraving method between the two parts of the inscription seems to indicate the existence of two artisans, i.e. the text 'brother of Jesus' was inscribed by a different person.
Abstracts of Findings: Writing Committee – The Yehoash Inscription
Prof. Shmuel Ahituv

The inscription was written by a speaker of modern Hebrew who borrowed
segments from the original sources, composed a text that seemed
biblical to him/her but failed. Therefore, the text is a forgery.

Prof. Avigdor Horowitz

The Yehoash inscription appears to be a combination of elements
collected from various sources and pasted together … each element
attests to a lack of understanding of ninth century BCE Hebrew. All
the elements together clearly prove that the text is a forgery.

Dr. Hagai Misgav

From the paleographic aspect, it appears that the inscription was
written by someone not living in the First Temple times, but who wrote
according to samples from that period. In other words, the inscription
does not appear authentic.

Prof. Roni Reich

It appeared to me at first that the inscription was authentic, as I
wrote in my report. For one reason, it was difficult for me to believe
that a forger (or group of forgers) could be found that would be
expert in all aspects of the inscription… and could produce such an
object. But I was convinced, in the end, that it is a forgery after
being shown the committee’s data and material.

The Ossuary Inscription Committee
Prof. Amos Kloner

It is clear that the engraving on the bone box dates from a different
period than its original installation. The inscription appears new.
The writer tried giving the letters an ancient appearance by using
samples from contemporaneous inscriptions.

Dr. Tal Ilan

Even if the ossuary is authentic, there is no reason to assume that
the deceased was actually the brother of Jesus. But I am of the
opinion that the inscription is a forgery.

Prof. Roni Reich

The inscription does not exhibit a combination of configurational or
substantial effects that would imply forgery. But I was convinced that
the inscription is a forgery when presented with the findings by the
Materials Committee.

Dr. Esther Eshel

From my examination of the inscription and the data I received, it
appears to me quite clear that the inscription is not authentic, and
was added at a much later date (possible in two stages).

The Materials Committee
Jacques Neguer

The ossuary is authentic. Its inscription is a forgery. All the
various scratches on the ossuary are coated in the original patina and
only the inscription and its immediate surroundings are coated with an
artificial “patina’-like material of round crystalline granules. The
inscription cuts through the original patina and appears to have been
written by two different writers using different tools.

Orna Cohen

Ossuary:  The first part of the inscription is new, cuts through the
original patina and is coated with a granular patina that appears to
have been produced from chalk dust mixed with water and spread on the
inscription. The end of the inscription “brother of Jesus” appears
authentic, in some places there seems to be remains of old patina, but
in order to produce a uniform effect, this too was spread with the
same granular substance.
Inscription: The “patina” on the inscription side was dissolved in
water and therefore looks like earth rather than patina. When the
letters were cleaned, the manner of inscription was exposed. The
technique appears new and does not match the original wear on the
stone. The manner in which the letters were scratched does not
resemble any form of ancient stone inscription.
In summary, both inscriptions are false.

Prof. Yoval Goren

Ossuary: The ossuary itself is authentic based on the accumulation of
patina and varnish (varnish = patina from a biological source).
The inscription was inscribed or cleaned in a modern period. Its
coating is not a result of nature, and was probably accomplished by
crumbling and dissolving chalk (or perhaps the powder falling from the
engraving process) in hot water and spilling the suspension on the
inscription and surrounding area in order to blur the freshly carved
inscription.
Inscription: The stone is greywake, an exotic stone for Israel,
originating in north Syria or western Cyprus.
The original silicate patina exists on the reverse side of the tablet.
hard and firmly attached to the stone. The engraved letters did not
appear to have undergone any corrosive process as would be expected
from an ancient inscription.
The inscription coating has a different composition than that of the
patina on the back of the stone, and appears to be an artificial
mixture of clay, crumbled chalk, carbon, and microscopic granules of
inert metal. It appears that this mixture was dissolved in hot water
before being spread on the inscribed side, after which the stone was
heated to a temperature of no higher than 4000C in order to harden the
new coating and give it the appearance of patina.
Method: The “patinization” is similar in both cases but on the
ossuary, chalk powder only was used, and on the Yehoash inscription a
mixture of clay or red soil, chalk powder, carbon and metal granules.


How was Solomon considered one of the wisest?

I Kings seems to imply King Solomon was the wisest of all men in all nations at his time:

1 Kings 4:29-31 (DRB)
And God gave to Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart as the sand that is on the sea shore. And the wisdom of Solomon surpassed the wisdom of all the Orientals, and of the Egyptians, and he was wiser than all men: wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda the sons of Mahol, and he was renowned in all nations round about.

Solomon wasn't perfect (in fact, we don't even know if he finally repented of his apostasy with the idols of his heathen wives: cf. 1 Kings 11:4); but the reason he had so much wealth was because God gave him it, seeing that he asked for only wisdom, and not for riches etc:

2 Chronicles 1:9-12
[Solomon said:] Give me wisdom and knowledge that I may come in and go out before thy people: for who can worthily judge this thy people, which is so great? And God said to Solomon: Because this choice hath pleased thy heart, and thou hast not asked riches, and wealth, and glory, nor the lives of them that hate thee, nor many days of life: but hast asked wisdom and knowledge, to be able to judge my people, over which I have made thee king, wisdom and knowledge are granted to thee: and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and glory, so that none of the kings before thee, nor after thee, shall be like thee.

That is, the prohibition against these things which God rewards Solomon was because of the desire to have them, not them in themselves: God here judges that such who don't want these goods are worthy of them, since they did not have an inordinate want or longing for them.


The order of Communion in Luke 22:17-20 versus Mark 14:22-25 and Matthew 26:26-29

The Marcan-Matthean tradition and the (earlier) Pauline-Lucan tradition vary in how they record the institution of the Eucharist. Compare the reading from Mark and Matthew with Luke and Paul, where Paul records the institution of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25:

  23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the chalice, after supper, saying, "This chalice is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

I bring this up because you will note that both Mark and Matthew record the institution of the Eucharist while they were eating. In contrast, neither Luke nor Paul are entirely clear as to whether Jesus ate at all. Regardless, both Luke and Paul are very careful to point out that the eucharistic cup is instituted after the meal had concluded (μετα το δειπνησαι, 'after they had eaten'). Luke identifies this meal as the Passover (Luke 22:15). Luke's mention of another cup is consonant with Jewish custom during Passover (which included more than just one cup during the ceremony), but the intercalation of two cups surrounding the breaking of the bread highlights that particular action as theologically significant. Indeed, we will see that later on, in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke will use the term 'breaking of the bread' to reference the entire Eucharistic feast (cf. Acts 2:42 & 20:7).


Need help remembering CS Lewis Quote about Joy and Chemical Reactions

There's this passage on page 76 of Present Concerns:

  You can't, except in the lowest animal sense, be in love with a girl if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of her person and of her character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by the collision of atoms, and that your own response to them is only a sort of psychic phosphorescence arising from the behaviour of your genes. You can’t go on getting any very serious pleasure from music if you know and remember that its air of significance is pure illusion, that you like it only because your nervous system is irrationally conditioned to like it. You may still, in the lowest sense, have a ‘good time’; but just in so far as it becomes very good, just in so far as it ever threatens to push you on from cold sensuality into real warmth and enthusiasm and joy, so afar you will be forced to feel the hopeless disharmony between your own emotions and the universe in which you really live.

This is quoted by Tim Keller on page 141 of The Reason for God.


If I understand your question properly, you want to know if the word "Hebrew" applied to Joseph in Gen 39:17 derives from Joseph's ancestral city, Hebron.  This would distinguish "Hebrew" as a reference to a geographic place of origin, whereas "Israelite" refers to the ancestral person.

You are correct that Abraham did live near Hebron in Canaan.  He purchased land there (Gen 23:17-18), including a burial cave.  In that cave were buried Abraham's wife Sara (Gen 23:19), Abraham (Gen 25:9-10), Isaac and his wives Rebekah and Leah (Gen 49:29-33), and Jacob (Gen 50:12-13).  We also have Abraham described as a "Hebrew" in Gen 14:13, which occurred while Abraham was living near Hebron. However, I don't know of any basis to say that the word "Hebrew" and "Hebron" are related (despite their similarities).

From this Wikipedia article the name "Hebron" refers (in the Hebrew and Amorite languages) to a friendship or alliance.  It is also a basis for an Arabic epithet for Abraham, which means "friend."  This is a very different meaning from the ones we see for "Hebrew."

According to a response on Linguistics StackExchange the etymology of "Hebrew" is "from the other side" presumably meaning the Euphrates river, since Abraham came to Canaan from Ur on the other side of the Euphrates.  However, there are other theories that trace "Hebrew" to Eber, the great-grandson of Shem and great-great-great-great-grandfather of Abraham (Gen 11:10-26).  Take your pick, but none of these relate to the city of Hebron where Abraham lived in Canaan.


Why is it more difficult for a Mormon woman to control whom she is eternally sealed to?

The information I am presenting comes from the newly released General Handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I think the most important section in that handbook for answering your questions comes from Section 38.5 (emphasis is my own)

Members who have concerns about the eternal nature of the sealing ordinance and their associated family and spousal relationships can find peace in the knowledge that Heavenly Father is loving and just. Faithful children who are sealed to parents or born in the covenant retain the blessing of eternal parentage. This is so even if their parents cancel their marriage sealing, have their Church membership withdrawn, or resign their membership.
Members who are divorced but still sealed to the former spouse are often troubled by the thought of that sealing. The sealing will not be compulsory in the postmortal life for either a man or a woman. If temple covenants are broken and no repentance is made, the sealing between the husband and wife is revoked. However, those who keep their covenants will retain the individual blessings provided by the sealing. This is the case even if the spouse has broken the covenants or withdrawn from the marriage.

Given what is said there, I don't think the premise of your question is really correct, that it is more difficult for female members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to "control" who they are eternally sealed to. Definitely, as detailed in Section 38.5.1.2 of the handbook, there are differences in practices of sealings after divorce and after a spouses death (as detailed in 38.5.1.3) for men and women. Those sections are for living spouses, see 38.5.1.7 for the cases when both spouses are deceased. The exact reason for those differences is, as far as I know, not explicitly stated in the handbook or Church canon.


Are there any documented cases of "Acts 2 type" tongue speaking (i.e. understood by a foreigner) in recent history (19th century on)?

Are there any documented cases of “Acts 2 type” tongue speaking (i.e. understood by a foreigner) in history (apart from Acts 2, of course)?
I have not heard of this being done in modern times, say from the 19th century on, but that does not mean that it has not been done. I am simply not aware of any modern cases of it.
This seems to be a gift from God that is truly rare.
First of all, it is interesting to note that the Church Fathers only associated this real languages.

Dr. Nathan Busenitz wrote a very detailed paper comparing what the Church Fathers believed and wrote regarding glossolalia with contemporary Pentecostal beliefs. His conclusion was that there was no evidence that any Church Fathers ever held that glossolalia involved anything other than real human language.
One of the key "proof texts" that has been cited for use of unintelligible languages while speaking in tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:14-15:

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

Church Father John Chrysostom (4th cent.) clearly understood that even here, Paul was speaking of real language:

Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongues only, but also of interpretation, that thou mayest become useful unto all, and not shut up thy gift in thyself alone. “For if I pray in a tongue,” saith he, “my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” Seest thou how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not to others only is such an one useless, but also to himself; if at least “his understanding is unfruitful?” For if a man should speak only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not understand what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the sound. For there were of old many who had also a gift of prayer, together with a tongue; and they prayed, and the tongue spake, praying either in the Persian or Latin language, but their understanding knew not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, “I’ll pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth,” i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves my tongue, “but my understanding is unfruitful.”

What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how ought one to act, or what request of God? To pray, “both with the spirit,” i.e., the gift, and “with the understanding.” Wherefore also he said, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” He signifieth the same thing here also, that both the tongue may speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant of the things spoken (Homilies on First Corinthians, XXXV) - Do any church fathers directly connect “speaking in tongues” with anything other than existing human languages?

Has anyone been known to speak in an unknown language in missionary activities? Yes
Of coarse there are.
Here are a few that may fit the bill:
St. Vincent Ferrer

St. Vincent Ferrer was a Dominican missionary in the 14th century (1350 to 1419 AD). Legend has it that his native tongue was Valencian, a dialect of Catalan spoken in Spain. He didn’t know any other language. This did not stop his audience from miraculously hearing him in their language.
This is a historic variant of the miracle of speaking in tongues.
As an itinerant missionary whose travels brought him throughout western Europe, the lack of language preparation would have been a severe hindrance. To make matters worse, he knew only Valencian, which was a localized language. Very few within Europe had the ability to understand his native tongue. According to the account found in Acta Sanctorum this was overcome by the miracle of those hearing. He spoke in Valencian and the people understood his words perfectly in their own language.
Valencian was part of the Catalan group of languages distinct from Spanish, French, or German.

“Catalan is not, as some believe, a dialect of Spanish, but a language that developed independently out of the vulgar Latin spoken by the Romans who colonised the Tarragona area. It is spoken by 9 million people in Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearic Isles, Andorra and the town of Alghero in Sardinia. - Vincent Ferrer and the Gift of Tongues

St. Anthony of Padua

St. Anthony and the Gift of Tongues
The book “The Little Flowers of St Francis” was written by Brother Ugolino about 100 years after the life of St Francis of Assisi and St Anthony of Padua, the details of which are based on original documents of the Franciscan Order. In Chapter 39 of this book we read:
"St Anthony of Padua, one of the chosen disciples and companions of St Francis, whom the latter called his Vicar, was preaching one day before the Pope and the Cardinals in Consistory, there were therefore present at that moment men of different countries- Greeks and Latins, French and Germans, Slavs and English and men of many other different languages and dialects.
"And being inflamed by the Holy Spirit and inspired with apostolic eloquence, he preached and explained the word of God so effectively, devoutly, subtly, clearly and understandably that all who were assembled at that Consistory, although they spoke different languages, clearly and distinctly heard and understood everyone of his words as if he had spoken in each of their languages. Therefore they were all astounded and filled with devotion, for it seemed to them that the former miracle of the Apostles at the time of Pentecost had been renewed, when by the power of the Holy Spirit they spoke in different languages.
"And in amazement, just like in the Acts of the Apostles they said to one another: "Is he not a Spaniard?' How then are we all hearing him in the language of the country where we were born-we Greeks and Latins, French and Germans, Slavs and English, Lombards and foreigners?"
It was not only at this consistory that St. Anthony's gift of tongues was utilized. It is written that while preaching in Italy he spoke in perfect Italian, and while in France he preached in French, although he had never studied these languages. Also remarkable is the fact that "the simple-minded and the most ignorant listeners were capable of fully comprehending all he said; and his voice, though gentle and sweet, was distinctly heard at a very extraordinary distance from the speaker."

St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775)

The gift of Tongues in the preaching of St Paul of the Cross
The grace of being heard at great distances was also documented on at least three occasions in the life of St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775), the holy founder of the Passionist Order. Because of his extraordinary reputation for holiness, people would come from great distances to hear the man of God preach his missions, and to witness the remarkable miracles and cures that often accompanied his preaching. Therfore the crowds that gathered during his missions were often immense. On at least three documented occasions, his voice could be heard by all those present, even amdst the usual noises of such a great crowd, extending even those who were literally several miles away. This extraordinary grace took place in the three locations of La Tolfa, at Civitacastellana, and on the Isle of Elba, where he was heard a full five miles away.
Also, as stated above with the Apostles and also St Anthony, it was also documented on several occasions that his Italian language was understood by members of different foreign nationalities and languages who had come to listen to him.

St. Dominic (1170-1221)

The gift of speaking in Tongues in the life of St Dominic
And then there is also another holy Founder, St. Dominic (1170-1221), the founder of the Dominican Order and the great promoter of the Holy Rosary, who was given the gift of tongues when he was one day on a journey to Paris with his companion, Bertrand of Garrega, and a number of other friends and disciples.
While on the road they visited the sanctuary of Rocamadour, where they spent the night praying before a miraculous image of Our Lady. The next day, as they journeyed along, they sang litanies and recited psalms and the divine office, which attracted the attention of two German pilgrims, who began to follow them. When they came to the next village the two German pilgrims, being greatly attracted by the devotion of the little band, made motions to them indicating that they should sit down and dine with them. It was somewhat of an awkward situation since the Germans could not understand the Dominicans, nor could the Dominicans understand the Germans. This continued for four days, with the Germans sharing their food with the Dominicans.
On the fifth day St. Dominic addressed Bertrand in this manner: "Brother Bertrand, it grieves me to reap the temporal things of these pilgrims without sowing for them spiritual things: let us kneel down and ask God to grant us the understanding of their language, that we may speak to them of Christ." Accordingly, they knelt down and prayed. When they rose up, they were able to converse with the Germans in their own language and did so without difficulty for the rest of the journey.
As they drew near Paris, the Germans, now filled with spiritual consolations, departed from them. The earthly food which the Germans had provided had been exchanged by Dominic for spiritual food which nourished their spirits and was beneficial to their eternal salvation. St. Dominic, for his part, charged Bertrand to keep silent about the matter and to keep it secret until his death, "lest the people should take us for Saints who are but sinners.'"

St. Pachomius the Great

Among many miracles wrought by him, the author of his life assures us, that though he had never learned the Greek or Latin tongues, he sometimes miraculously spoke them; he cured the sick and persons possessed by devils with blessed oil. - St. Pachomius, Abbot (292-348)

The closest account in modern times that I can find is the opposite of what you seem to be asking. Therese Neumann of Germany did not speak in foreign languages, but she did have the gift of understanding them.
The German Stigmatic Therese Neumann of Germany (1898-1962) was gifted with gift of understanding foreign and ancient languages.

The extraordinary gift of understanding* foreign languages, especially ancient Biblical languages has been given to numerous Saints, especially the Mystics. Most notably in recent times this gift was given to a remarkable 20th century mystic and stigmatic named Therese Neumann of Germany (1898-1962).
During the ecstasies of the Passion in which Therese not only saw, but physically participated in in a mystical way, she heard the four languages which were in common use during the time of Christ: Latin, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic; the Aramaic was spoken in a dialect mixed with Greek words. Therese recognized and repeated them after she returned to normal life. The fact that this humble country girl could master such languages is a miracle in itself. Therese had a seventh grade education and did not speak or understand any other language but German; to her personal friends she spoke in the dialect of the Oberpfalz, the particular region of Bavaria in which Konnersreuth is located.
Many eminent scholars of Oriental languages and of the Old Testament visited Therese in order to check the authenticity of Therese's knowledge of languages. Nevertheless, it was indeed difficult to find scholars who were qualified to interview Therese. It is not an exaggeration to say that in many instances she knew more about these ancient languages and many other details than the scholars did!
Some of the noted men who helped extensively in the verifi¬cation and clarification of the 2,OOO-year-old practices were: Rev. Prof. Dr. Wutz (a priest), professor of Oriental languages and the Old Testament at Catholic College, Eichstatt, Bavaria; Prof. Bauer, of Halle, a non-Catholic expert in Oriental lan¬guages; and Prof. Wessely, of Vienna, a non-Christian, who was also a scholar of these languages. All of the results of their investigations were made public. - Gift of understanding foreign and ancient languages


Are there analogues to the Mormon/LDS high school seminary in other Christian denominations?

There is World of Life and Torchbearer do something like it in the evangelical circles.

World of life : http://www.wol.org
Torchebearer : http://torchbearers.org


How can the sun be created after day and night?

Let's look more closely at your linked verses:

  5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (Genesis 1:5)

This verse implies the creation of light and the implementation of it to create the first day. Darkness already existed, so only light was needed.

  16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.

This verse implies the creation of the sun and moon—notice the "greater" and "lesser" lights.

These lights—the sun and the moon, which were created three days after light itself was—are simply vessels to carry greater and lesser versions of the previously created light which govern the limits of the day and of the night.

And if we read a bit further:

  16 cont. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

Stars were created to be vessels for light as well, but to separate this greater light (the sun) from this lesser light (the moon), and to govern both day and night.

Before questioning the bible (and God, by extension), always look more closely at what is being said and you will understand. This is especially true for scripture, because many times we find it to be ambiguous, but upon closer examination it just comes to us.


Why do most Bible translations bowdlerize the Tetragrammaton?

Using the word ‘bowdlerize’ gives a misleading impression, that only a very few Bibles retain an English rendition of the Divine Name; that the vast majority have expunged this word, that is, erased and omitted it from the Bible. If that was the case, then the Authorised Version and very many more recent translations would have failed to include the Tetragram at all, yet they have it in several places in the Hebrew scriptures, the most common places being Exodus 6:3 and Psalm 83:18. It is also the case that many old hymns have God’s name pronounced as Jehovah in some verses. Many times in church sermons I have heard God addressed as Jehovah when the Covenant God of Israel is being referred to. Given that many English translations retain Jehovah in a few places, it is misleading to say they have bowdlerized that word.

Now, it is undeniably true that the Tetragram was initially written 6,961 times in the ancient Hebrew scriptures (including 134 times where the Masoretic text shows that ancient copyists called Sopherim had changed the primitive Hebrew text to read ‘Adho.nay’ or ‘Elo.him’ instead of Yehowah’.) Yet Jewish believers themselves began to ‘lose’ the use of the Divine Name during and after their many years in captivity commencing particularly after the third Babylonian deportation of Judah in 586 B.C.  Colonies of Jews were established in various areas of the Mediterranean world. Alexandria (Egypt) became an important center for expatriate Jews – a leading center of learning and Greek culture until it was conquered by Rome. Gradually, many Jews lost their ability to read and understand the Hebrew scriptures. Thus, around 280 B.C. a group of Hebrew scholars began translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.  The translation became known as ‘the Seventy’ (LXX) with a Latin name of the Septuagint.

An important point about this translation into Greek was that the Divine Name was rendered as YHWH in some Septuagint versions. Although many manuscripts of the Septuagint are available today that contain the word Kyrios [LORD] rather than the Tetragram, a discovery in Cairo of Aquila’s Greek text clearly shows the four Hebrew letters of the Tetragram. However, his translation was done during the second century C.E., so was not available to Jesus or the Apostles. Yet not all versions of the Septuagint retained the Tetragram, so eventually the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.

Thus the way in which the Divine Name became less and less common was a process that started before 280 B.C. and continued until, by the time the Christian church was well established, the Tetragram was not understood by the majority of scripture readers. You need to go back centuries to discover this gradual reduction in use of the Tetragram in scripture translations. Nevertheless, it should be used nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew scriptures, although a problem preventing that is not knowing an accurate word to translate it with, given that the vowel points remain missing. Rather than guess, (perhaps wrongly) many prefer to use the respectful LORD in the Hebrew scriptures. Erring on the side of caution is no bad thing when dealing with holy scripture. For example, given that the letter ‘J’ was not introduced into the English alphabet until the early 15th century A.D., ‘Jehovah’ is not the best attempt. I would personally be happy to see Yahweh written nearly 7,000 times in English translations of the Hebrew text, but I do not have a problem with ones that have LORD, because when capitalised, we all know that it refers to the one true God, the Creator.

Finally, when you say, “Jews do write the name in their holy texts” it needs to be pointed out that they still do not pronounce it.

Source: The Divine Name in the New World Translation, released for worldwide internet distribution in 2001 with no copyright. http://www.tetragrammaton.org


What is the difference between the two creations of humans, according to those who believe they are in chronological order?

The various New Church (Swedenborgian) denominations that follow the Christian theology and Bible interpretations of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) see the two Creation stories of Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis 2:4–25, not as describing the same events twice, but as being two distinct stories placed in chronological order.

Swedenborg saw these two Creation stories as being, not about the physical creation of the earth, and humans on it, but rather as the spiritual creation of human beings: meaning our "regeneration" or spiritual rebirth from being physical-minded and worldly people to being spiritual and heavenly people.

In Swedenborg's spiritual interpretation of the Creation stories, the first story represents the initial stage of our rebirth from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive, and the second story represents a second stage of that process. Here is how he expresses it in Secrets of Heaven #81, in his summary on the meaning of Genesis 2:

  This chapter [Genesis 2] deals with the heavenly person; the last dealt with the spiritual person, who previously had been lifeless. In modern times, though, people know nothing about the character of a heavenly person and very little about that of a spiritual person or of a lifeless one. Let me clarify the differences through a brief discussion of each type.

  (1) The only truth and goodness that lifeless people acknowledge are bodily and worldly kinds, and these they revere.

  Spiritual people acknowledge spiritual and heavenly types of truth and goodness, but their acknowledgment stems from faith—as do their actions—and not as much from love.

  Heavenly people believe and perceive truth and goodness of spiritual and heavenly kinds, but they acknowledge no other faith than one that springs from love; and love is also what moves them to action.

  (2) Those who are lifeless fixate purely on bodily and worldly life as their goals. They do not know what eternal life is or what the Lord is. If they have heard about these, they have no belief in them.
  Those who are spiritual focus first on eternal life as their goal, and then on the Lord.

  Those who are heavenly concentrate first on the Lord as their goal, and then on his kingdom and eternal life.

  (3) When the lifeless undergo conflict, they almost always give in. When they are free of conflict, evil and falsity master them, and they are slaves to it. Their restraints are external and include fear of the law and fear of losing their life, wealth, profits, and consequent reputation.

  The spiritual are subject to conflict, but they always win. The restraints that curb them are internal ones termed the bonds of conscience.

  Heavenly people experience no conflict. If evil and falsity attack them, they spurn them, which is why they are called victors. They have no apparent restraints to curb them, being free, but they do have invisible restraints, which are the goodness and truth they perceive.

In other words, Swedenborg sees the stories as dealing with three stages in the spiritual development of an individual person, and also of humankind as a whole.

Stage 1: The worldly person, who is spiritually lifeless

The first stage, he says, is represented by the state of creation just after the initial creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:

  The earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep. (Genesis 1:2)

The formlessness, void, and darkness, he says, is the spiritual formlessness, void, and darkness of people who have not yet been regenerated, or spiritually born again. This is where all of us start, and it is also where the earliest human beings on earth also started as a group.

Stage 2: The spiritual person, prompted by faith

He then interprets the first Creation story of Genesis 1 as referring to our reformation into spiritually aware and enlightened beings, who live a good life based on faith, belief, and understanding. This first Creation story is complete in us when we believe in God and live a good life because we know it is the right thing to do, and we know and understand that this is what God has commanded us to do for our own good.

The first Creation story, then, focuses on the rebirth and reformation of our mind and our understanding.

Stage 3: The heavenly person, prompted by love

The second Creation story, by contrast, Swedenborg says, focuses on the rebirth of our heart, our love, and our will.

When we have reformed our life and our thinking about life based on faith and an understanding of the goodness and rightness of God's laws and God's commandments, our spiritual rebirth or re-creation process moves deeper, to the level of our heart and what we love and feel joy in. That is what takes place in the second Creation story, in Swedenborg's interpretation of it.

When this third stage of our spiritual re-creation is complete, we live a good life, not merely because we know and understand that it is the right thing to do—which is a rather intellectual and therefore relatively superficial type of spiritual life—but rather because we feel the love of God in our heart, and this prompts us to spontaneously and warmly love both God and our fellow human beings. So our spiritual life is moved not just by faith and understanding, but even more by a warm and burning love in our heart that prompts us to want and do everything good for the people around us.

This brings God's heavenly kingdom into fruition in and around those who reach this stage of spiritual rebirth.

References to the full exegesis

This is a necessarily brief and sketchy account of Swedenborg's detailed exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2, which he sees as a sort of "preface" to the Bible, providing a summary in two short chapters of everything that follows in the entire Bible.

You can read his fuller exegesis of these chapters in an older translation online at the links below. All linked numbers are from Swedenborg's Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven"). Subsequent section numbers can be read sequentially by clicking the "Next" button below each section.

His exegesis of Genesis 1 starts with a preface in #1, and the exegesis proper starts with a summary of the spiritual meaning in #6, followed by a detailed exegesis starting in #14.

His exegesis of Genesis 2 starts with a summary in #73, followed by a detailed exegesis starting in #81.

For a more modern and readable translation, I recommend the New Century Edition, which is available as a free download from the publisher's website here.

Summary and conclusion

In this chronological understanding of the two Creation stories:

When the human being is first created in Genesis 1:27–28, it represents our creation as spiritually aware human beings prompted by faith and an understanding of God's commandments as being good and right for us to follow.

When the human being is created second, in Genesis 2:7, it represents our creation as heavenly human beings, meaning people who are moved primarily by love for God and love for the neighbor, and who live a good life as prompted and motivated by that love. This, Swedenborg says, is God's ultimate goal for us, and completes our process of being born again as new creations in the image and likeness of God.


In what language was the Book of Matthew written?

It's hard to know for certain, but there are very good reasons to believe all four gospels were written in Greek. However, according to the earliest Christian tradition, Matthew was written in Hebrew.
Papias, an early second century bishop and a disciple of the Apostle John, is our earliest witness to the tradition that Matthew was the author of this gospel.

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, elaborated on this.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

All four gospels were originally published anonymously, and it is only through the testimony of these two second century bishops that we attribute this gospel to Matthew. If we take their testimony at face value, then we might say the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
Parallels between Matthew and Mark
However, the Gospel of Matthew in its current form—that is, the one that appears in every copy of the New Testament going back to the oldest surviving copies—was almost certainly written in Greek.
As Dick Harfield mentions in his answer, we find close parallels between Matthew and Mark in several places. In this example from the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8 || Mark 9:2-8) I have bolded exact parallels and italicized words and expressions that the later writer has modified.

Matthew 17:1-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!" When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Get up and do not be afraid." And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.
Mark 9:2-8
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!" Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.

Although these are not exact copies of each other, the presence of so many exact phrases is a strong indication that one author used the other as a source. There are good reasons to believe that Matthew used Mark as a source, and not the other way around.
Differences between Matthew and Mark
First, there are a number of passages where Matthew elaborates on what is written in Mark. For example, compare their accounts of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Again, I have bolded exact parallels and italicized words and expressions that the later writer has modified.

Mark 1:-12-13
And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.
Matthew 4:1-11
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." But he answered, "It is written, "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, "He will command his angels concerning you,' and "On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.' " Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' " Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! for it is written, "Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.' " Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him.

It is hard to see why Mark might have left out these details if he had them available. The more likely explanation is that Matthew added them.
In some places, Mark displays an apparent lack of geographical knowledge. In Mark 5:1 Jesus is said to have crossed the sea of Galilee to "the country of the Gerasenes". The parallel in Matthew 8:28 says "the country of the Gadarenes". Gadara (modern Umm Qais) is located by the sea of Galilee, while Gerasa (modern Jerash) is more than 30 miles away.
Following the feeding of the four thousand, Mark 8:10 states that Jesus got in his boat and went to a place called Dalmanutha. This name is not mentioned anywhere else in ancient writings, and no town by that name has ever been uncovered. Matthew 15:39 says Jesus went to Magadan (or Magdala in some manuscripts).
It's hard to imagine why Mark would choose the words "Gerasenes" and "Dalmanutha" if he had a copy of Matthew's gospel in front of him. The more likely explanation is that Matthew corrected what he recognized as errors.
Conclusion
So how do we reconcile the evidence that Matthew used the Greek Gospel of Mark as a source with the tradition that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic?
One possible explanation is that Papias and Irenaeus are referring to an early gospel written by Mathew in Hebrew, and that the book we know as the Gospel of Matthew drew upon this (or a translation of it) to supplement the information he got from Mark. Since we have no surviving Hebrew manuscript, it's hard to say how likely this is. But in either case, the gospel that made it into the Bible with Matthew's name was composed in Greek.


It isn't entirely clear whether you're asking what is the purpose of all Creation or just of human life.  Either way, the fundamental answer is the same: for His glory.

Isaiah 43:7

  Everyone who is called by My name, whom I have created for My glory

Psalm 19:1

  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His
  handiwork.

Romans 1:20

  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are
  clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His
  eternal power and Godhead...

Isaiah 45:18

  For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who
  formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not
  create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited...

Putting all of the above pieces together, all of Creation was made to bring glory to God, but more specifically, man was created to appreciate the glory of God, and the Earth to enable the creation of mankind.


Why do non believers hate being confronted with the truth?

Jesus answered that question for you:

  Mark 6:11  And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!"

God himself will not interfere with man's free will, otherwise we would all still be in the garden of Eden. Each man or woman chooses their own destiny. And that is just how God wants it to be.

There is an ongoing argument about predestination, and whether God created some people as fodder for the fire, but according to Jesus that was not God's intent.

  Matthew 18:14  Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

Jesus gave us the Great commission which is to preach the word to all the Nations, not to force salvation onto anyone.


Why did Ezekiel say that God gave laws to the people that were not good?

Ezekiel 20:25 is not referring to any laws which God had decreed, but the laws which the people had made on their own.  Since the people would not follow God's laws, he left them to their own laws.  For instance, the NLT says "I gave them over to worthless decrees and regulations that would not lead to life."

The laws he is referring to here are the ones from verse 18.

  Ezekiel 20:18 NIV
  18 I said to their children in the wilderness, “Do not follow the
  statutes of your parents or keep their laws or defile yourselves with
  their idols."


What was at issue in the Clark-Van Til controversy?

Theological issues
To get it straight from the horses' mouths, you can read Van Til's complaint [PDF] and Clark's answer [PDF] online. Both are very long and in-depth and also spend a good deal of time on procedural matters before getting to the theological. But if you really want to know and understand the ins and outs of what was at stake, primary sources are usually the best way to go.
With that being said, the paper The Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til Controversy by Jared Moore [PDF/MP3] gives a good distillation of the controversy:

Clark believed that man's knowledge and God's knowledge are quantitatively different but not qualitatively different. Instead of a two-fold theory of truth, he believed that truth is one. If man knows an item of truth, and both God and man know the identical item, then on this item God's knowledge and man's knowledge coincide. Yet, man can never know exhaustively and completely God's knowledge of any truth in all its relationships and implications because man is not omniscient. Every truth has an infinite number of relationships and implications and these implications in turn have other infinite implications. Thus, man's knowledge will forever remain quantitatively less than God's knowledge, even in Heaven.
Furthermore, Clark believed that God is logic. His paraphrase of John : was, "In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. . . In Logic was life and the life was the light of men." To Clark, "God and logic are one and the same first principle, for John wrote that Logic was God." Thus, he held that Scripture is a part of God's mind. And if God has spoken in Scripture, He has spoken logically in logical organization. Since man was made in God's image, he can receive this logical knowledge of God because "human reason is not so much human as divine." Clark believed that truth is the same for God and man. He wrote, "Naturally, we may not know the truth about some matters. But if we know anything at all, what we must know must be identical with what God knows. God knows all truth, and unless we know something God knows, our ideas are untrue. It is absolutely essential therefore to insist that there is an area of coincidence between God's mind and our mind." Thus, Clark believed that Van Til could never say he knows truth since he never knows anything as God knows it.
Van Til, on the other hand, believed that there is a Creator/creature distinction between God and man that makes God quantitatively and qualitatively incomprehensible to man. He argued that God's knowledge of Himself is archetype knowledge. God also has an analogical knowledge of His archetype knowledge, which is God's ectype knowledge. God has given man in His revelation, His Scripture, analogical knowledge of His ectype knowledge. Scripture is the ectype of the ectype knowledge of the archetype knowledge of God. Thus, man knows nothing of God's archetype knowledge since he is not God. Man can never know anything as Creator; man can only know as creature. Nevertheless, because man's knowledge of God as revealed in Scripture is analogous to or an interpretation of God's ectype knowledge—which is analogous to or an interpretation of God's archetype knowledge—Scripture is God's truth revealed to man. Scripture is an accurate interpretation of God's knowledge because God is the Interpreter. However, man's knowledge of Scripture is always a creaturely knowledge. God's knowledge and man's knowledge are always qualitatively and quantitatively different. All revelation is anthropomorphic. If man knows as God knows, then man is God. Thus, Van Til saw a fatal flaw in Clark's doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God.

The issues therefore had to do with epistemology, God's incomprehensibility, and the creator-creature distinction. In addition to the documents I already linked, Moore's paper cites Clark's essay "The Axiom of Revelation," which is included in the anthology The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, and Van Til's books Defense of the Faith and Introduction to Systematic Theology as case studies of their overarching philosophies.
Moore's paper has a long section on historical narrative of the controversy, which should prove useful if you want to delve deeper. I'm told Herman Hoeksema's book The Clark-Van Til Controversy is also a good read on the topic, but Hoeksema is said to have a detectable pro-Clark bias throughout (but probably not as pronounced as Moore's pro-Van Til bias). Interestingly, Hoeksema's opponent in the common grace controversy, Abraham Kuyper, was one of the formative influences on Van Til.
Why did it matter so much?
As for why these issues were a big enough deal to justify driving Clark out of the OPC, Moore's paper has an answer for that too:

The implications of Clark's theology undermined the Reformed Faith when taken to their consistent end. When the Creator/creature distinction is compromised, and man believes he can eliminate Scriptural paradoxes and comprehend all Scripture logically, the consistent end is a denial of the Christology expressed in the Chalcedonian Creed and the Westminster Confession. ... Clark's eventual rejection of God the Son's single personhood justified Van Til's original concerns, for if Clark's conclusions were taken to their consistent end in the OPC, the result would be a denial of orthodox Christology.

Specifically, Clark apparently ended up confessing that Christ subsisted in two persons, though there are many who defend Clark's orthodoxy even on this point, claiming that he was defining "person" differently from the historic confessions, and that his work can be read as consistent with them.
The Clark-Van Til divide today
These days, Clark and Van Til are both widely respected in Presbyterian and reformed circles, both as theologians and as presuppositional apologists. But one of the lasting legacies of the controversy is that their brands of presuppositionalism are recognized as different: see Van Tillian presuppositionalism versus Clarkian presuppositionalism.
After Clark's exit from the OPC, he joined a denomination that, many mergers later, became the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod. In 1982, the RPCES merged with the Presbyterian Church in America. Partly because a merger between the PCA and OPC appeared to be on the horizon (though it never came to fruition), Clark refused to join the PCA and joined the breakaway Covenant Presbytery (which later called itself the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States) in 1983.
Those in the OPC tend to be Van Tillians, unsurprisingly, but from what I understand, denomination isn't otherwise a reliable indicator of support for Clark or Van Til. John Frame and Francis Schaeffer are two of the well-known theologians who have been heavily influenced by Van Til. For his part, Frame said that "the controversy was really unnecessary and largely based on misunderstanding. Van Til in my view was at his worst when he was debating with other Christian apologists." On the other side, John Robbins' Trinity Foundation consciously and proudly stands in the Clarkian tradition.


Why is "Your will be done" not redundant?

The Lord's prayer as our daily statement of purpose and petition for support

My faith tells me that everything happens according to the Lord's will anyway, so why pray asking for this to happen if I believe that this is the only thing that can ever happen in any circumstances anyway?

I know you didn't mean it, but your statement implies fate / destiny, as though we have no role in God's will.  But in Christianity we are active participants, God's hands and feet in this world so to speak, in advancing His Kingdom on earth, battling Satan's forces that want to reduce His Kingdom.  A believer sees a Christian life as a battleground, as many hymns describe such as Onward Christian Soldiers.
Thus, when we say "Your will be done", it is NOT an intellectual statement about God's sovereignty / power, but it's a soldier's decision to enlist in God's army.  The full text is "Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."  God is fully established in heaven, but not yet on earth since Satan is still allowed to operate.  By saying that, as a member of God's army we declare our readiness to fight TODAY as well stating our petition for "Give us our daily bread" because we cannot fight on our own resources.
It is as though God asks us in the morning: are you willing to fight for me today?  God only asks for willing soldiers, because He respects our free will.  By saying "Your Kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" we declare our stance with God, similar to a pledge of allegiance to a country, that "Yes, I'm with you, and I want to fight your cause in the world for the glory of your kingdom on earth."
In doing this we are imitating Jesus at Gethsemane, at the hardest stage of His own battle with evil:

"Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine."

The other 2 elements of the Lord's prayer are also present in Jesus's Gethsemane's passage as well (see Luke 22:39-46): daily bread (angels strengthening Jesus) and dealing with temptation.  Jesus had a choice: go with the war plan, or quit.  Just as he was successful against Satan's temptation during the 40 day fasting in the desert, he made a decision to align his own will with God's will, relying on God's strengthening.  That's the full meaning when we pray the Lord's prayer.
God's will and Our will
OP Comment (emphasis mine)

We make plans, and we change them occasionally. But God knows what we will finally do, in every case. None of our actions can alter His will, this is one of the things I believe most firmly - nobody's actions can prevent the will of God from being done, it is impossible.

Within Christianity there are different models of reconciling God's foreknowledge, our freedom of will (subjectively experienced), and God's providence (which includes various types of God's will).  Arminian, Reformed, and Catholic theologies each has their own model resulted from each tradition's various level of human depravity as well as various level of determinism of God's will.
Therefore the statement "None of our actions can alter His will" is not strictly true in the Arminian's view of God's providence which I answered here.  In Arminian theology there is a larger role of human's participation in God's plan to the extent that God will work around our free will !  The motto is "God is in charge but not in control."
It's unfortunate that Christianity in the West has degenerated into intellectualism, but if we carefully read the Bible (both OT and NT), God demands an action response, not just intellectual agreement.  Human being consists of reason, will, and emotion and it only makes sense that God doesn't want compartmentalization but our full being.  Jesus keeps asking "follow me".  Paul keeps exhorting "imitate me to be slave of Jesus Christ".  James emphasizes "faith without works is dead".  All believers are then called to purify our character (with the help of the Holy Spirit) and doing service in the world (with God's grace and opening of doors).  So it makes total sense to say the Lord's prayer as a prelude to action, a full human response to God's gift of salvation instead of merely an intellectual statement about God's will.


Who shall not taste of death? Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27

The Answer of "who" is found by cross referencing John 8:51

  Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.”

The "how" is answered later in john 11:25-25

  25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

So i think this is one place where the specific wording is very important, Jesus promises the believer will not "Taste" death. or "see" death.
 Taste is used sometimes as a metaphor for "Intimate experience with".

So while Believers bodies will die, we will not "Taste" death. there will be no experience of "deadness" or "being dead". or as the old testament calls it, we will not be stuck "In the place of the dead". (sheol)

Just like the ancient Israelites we will be "Passed Over" by the Spirit of Death, having the Blood of the Lamb as our covering.

Also good to note that the Apostle Peter, in 2 Peter 1:16-17

  16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

So here, Peter, who knows he will die for Christ (John 21- a great reference for this topic.) Explains that he is an eye witness of the coming of Christ, he counts himself as already having seen the glory to come, because of the brief previews he got during the transfiguration, and the voice from heaven.


What is the biblical basis for seeing Saint Peter at the gates of heaven?

This view is based primarily on Matthew 16:18–19, in which Jesus says:

  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (ESV)

When this concept of "keys" belonging to Peter is combined with the teaching from Revelation 21:12, that the New Jerusalem has walls and gates, it's not a huge leap to see Peter as being the gatekeeper of heaven, who allows entrance to some but not others.

However, this is as explicit as the Bible itself gets on this question.  There are a few other sources for Petrine authority, like Matthew 18:18, but the popular image of Peter standing at the pearly gates is a later interpretation or extrapolation of the scriptures.  Leading church historian Everett Ferguson identifies a possible source:

  The passage [Matthew 16:18–19] moves from a building, to gates, to keys.
   A popular image has Peter as the doorkeeper of heaven, deciding admission through the pearly gates to each person at death.  This understanding of Peter goes back to an early medieval interpretation that identified Peter with a figure in Germanic mythology who was the porter of heaven. (The Church of Christ, 53)

Numerous others make the same connection between the passage and the popular imagery, like Miriam Van Scott in Encyclopedia of Heaven, 208 and Howard Clarke, who ties this imagery to medieval drama (The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers, 146).


How does Free Grace Theology reconcile 1 John?

I recommend you read Zane Hodges' book "The Gospel Under Siege" for a full answer to this question, as he deals with 1 John. I am fully convinced that 1 John is a letter to believers and is a test of fellowship, not a test of life. When it says in the original greek that they are "not of God" it is referring to their fellowship with God, not whether they are saved or not.


Why do we use the name "Jesus" if the apostles did not use it?

Your question seems to be referring to:

  And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. - Acts 4:12 ESV

Which in context is referring to the name given in verse 10:

  let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. (ESV, emphasis added)

Given this, your focus (while not actually explicit) can only be on the issue of whether this translation of the name of the Lord is correct. The context of verse 10 particularly the 'of Nazareth' component, reveals the Apostle Peter is denoting a person who is identifiable by that name and description.  The significance of the name is tied directly to the person it refers to.  Since 'all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved' indeed from 'every tribe and tongue and nation', the appropriate name for them to use to call on him, must be the name used to identify that person in their language.


What verses focus on the prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus being pierced on the cross?

The usual reference for what we currently have in the Biblical Canon is from Zechariah 12:10.  From the KJV, emphasis added:

  And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.


Richard Ostella, pastor of Westminster Reformed Church and adjunct professor at Michigan Theological Seminary, wrote a series of articles The Excellence of Christian Love on 1 Cor 12:31-13:13.  The last article, 14. Heaven: A World of Love with Faith and Hope (1 Cor. 13:13), has quotes from well-published and respected Reformed scholar D.A. Carson who wrote a 1987 book Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 which includes detailed exegesis used by Richard Ostella.
Both scholars point out that although "and now" in 1 Cor 13:13 can be understood temporally (where faith is contrasted with sight per 2 Cor 5:7 and hope is swallowed up in realization per Rom 8:24-25), "and now" can also be understood logically to mean "and thus" or "therefore".
Skipping further exegetical portion to the conclusion, here's quotes from Richard Ostella's article (emphasis mine):

EXPLANATION (WHAT IT MEANS FOR THESE THREE TO ABIDE FOREVER)
Carson says some helpful things about hope and faith as “eternal, permanent virtues” (Showing the Spirit 75). With regard to hope, he states, “there is a sense in which hope is not merely the anticipation of the blessings to come, an anticipation no longer needed once those blessings have arrived, but a firm anchor in Christ himself. Our hope is in God, in Christ; and as such, hope continues forever, doubtless opening up an infinity of new depths of blessing, world without end” (74). So he asks the penetrating question, “Will we stop looking forward in anticipation to what is ahead once we begin to enjoy the new heaven and the new earth?” (74). The implied answer is obvious, “no we will not stop looking forward in anticipation.” With regard to faith he comments, “It is true that in one sense faith will be displaced by sight. But there is another sense in which faith is simply thankful trust in God, deep appreciation for him, committed subservience to him. Will there be any time in the next fifty billion years (if I may speak of eternity in the categories of time) during which the very basis of my presence in the celestial courts will be something other than faith in the grace of God?” (74-75).
Carson makes a great point here about “an infinity of new depths of blessings, world without end” that will continue out in front of us forever. There is a richness of glory beyond words. Or put another way, there is a richness to come in glory about which our words will be “in a perpetual state of beginning.” We will always find ourselves in the awesome wonder of knowing that we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what God has prepared for us.
This sounds like an incompleteness of knowing akin to that developed in verses 8-12. But perhaps this informs us that the contrast of the now and the not yet is not exactly one of incompleteness to completeness but of very immature and dim incompleteness in contrast to mature and face to face “incompleteness.”
Incompleteness here is perhaps over stating in a way that does not keep in flow with verses 8-12. For in heaven, it is all there before us “face to face” but our grasp of the depths will be such that “an infinity of new depths” of glory will be forever at our finger tips. So, to try to avoid confusing knowing in part to knowing fully we have to stress the fact that the partial refers to a circumscribed and limited content regarding what may be known. Even with sixty-six books, what may be known objectively of special revelation is limited. But perfection will involve unlimited content as we behold the Lord in all His glory face to face. For Luther, our present state is like seeing the sun through a cloud because we cannot bear to look at the Lord’s brilliant majesty but the cloud will be removed and the Lord will unveil Himself (Cited by C. Brown, Miracles, 14).
This fact that hope abides into the unending future is a marvelous thought in itself. It is part of the blessing of heaven that the entry point is not a terminal point but a beginning point that opens a vast array of infinite blessings before our wondering eyes. Therefore, one of the good things of heaven is the fact that we will always have hope because there will always be things to anticipate, new depths to plummet, and new heights to scale. A fundamental quality of heaven will be expectation of greater things still to come. A profound experience of expectation will give a spring to every step that is taken in the heavenly realm.
Before this study of 1 Corinthians 13, I tended to think that the first step in heaven is the one that carries with it the greatest sense of anticipation and expectation. But this text shows us that our anticipation of the first step we will take in heaven is far lower and inferior to the anticipation that will fill our hearts to the brim beyond that first step. This is so because our expectation now is in part, immature, and dimly lit. Once we take that first step in glory into the presence of our Lord and to seeing face to face, then every subsequent step will be filled with face to face anticipation and expectation that is far superior to the dimly lit anticipation and expectation that we now have.


"The Son of Man", Jesus' favorite designation of himself, in view of Numbers 23:19-20?

Since I was the OP of the original question I believe the following is a partial answer.First of all, I totally disagree with the frequent denial of historical Jesus.

The answer of  @the dark wanderer, "the most common answer to your question is that what you have found is just another Biblical indication of The Mystery of Faith (i.e. the Trinity)", reflects the Christological perspective of what is called Pauline Christianity ( not in a derogate way here) or Trinitarian Christianity as apposed to Unitarian Christianity.

Pauline Christianity perspective on the phrase Son of man is that it is, I gather, a possible affirmation of Jesus humanity as the title Son of God affirms his divinity. Jesus as the Son of God is essential to Trinitarian Christian creed since the first century AD. In contrast, Jesus as the Son of man was never part of Trinitarian Christianity creed.

That is said, in the Hebrew Bible the expression "son of man" (בן–אדם, ben-'adam) also appears  far more times.
The use of the article the in "the Son of man" in the Koine Greek of the Christian canonical four gospels is not found in any old Greek documents . Geza Vermes says the  Christian canonical four gospels usage "the" son of man is not found in the Hebrew Bible , suggesting that the term origin is Aramaic ברנש, bar nash/bar nasha. He concludes that " in these sources "Son of man" is a regular expression for man in general and often serves as an indefinite pronoun and in none of the extant texts does "son of man" figure as a title." jewishencyclopedia elaborates:

"Among Jews the term "son of man" was not used as the specific title of the Messiah. The New Testament expression ὅ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρόπου is a translation of the Aramaic "bar nasha," and as such could have been understood only as the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as emphasizing the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. That the term does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul is significant. Psalm viii. 5-7 is quoted in Ḥeb. ii. 6 as referring to Jesus, but outside the Gospels, Acts vii. 56 is the only verse in the New Testament in which the title is employed; and here it may be a free translation of the Aramaic for "a man," or it may have been adopted from Luke xxii. 69. n the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most of the recent writers (among them being II. Lietzmann) have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the "son of man" in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this meaning. Greek translators coined the phrase, which then led, under the influence of Dan. vii. 13 and the Logos gospel, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the Christology of the Church."

But still I don't feel I have a satisfactory answer to my original answer and of course yours.This why it is important not to hasten to close questions.This way we will never learn anything.

For farther readings:

Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister E. McGrath (2010)

Addendum: @the dark wanderer statement "docetism hasn't been resurrected as modern heresy for a while, those Muslims commit a modified form of this heresy in saying that Christ was never really crucified, he just created an illusion that appeared to be" is a misstatement based on misunderstanding of both Decetism and Islamic creed about Jesus Christ. Muslims do not say that Jesus Christ made it appear he was crucified.They say 'they slew him not for certain', i.e. he did not die in the cross for certain (that is at least my understanding).


Does Catholicism have a notion of "the God in me"?

Sister Simone kindly responded to my email asking this question. She said:

  "If I just said Holy Spirit, it would slide over like water. Also to an interfaith audience who doesn't necessarily hold a Trinitarian faith it seemed more inclusive to me. I also know that God continues to create us at every moment so it isn't just the "image" of God but God who keeps us loved and alive."


What is the Biblical and historical basis for Christian pacifism?

The Biblical pacifist argument is usually founded in the Sermon on the Mount, which is held to prohibit any kind of violence (going beyond the law of Moses):

But I tell you, "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39, NIV)
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)

The Quaker philosopher Robert Barclay wrote in his Apology for the True Christian Divinity (1675), ch. 15:

Whoever can reconcile this, "Resist not evil", with "Resist violence by force", again, "Give also thy other cheek", with "Strike again"; also "Love thine enemies", with "Spoil them, make a prey of them, pursue them with fire and the sword", or "Pray for those that persecute you, and those that calumniate you", with "Persecute them by fines, imprisonments and death itself", whoever, I say, can find a means to reconcile these things may be supposed also to have found a way to reconcile God with the Devil, Christ with Antichrist, Light with Darkness, and good with evil. But if this be impossible, as indeed it is impossible, so will also the other be impossible, and men do but deceive both themselves and others, while they boldly adventure to establish such absurd and impossible things.

He also appeals to John 18:36 ("My kingdom is not of this world") and 2 Corinthians 10:4 ("The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this world") among other passages from the Bible, as well as from the Church Fathers (like Jerome: "The Church was founded by shedding of blood, and by suffering, and not in doing of hurt. The Church increased by persecutions, and was crowned by martyrdom").
Regarding Paul's words in Romans 13, Barclay argues (in ch. 14) that the state has no authority over matters of Christian conscience. This is justified in that Paul was writing about Nero, who was not Christian, and therefore incapable of being a proper judge of what it is right for Christians to do. If Nero had unlimited authority then "in doing thereof he was not to be blamed; which is enough to justify him in his persecuting of the apostles, and murdering the Christians". If Nero had asked Paul to stop preaching the gospel, and to worship the Roman gods instead, would he really have done so? In fact, Paul was imprisoned and executed instead.
Equally, in the text, Paul was advising Christians what to do when governmental authority is brought to bear against them. He is not giving carte blanche to Christians in government to do whatever they like. Barclay says:

If the magistrate be truly a Christian, or desires to be so, he ought himself in the first place to obey the command of his Master, saying, "Love your enemies," &c., and then he could not command us to kill them: but if he be not a true Christian, then ought we to obey our Lord and King Jesus Christ, to whom he ought also to obey: for in the Kingdom of Christ all ought to submit to his laws, from the highest to the lowest, that is, from the king to the beggar, and from Caesar to the clown.

One argument among pacifists is whether one is obliged to submit to the government's punishment for refusing to take up arms, or whether it is acceptable to, say, flee to another country. Paul's words here are sometimes quoted in support of the former position.


Why did Clement of Alexandria say that the name of Jesus, Iesous, has a Greek origin, not a Hebrew one?

From the Wikipedia article in the original post:

  The English form of the name "Jesus" is derived from the Latin Iēsus, which in turn comes from the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs). The Greek is a Hellenized form of the Hebrew name Yēšua (ישוע), which is in turn a shortened form of Hebrew Yehōšua (יהושע) or "Joshua" in English.

"Iesous" is not a Greek translation of the Hebrew "Yehosua", because it isn't a Greek word that means the same thing as the Hebrew word.  It is, rather, a transliteration, an adaptation of the word itself to the Greek alphabet and Greek word-building conventions.  (An example of translation would be Christos, from which we take the word "Christ."  It means the same thing in Greek as Messiah means in Hebrew, despite being very different actual words.)

It's not uncommon for words to be slightly mangled in transliteration, especially between languages with different alphabets.  For example, have you ever been to a Chinese restaurant and seen Peking duck on the menu? If you look at a map of China today, you won't find a place called "Peking" anywhere, because in the 1950s China came up with a new system of transliterating Chinese names to the Latin alphabet to more closely match the way the names are supposed to sound, and these days the city that used to be known as Peking in English is now written as "Beijing."