What do 1st century extra-biblical sources say about hell?

Early Christians:

Epistle of Barnabas (70 - 130 AD):

  The way of darkness is crooked, and it is full of cursing. It is the
  way of eternal death with punishment. (“Epistle of Barnabas”)

Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD):

  Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if
  they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death. how much
  more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God. for the sake
  of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart
  into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him. (Letter
  to the Ephesians 16:1-2)

Clement of Rome (150 AD):

  If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we
  neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal
  punishment (“Second Clement” 5:5)

  But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus
  by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in
  unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have
  endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory
  to their God saying, 'There shall be hope for him that has served God
  with all his heart!' (“Second Clement” 17:7)

The Martyrdom of Polycarp (155 AD):

  Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised
  worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To
  them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before
  their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire
  (“Martyrdom of Polycarp” 2:3)

Irenaeus (189 AD):

  Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according
  to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things
  in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that
  every tongue should confess' to Him, and that He should execute just
  judgment towards all; that He may send 'spiritual wickednesses,' and
  the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the
  ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into
  everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer
  immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His
  commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning
  of their Christian course, and others from the date of their
  repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. (“Against
  Heresies” 1:10:10)

  The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God
  and despise his coming. . . . [I]t is not merely temporal, but
  eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed
  ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever
  (“Against Heresies” 4:28:2)

Tertullian (197 AD):

  These have further set before us the proofs He has given of His
  majesty in judgments by floods and fires, the rules appointed by Him
  for securing His favor, as well as the retribution in store for the
  ignoring, forsaking and keeping them, as being about at the end of all
  to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the
  doom of fire at once without ending and without break, raising up
  again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them
  with the object of awarding either recompense. (“Apology” 18:3)

  Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just
  deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and
  evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and
  unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor
  resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now,
  without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God,
  clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those
  who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally
  unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire,
  divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility (“Apology” 44:12–13)

  Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated
  resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still
  unchanged--the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the
  proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not
  true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the
  punishment of everlasting fire--that fire which, from its very nature
  indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility. ("Apology"
  48:12)

There are many more but I think these should help you.

As for Jewish sources, I am still looking for sources. Once I do, I will post them here.

I am still looking for good material from the 1st century about hell from Jewish sources. It just so happens that the concept of Heaven and Hell is a more Christian concept than it ever was Jewish and rabbis have had very little to say, if anything at all, over the vast history of Judaism (which is still a lot but little compared to Christianity). Anyway, I found this page that you will find helpful, I think:

Heaven and Hell in Jewish Tradition.

Excerpt from the above link:

  There are, however, several biblical references to a place called
  Sheol (cf. Numbers 30, 33). It is described as a region "dark and
  deep," "the Pit," and "the Land of Forgetfulness," where human beings
  descend after death. The suggestion is that in the netherworld of
  Sheol, the deceased, although cut off from God and humankind, live on
  in some shadowy state of existence.   While this vision of Sheol is
  rather bleak (setting precedents for later Jewish and Christian ideas
  of an underground hell) there is generally no concept of judgment or
  reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic
  books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of
  the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave
  or free man (Job 3:11-19).

And then:

  The development of the concept of life after death is related to the
  development of eschatology (speculation about the "end of days") in
  Judaism. Beginning in the period following the destruction of the
  First Temple in Jerusalem (586 BCE), several of the classical
  Israelite prophets (Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah) began forecasting a
  better future for their people.   However, with repeated military
  defeats and episodes of exile and dislocation culminating in the
  destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jewish thinkers began to
  lose hope in any immediate change, instead investing greater
  expectations in a messianic future and in life after death. This was
  coupled with the introduction into Judaism of Hellenistic notions of
  the division of the material, perishable body and the spiritual,
  eternal soul.    The catastrophe of 70 CE caused a theological crisis.
  How could it be that the God of Israel would simply allow His
  sanctuary to be destroyed and His people to be vanquished at the hands
  of the Roman Empire? While the rabbis often claimed that it was the
  Israelites' sinfulness that led God to allow it to be defeated
  (mi-p'nei hataeinu, "because of our sins"), it was more difficult to
  explain why good and decent individual Jews were made to suffer.

It talks about Jewish "tradition" but that's because the Tanakh does not address heaven and hell, as we understand it, in much detail.

The above is not in any way "the" Jewish belief. Its just an article giving you insight into some of the thought and discussions of the Talmud and the rabbis.

If and when I find direct quotes, I will put them here. But I really hope this helps you in your study/research.


They became "wise" in that they now knew (the difference of) Good and Evil. The tree is explicitly called Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so we should assume it is right that eating the fruit conferred that knowledge. This is also confirmed by them having a different view on their nakedness after eating the fruit.

So, yes, that fruit did confer knowledge of Good and Evil on them.


What do Protestant churches teach about the fate of deceased infants?

The salvation of infants within Protestant denominations cover a wide range of alternate views.  The subject is closely related to different view of infant baptism but not identical. To avoid the subject of how baptism has its role in the subject, I would like to limit the scenario to a child that dies before having a chance of being baptized.

To keep things simple I would like to first list the main concepts involved that divide the views depending on the persons emphasis or belief in the principle ideas.

Virtually all protestants believe in original sin, therefore infants do need salvation.
Some believe that God can and does infuse a germ of faith into the soul of an infant at any age, regardless of the child's disposition or own will through irresistible grace. (This would be more common with Luther and Calvin and is similar to regenerating baptism)
Some believe in point (2) above but only for the elect. (This would be more common among Calvinistic Reformed Churches who put an emphasis on election. Some Baptists might lean in this direction also.)
Some believe faith is not even required for those assumed too young to sin of their own conscious choice and that faith is only required in those who are old enough to sin on their own accord. In other words everyone receives Christ until they reject Him. (This can be popular among almost any evangelical churches including Baptist, possibly less frequent in the traditional Lutheran)
Some believe (3) but that faith is not infused in the infant but counted for what God could foresee if the child were to have lived. In this sense there is allowance of what would have been under different conditions which might possibly be part of God's hidden reasons for the election in the first place. However, strictly speaking most classical Calvinists would oppose that idea for anything remotely implying that God's election has anything to do with man must be excluded. Therefore they revert back to simple infused irresistible grace. Yet, nevertheless even hyper Calvinists might hold this belief that God's foreknowledge of different circumstances 'may' be involved as they can't see how God's knowledge can be excluded from any of his decisions. Pushing the idea of foreknowledge towards an actual full reason for election is where Armenians and Methodists are usually found.
Some believe in point (2) but not just for the elect but practically speaking for those children of parents who are believers that baptize their children as infants. (I know I said I would exclude baptism but just as a branch of common ground I raise this one concept as virtually ceremonializing who is elect with respect to children.) This would be common in traditional and somewhat ceremonial churches like some Lutheran, some Anglican, I think some Presbyterian but am not sure. Some traditional reformed churches also I think might lean in this direction. The other varient of this of course is a mixture with (4). Under the mixed view, once an infant is too old, the security of baptism might 'wear off' so to speak and confirmation is needed.  The reason is that an age of innocence has passed, whereby their were protected from their parents faith and baptism and now must believe or reject the gospel for themselves.

Why so many views? Because the Bible does not directly deal with the question or the answer. It is to be expected that where the Bible does not directly lay out a specific view directed to the subject of infant deaths, or at least not do so in an obvious way, naturally various different views will develop. The bible puts its focus on those who are able to choose and believe, or reject the offer of eternal life. If this makes someone feel frustrated it might be worth noticing that we really can't know for sure who are genuine Christians or not anyway. We can only obtain assurance for our own soul for our own condition. So if a child dies at 1 month or 40 years, we can only hope for their soul anyway. Our faith and hope must be placed in God, both for ourselves and for others.

References
I have managed to find a good reference that seems to more or less categorize the different Protestant beliefs as I have done. All quotes from Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Norman L. Geisler, P360-365)

Baptized Infants Only

  This view is held by sacramentalists, who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. Some Roman Catholics, some Lutherans, and Anglicans espouse the position.

Elect Infants

  The elect infant view has not found a home outside of very strong Calvinistic circles.

Those God “Foreknows.”

  According to this position, God, as an omniscient Being, foreknew which infants would have believed if they had lived long enough.

All Infants

  Since the seventeenth century the view that all infants are saved has become the most popular in varying theological traditions. Some believe that all infants will eventually believe. Others believe that God will save infants apart from the condition that they would believe.


For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
[2 Corinthians 5:10 KJV]

The thought that life is a testing process is fundamental, I would say, to cultures and ideologies throughout the world in all generations.
And it is a fundamental thought, I would say, in every Christian mind.
To prove whether or not it is, however, would require a vast amount of research and documentation and citation.
Which is why I prefer to just quote the scripture and to add a paragraph from the Westminster Confession :

Good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:c and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,d strengthen their assurance,e edify their brethren,f adorn the profession of the gospel,g stop the mouths of the adversaries,h and glorify God,i whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto;k that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

Westminster Confession Chapter 16 - Good Works


Why was the prodigal son spoken harshly of by his elder brother?

The brother's harsh remark betrayed that he had the spirit of a hireling, rather than that of a son. His service for the father was not one motivated by love, but rather by the promise of reward. Even though he had not gone into great excesses like the younger brother, his failure to show the same concern for his lost brother as the father did showed that he had yet to discern the love of the father for himself. "He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love" (1 John 4:8).

Ellen White in her commentaries in the book Christ's Object Lessons goes into great detail.

  By the elder son were represented the unrepenting Jews of Christ’s day, and also the Pharisees in every age, who look with contempt upon those whom they regard as publicans and sinners. Because they themselves have not gone to great excesses in vice, they are filled with self-righteousness. Christ met these cavilers on their own ground. Like the elder son in the parable, they had enjoyed special privileges from God. They claimed to be sons in God’s house, but they had the spirit of the hireling. They were working, not from love, but from hope of reward. In their eyes, God was an exacting taskmaster. They saw Christ inviting publicans and sinners to receive freely the gift of His grace—the gift which the rabbis hoped to secure only by toil and penance—and they were offended. The prodigal’s return, which filled the Father’s heart with joy, only stirred them to jealousy.
  In the parable the father’s remonstrance with the elder son was Heaven’s tender appeal to the Pharisees. “All that I have is thine”—not as wages, but as a gift. Like the prodigal, you can receive it only as the unmerited bestowal of the Father’s love.

-

  It is true that you claim to be a child of God; but if this claim be true, it is “thy brother” that was “dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” He is bound to you by the closest ties; for God recognizes him as a son. Deny your relationship to him, and you show that you are but a hireling in the household, not a child in the family of God.
  Though you will not join in the greeting to the lost, the joy will go on, the restored one will have his place by the Father’s side and in the Father’s work. He that is forgiven much, the same loves much. But you will be in the darkness without. For “he that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” 1 John 4:8.


Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries?

Several reasons:

Historically, canonicity in the NT was restricted to the 12 apostles and direct relations of Jesus. (Mark = Peter, Luke=Paul*, Matthew & John were both disciples, Hebrews was errantly ascribed to Paul, James and Jude were brothers of Jesus // Paul was considered to be an apostle, since Jesus appeared directly to him.)
Later Councils (I forget if it was Chalcedon or Ephesus) also declared the canons closed, representing the consensus of the church that indeed, "It is finished"
Theologically, it is understood that Jesus was the last and ultimate sacrifice, and therefore no further revelation of God is necessary (something that would be at direct odds, with say, the Ba'hai)


Is physical presence in the church necessary to fulfill the Sunday mass obligation?

The short answer is that yes, physical presence is necessary in order to fulfill the Sunday obligation. Watching Mass on T.V. or listening to it on the radio does not fulfill obligation.

Canon 1248 of the Code of Canon Law states the following:

  A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

“Assistance” here means physical presence—hence not T.V. or radio.

However, those who are unable to make to Mass are, of course, excused from the obligation.

One reason that justifies being “unable” to make it is that the nearest Mass is far away.

Exactly how far away the Mass needs to be is difficult to determine. Of course, it is not really in the spirit of things to be looking for excuses not to go to Mass, so I would tend to err on the side of caution. Clearly, if attending Mass requires a two-hour commute in both directions, then the faithful are excused, especially the old and infirm.

However, I would say that 20 minutes is well within range, for just about anyone, except those with the usual “grave” causes (illness, obligation to care for the sick, etc.).


What is the biblical basis that Satan is/was an angel?

One particular Scriptural reference you haven't given is in Job 1:6–12

  One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, the satan also came among them. The LORD said to the satan, "Where have you been?" Then the satan answered the LORD and said, "Roaming the earth and patrolling it." The LORD said to the satan, "Have you noticed my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him, blameless and upright, fearing God and avoiding evil." The satan answered the LORD and said, "Is it for nothing that Job is God-fearing? Have you not surrounded him and his family and all that he has with your protection? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock are spread over the land. But now put forth your hand and touch all that he has, and surely he will curse you to your face." The LORD said to the satan, "Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on him." So the satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

(Translation: New American Bible, Revised Edition)

There is a note to "the sons of God" which reads:

  members of the divine council; see Gn 6:1–4; Dt 32:8; Ps 82:1. The satan: lit., "adversary" (as in 1 Kgs 11:14). Here a member of the heavenly court, "the accuser" (Zec 3:1). In later biblical traditions this character will be developed as the devil (Gk. diabolos, "adversary").

This is an unusual depiction of "the Devil", as it depicts him as a servant of, rather than a rebel against, God; but it does also exemplify his depiction as a heavenly being, that is an angel.

Interestingly, Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica doesn't appear to even question whether the Devil was in fact an angel. He describes the Devil as an angel (First Part, Question 63, Article 3 and Article 5). One very interesting thing is that in the latter Article he does quote the passages you cite from Isaiah and from Ezekiel, and he says "it is said of the devil under the figure of the prince of Babylon  ... it is said to the devil in the person of the King of Tyre". In other words, although you are correct in interpreting the literal meaning of those two passages, typology intervenes and allows these two people to stand in for the Devil.


Is the choice, or decision, to accept Salvation through Jesus Christ a Work?

You've fallen into a common trap of examining a single piece of a theological system by importing that piece into your own construct rather than seeing how it fits into its own context. A Reformed understanding of soteriology is dependent on several interwoven ideas about God and his role in creation.

Note this assumption in your question is not representative of Reformed thought:

  […] how does my acceptance of Jesus Christ not classify as a Work, since it was something that I did that I could have chosen not to do?

One of the points in the classic TULIP acronym that calls out some key points of Reformed soteriology is "Irresistible Grace". The Reformed faith puts God fully in control of all aspects of salvation. He is sovereign and we are not: not even over our own lives. We are his creatures created for his purposes — and for his elect that means that we were created to be called his people and God will have his way. His calling us to repentance and belief is not something we could ignore. It is a gracious gift given to us that once given will achieve its purpose.

As such if you are indeed one of God's elect choosing not to accept him is not actually something you can do. The catch is that we don't know who the elect are. As a wise preacher once said¹:

  If the Lord had put a yellow stripe down the backs of the elect, I’d go up and down the street lifting up shirt tails, finding out who had the yellow stripe, and then I’d give them the gospel. But God didn’t do it that way. He told me to preach the gospel to every creature that “whosoever will may come.” Jesus says, “and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

Going back to your question, you describe your own journey as your own act of will:

  I then consider the act of will that is making a choice to open one's heart to Jesus Christ, an act of will, a choice, a decision that I finally made in my late 40's to accept salvation through Him alone.

A Calvinist would dispute your assertion that this was your own uninfluenced will. We do in fact believe in free will—but only free in so far as it will inevitably act according to its nature. Humans act according to human nature and are limited by it.

A bird has wings and can fly. A bird may jump off a branch at will and fly where it will. Meanwhile if I jump out the 8th floor window of my office I will inevitably be scraped up off the sidewalk. I do not have wings and no amount of willing myself to fly will make it happen. I am limited by my nature as a biped mammal. I can use my creativity to construct an parachute or an airplane and to seemingly defy the law of gravity, but this is really not doing anything against nature, only using the laws of physics to my advantage. In spite of the novelty of flight pulled off by the Wright brothers they didn't actually transcend human nature.
A fish may swim and breath freely in water, but I cannot. I can hold my breath, or invent a breathing apparatus, or travel in a submarine, I am limited by my physical nature and and endeavors to supplement that are really just extensions of the physical reality we were created inside of.

Similarly in a Calvinistic worldview (the T in TULIP) man is inherently sinful. Part of our fundamental nature is depraved: all mankind in Adam transgressed God's commandments and has been from that moment separated from him (we died). Just as we cannot retroactively choose our biological parents or even citizenship at birth (much less choose to be something else entirely) so we do not have a choice at birth about whether we are friends or enemies of God. Or view of original sin is that man is irreparably damaged and by virtue of our birth in Adam have a core nature that both is sinful and will choose to sin. If you want to read up on this point of Reformed soteriology "Federal Headship" is what you're looking for.

Only by supernatural (contrary to nature, something only the divine creator himself can do) intervention can we be saved and reconciled to God. Left to our own ends we will inevitably and always make the same choices as Adam. In Adam, there is NONE righteous, not even one (cf. Romans 3).

When any human makes a decision to accept salvation through Jesus Christ we believe that Christ through the Holy Spirit began the work regenerating their hearts—removing the heart of stone and replacing it with one of flesh that desires the things of God. Our very first inkling of a desire for God is an undeserved gift of Grace that only the elect will truly experience, and were it not for God first bestowing that grace we would never make that choice.

On the flip side having been given that grace, we will inevitably act according to the new natures given to us in Christ: repenting and going on to good works that glorify the Son.

¹ This quote is commonly attributed to Charles Spurgeon, but Spurgeon was in fact acknowledged (Sermon #2843) he got the idea from Rowland Hill, someone who predated him. Whether the quote originated with Hill or whether he in turn got in from some other source doesn't seem to be known.


Before the fall of Adam, did anything die?

The views of Christians on this matter can basically be divided into two.

A key passage here is Romans 5:12-21, which says:

  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Young Earth Creationists - before Adam sinned, nothing died

In the literalist view, the interpretation of the passage above is that Death is punishment for sin, and nature as subservient to mankind shares in Adam's fall. Therefore all death, even of animals, is a result of sin, and did not occur until Adam sinned.

This passage is used as one of the chief Biblical arguments that Genesis 1 should be taken literally and not metaphorically. If there were indeed millions of years of evolution before Adam, then these could not have happened without death and this passage would be contradicted.

As you already stated, Adam and Eve were vegetarians, so there was no need for there to be animal death in order for them to eat. (In fact it is not until Noah that humans are allowed to eat animals).

Other Christians - Physical death of animals did in fact happen before the fall

If you do not hold to the Young Earth beliefs then it is clear that death of animals must have occurred before the fall. The interpretation of the Romans 5 passage is that it is about only the death of humans - death for animals is entirely natural and not the result of sin. (The NIV quoted above takes this line in its translation, but not all translations do). Some also take it to mean 'spiritual death' - i.e. that humans were always destined for a physical death, but that people would know that they were destined to pass on after death to be with God, and it would be entirely natural and nothing to be afraid of. After the fall humans would also suffer spiritual death, i.e. eternal separation from God. The Bible does elsewhere use the word 'death' to refer to spiritual death and not physical death.

If you hold that the Fall is metaphorical rather than literal then it isn't an issue.


What is the scriptural basis of the Tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament as in the Catholic churches?

As far as I can tell, there is no scriptural basis for a Tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament.

The Tabernacle found in Catholic churches follows from the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was said to hold Manna (See Exodus 16:32). (The new Testament corollary being the Eucharist.) You can see the similarities in design (e.g. the two angels facing each other) from the pictures on the page you linked.

If you would like more information about Tabernacles in the Catholic Tradition you can visit the Catholic Encyclopedia

For more information about the Ark of the Covenant.


The Protestant perspective concerning the Four Horsemen

There is no one, official Protestant interpretation. However, I can give information from a book compiled by a Protestant scholar but which makes no distinction between basically Catholic, and basically Protestant stances. He offers an even-handed summary of the four traditional views of Revelation in parallel columns, allowing the reader to compare each view quickly and easily. The four main views are:

Preterist – most prophecies were fulfilled during the time of the Roman empire.
Historicist: the prophecies have been fulfilled throughout history and are still being fulfilled today.
Futurist: most prophecies are yet to be fulfilled.
Spiritual (or Symbolic or Idealist): most prophecies portray ongoing cosmic conflict of spiritual realities and may have many fulfilments throughout history.

Revelation 6:2-8 equates the breaking open of four seals with the appearing of the four horsemen; a rider on a white horse, a rider on a red horse, a rider on a black horse and a rider on (either) a pale or a sickly green horse.

The Historicist view says the white horse represents the period of five good Roman emperors from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius. The second seal was from the accession of Commodus to Diocletian. The third seal is viewed as the fiscal oppression imposed by some of the emperors of the third century (or a later period). The fourth seal was from A.D. 248 to 268 or 296.

The Preterist view says the seven seals are on a row on the overlapping lip of the document, making it impossible to begin opening the scroll until all seven seals are removed. In this view, nothing happens historically until the seventh seal is broken in Revelation 8:1. Others believe it gives a progression of events leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The Futurists see the Tribulation beginning with the breaking of the first seal. Some see the rider of the white horse being the Antichrist. The red horse represents the bloodshed of Tribulation war with the black horse being the famine following, and the fourth horse being global death and hellish destruction.

The Spiritual/Symbolic view can include Christ as being the rider on the white horse, the four riders representing the universal sequence of conquest, war, famine and death, this proceeding from God’s sovereign purpose in judging a corrupt humanity. Some see this also (in addition) in John’s day, the time of Domitian.

I cannot begin to do justice to the many views about the four horsemen, so would recommend you get this book – Revelation – Four Views edited by Steve Gregg, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. in 1997. He names leading theologians in connection with the various views, so that would give you a guide as to particular denominations.


Why is the Bible seemingly silent on the love which the God the Son has for God the Father?

I believe that the answer to this is something related to the narrative's approach.
We can infer from what we know about the godhead, that the Son loves the Father, but the focus in the gospels narrative is not that, the focus is that the Father loves the Son, then, the Son loves us and the Son obey the Father. I'll try to examplify this with some text.
First: we know that the Son loves the Father because:

this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. (2 John 1:5)

Even Christ's obedience (that is found everywhere, like John 4:34, Philippians 2:8, Hebrews 5:8, Romans 5:9, etc, etc) testify his love for the Father. But, as i said, the scriture approaches this relation upside down, not from the Son to the Father, but from the Father to the Son. We read:

[...] the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my
love. (John 15:9)

As you said, this is the main perspective, and the reason i see is: this is what we need to understand. I think this verse in John 15:9 shows us the emphasis of the Bible's narrative. The Father loves the son, the Son loves us. This thematic is stressed all over, for example:

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. (John 5:20)

and

[...] just as Christ loved us [...] (Ephesians 5:2)

I know this alone isn't a sound argument, so let us check another examples:
Natural marriage
To be quick: husbands are often told to love their wives

Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.(Colossians 3:19)

and

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25)

But wives are always told not to love, but to respect and submit

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18)

and

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord (Ephsians 5:22)

So, aren't wives suposed to love their husbands? Yes they are, but i think the Bible is silent on that matter because of the text's approch. I think what husbands need to aknowledge is love and wives is subjection.
Parents and children
The same issue we find into children -> parents realtion. "Children, obey your parents" is the instruction of Colossians 3:20 and Ephasians 6:1. Is not a message of love, is a message of obedience, which is, in fact, the most precise manifestation of love, as we saw in the beginning of this study. So, a son is suposed to love his father? Of course, but what he needs to aknowledge from scripture is not love towards his father, but obedience.
Likewise, Christ, the Son, is shown not loving the Father in a theoretical way, but showing his practical love in the form of obedience. This is what we need to aknowledge, because this is the main focus of God's inpired word, regarding the relation Son->Father: He obeys.
Old Testment
I was about to sleep when came to my mind a very insightful thought. The first mention of love in the Bible happens when God say to Abraham

Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love (Genesis 21:12)

This is an example of love in this direction: Abraham->Isaac. But the second mention of love is this

And Isaac [...] took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her. (Genesis 24:67)

This is an example of love in this direction: Isaac->Rebekah.
If we take Abraham as a figure of God and Isaac as a figure of the Son and Rebekah as a figure fo the Church, we have this: God loved the Son. The Son loved the Church. You see? This is always the natural flow. The next mention of love in the Bible is when Isaac loves Esau in Genesis 25:28, and so forward.
With maybe some little exceptions, the love always take this flow into all the Scriptures. Father->Son->Wife (Thank you, making this research really opened my mind)
Conclusion
At this point, i think we can say that the lack of mentions about the love of the Son towards the Father is really supplied in the plenty of mentions of the Son's obedience. And secondly, i think this "silence" just follows the approach and thematic of the whole Bible argumentation flow about love: The Father loves the Son, the Son obeys the Father and the Son loves his Wife.
@paul-chernoch's answer reminded me of John 14:31, maybe the only mention on the love of the Son towards the Father, and guess what this passage says

I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Again we see this realtion: i love, therefore, i obey. This is beautiful.


Is there an evidence about the doctrine of Christophany in the New Testament?

Yes, before Jesus was born there was references to the Angel of the Lord. Take a look at Exodus 23:20

  "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared."

You could say that Jesus protected the true Christians both spiritually and physically. It also refers to this angel bringing them to a place God prepared. This could be referring to Jesus's sacrifice opening the way to salvation for all men.

God also foreshadows more about this angel in the next verse of Exodus 23:21:

  "Pay attention to him, and obey his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, because my name is in him."

"because my name is in him". This could be referring to Jesus being a perfect reflection of his father. This could also be talking about the translation of Jesus's name.

  "(Je′sus) [Lat. form of the Gr. I·e·sous′, which corresponds to the Heb. Ye·shu′aʽ or Yehoh·shu′aʽ and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”]."

These are all from the Old testament.

The new testament also has scripture that show Jesus was around even before man and the earth. Most people don't accept my bibles rendering of John 1:1&2, however it still shows that the Word or Jesus was around before the earth and even helped create it.

Here is another verse from John 1:14

  "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, yes, he cried out: “This was the one of whom I said, ‘The one coming behind me has advanced in front of me, for he existed before me.’”)

This same thought is reiterated later in Colossians 1:16. There are a few other scriptures, but I think this should cover it enough.


Why did Jesus protest before performing his first miracle?

Most likely because he didn't want to gain a lot of notoriety so early on, and doing something like this, especially in such a public setting, would cause a lot of people to notice.  But in the end, he did it, probably because it was his mother asking, and he was required by the Ten Commandments to honor his father and his mother.


Referencing a Biblical narrative for a piece fiction I am writing?

This is more of a legal question and a literary question in general.  As pointed out, the King James Version and others are in public domain and therefore should be free to reference (not rewrite verbatim).

I think the question for the legality and literary porion would ask is "how" you are planning on referencing the story.  Is there an excerpt or chapter that or segment of the fiction that will have the story word for word?  Or will a character be paraphrasing as they are talking about story within your fiction piece?  Or possibly somewhere in between?  Or something very different?  Is the reference in the fiction actually a reference to another fiction referencing that story?  Or possibly the reference is to another historical document that references the story?  Or again, some where in between?
These are questions made for you to think about it which will change the legal frame of reference.  This is not meant to be answered here, but more of a rhetorical question to think about and then ask someone with some legal background.

Very general, there may be some general disagreements and debates over the story of Noah in the Christian communities (and outside as well), but as long as the reference isn't controversial, offensive, rude, a mockery, misleading, or taken completely out of context there shouldn't be an issue with referencing the story.


When did the prohibition of marriage for priests in the Catholic church originate?

This article gives an overview of the history of celibacy in the clergy. Even the Catholic church would admit that celibacy was not enforced on clergy in New Testament times, but would point out that those who chose celibacy were held in high honour, even in that period. There is dispute over how early the rules of celibacy came to be enforced. The earliest enactment of a rule was around 300AD at the Spanish Council of Elvira. This was not a universal rule. The rules appear to have been gradually tightened over the next few centuries,:

  [...] the synods of the sixth and seventh centuries, while fully recognizing the position of these former wives and according them even the formal designation of bishopess, priestess, deaconess, and subdeaconess (episcopissa, presbytera, diaconissa, subdiaconissa), laid down some very strict rules to guide their relations with their former husbands.

Even centuries after that the practice was not universal.


How many times Jesus was montioned in both of Holy Bible and Holy Quran?

In order to avoid arguments about corrupted versions and exactly what consistutues a mention of Jesus, let us cut straight to key point. You write:

  I am afraid that the number of citations of Jesus in Holy Quran Greater than its citation in Holy Bible

That is unquestionably not true

Four books of the Bible (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are life stories of Jesus, and talk about virtually nothing else. They are called the "Gospels" and make up about 82400 words. That is more words than there are in the Quran.

Another 23 books of the Bible talk extensively about Jesus. They, together with the Gospels, make up what is called the "New Testament". They have a total of around 100,000 words.

The number of explicit mentions of Jesus in the Bible (not counting ones where one of his titles is used instead of his name) is about a thousand, more than twenty times the number in the Quran.

The amount of the Holy Bible talking about Jesus is much more than the entirety of the Quran. This is unsurprising. Jesus is the Central figure of the Christian scriptures and the Christian religion. "Christian" comes from "Christ", which is a title of Jesus.


Why did John the Baptist question the identity of Jesus?

In the beginning of John's mission, he seemed to think that God was coming in wrath to judge the wicked:

When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? ... Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. ... His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

(Matthew 3:7, 10, 12)
Jesus, although he could use hot words, did not seem to be the sort of Messiah that John was expecting. Thus, perhaps John doubted when Jesus was not who he thought the Messiah would be; but when he saw the sorts of signs Jesus worked, he had to ask. Jesus reminded John that what he did was what the Messiah would do, and he seems to have warned John that Jesus might not fulfill his expectations, but that did not mean that John should disbelieve:

"Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind regain their sight [Isaiah 29:18b, 35:5a], the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear [Isaiah 29:18a, 35:5b], the dead are raised [Isaiah 26:19], and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them [Isaiah 61:1].
And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."


Are there any Catholic directives (rubrics) from the 17th to 19th century about what to do/pray/think during Eucharist Adoration?

The Saint-Pierre de Solesmes Benedictine abbey—founded by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B., who reestablished, in the 19th century, the Benedictine order and Gregorian chant in France after its destruction by the French Revolution—published a Cantus Selecti ad Benedictionem SS.mi Sacramenti (1957) whose 7th and 8th chapters are entitled Ante Benedictionem and Post Benedictionem, respectively. Most pre-Vatican II missals (such as this one) have a section with benediction prayers and hymns, too.


What is the Biblical Basis for Sola Scriptura?

The Bible has trouble being self-referential, since the Bible did not exist as a collection until after the individual books were written.  Also, any time someone was writing a book that would later become scripture, the writer was generating new thoughts not seen in earlier books of scripture.    So, for any writer to say, "Only trust scripture" is disingenuous, since the writer was taking inspiration from other sources himself, even if that other source was a direct revelation from God.


How do I have self confidence, self esteem and work hard if I am a true Christian?

God expects us to use our own minds:

  Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.

Psalm 32:9

And he expects us to achieve and be proud of our accomplishments, so that we don't burden others:

  Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

Galatians 6:4-5

Jesus Himself told us to use the gifts we've been given:

  In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Matthew 5:16

Don't let manipulative people control you, but rather:

  Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.

Proverbs 4:23

So as I'm answering this I'm left with one important question for you: "Are you getting Biblical teaching at your church?


Why is the Latin New Testament authoritative for the Catholic Church rather than the original Greek?

Pope Pius XII explains in his 1943 encyclical on biblical studies, Divino afflante Spiritu, §21:

  this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council [of Trent] particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

Even from a "critical" standpoint, St. Jerome had access to manuscripts that are no longer extant; his "New Testament scriptural texts were within a few generations of the original manuscripts penned by the Apostles" (Dr. William G. von Peters, editor of the new reprint of the Douay-Rheims).


Did Mormons have a "blood oath" ceremony before April 1990?

Please understand that you are asking questions about a ceremony that is considered the most sacred of our ordinances and that does involve secrecy.  Before I give you my answer, please understand that the purpose of the secrecy is not really to hide things others shouldn't know or wouldn't understand.  The purpose of the secrecy is to teach us a very valuable lesson in integrity.  To make my point: I once asked a friend of mine, a convert to the LDS faith, about the ceremonies of the Masons, of which she was a member.  She wouldn't reveal what she had promised to keep secret even though she was no longer a Mason --- she understood the point.

Yes, there were penalties as part of the Endowment Ceremony prior to 1990.  No, I will not tell you what they were because I covenanted to keep those things secret (I was endowed in 1984).  Penalties were not an uncommon thing in many societal ceremonies of the 1800's as they were a very visceral way of helping generally uneducated people to understand the sobriety of the covenants.  There is no specific scripture that teaches the need for the penalties.  Indeed, there is no specific scripture that requires the secrets.  There is a scripture that teaches why the Church implements procedures that help teach lessons in integrity.  D&C 84:54-55:

  And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief,
  and because you have treated lightly the things you have
  received—which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under
  condemnation.

As people became more educated, the need for the penalties diminished, and were finally discontinued.  We no longer need such blunt tools to teach a well educated membership a lesson in integrity.

Having said that, I would like to point out that the person who captured the video has failed the test of integrity and didn't understand the point of the secrecy at all.  Why should the Lord trust such a person?  Why should we?  It is also worth pointing out the disrespect shown by those who have promulgated the video.  Doesn't the Golden Rule teach that if you want to be treated with respect, you should first show it?  Many people interpret our reluctance to discuss our Endowment Ceremony as proof there is some nefarious intent.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  If we suggest that the covenant of Baptism is made in our spiritual infancy, granting us time to learn how to stand before the Lord with honor, then the Endowment Ceremony serves to make our covenants of obedience in our spiritual maturity.  We should not treat that with lightness, but with considerable respect and solemnity before the Lord.

It is my sincere hope that you understand my answer.  You've asked a delicate question, but I don't believe you are looking to disparage or mock.  And so I've provided what answer I can to respect an honorable query.


Does the Old Testament anywhere imply that the Law of Moses may be abrogated?

Jeremiah 31:31-34 English Standard Version (ESV)

  The New Covenant

  31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a
  new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not
  like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I
  took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my
  covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the
  Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
  Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within
  them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God,
  and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his
  neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall
  all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the
  Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin
  no more.”

This does not explicitly say which old laws and regulations will be done away with, but it promises a change. The NT book of Hebrews goes into detail about how a change in covenant and in priesthood necessitates a change in religious rules and laws.


Why Jesus died on the cross and not by any other mean?

For sins, the Law normally prescribed stoning a transgressor to death.

  Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman [among you who serve foreign gods], which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
  Deut 17:5

  And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
  Lev 24:16

So, why the tree?

  And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
  Deut 21:22

The phrase "worthy of death" is found elsewhere in Scripture.

  At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
  Deut 17:6

  But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
  Deut 22:26

  No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him [Christ Jesus].
  Luke 23:15

Since "worthy of death" is found elsewhere as the reason for death, what is the point about hanging the "dead" body on the tree?  "Dead" is in quotes because typically they would have stoned the sinner to death and hung the body on the tree.  It became, however, the idea that one was first punished to the point of death, as good as dead, like Isaac climbing the mountain with Abraham, and then dying on the tree/cross itself.  In either event, one was dead on the tree/cross.

The point is the tree/cross was the ultimate symbol of full and complete rejection by both man and God.

  There is one reason here given which has reference to Christ. He that is hanged is accursed of God, that is, it is the highest degree of disgrace and reproach that can be done to a man, and proclaims him under the curse of God as much as any external punishment can. Those that see him thus hang between heaven and earth will conclude him abandoned of both and unworthy of either;
  -Matthew Henry-

Burial in the Jewish culture and indeed burial or cremation throughout the world is the acknowledgement of man's creator by nearly all of ashes to ashes, dust to dust.  But if one is hung on the tree after death where your burial was postponed, then it shows the rejection of God of not returning to your Maker and the agreement by men of that state.  They would have buried Him at night, further symbolizing the vast darkness of separation from friends, family, and God.


Who symbolizes Christ in J. R. R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings"?

Tolkien always denied that The Lord of the Rings was an allegory, let alone a Christian allegory. While many people have searched for Christian symbolism, the author did not intend that there should be any. Specifically there is no character who corresponds to Christ. There are of course strong themes of good and evil, of destiny and of guiding and creating spirits, sacrifice and nobility.


Greed is a negative (wicked) state of the heart (mind) were collecting money is not governed by moral standards especially with regard to fellow human beings (a key element is the employment of deception, for example). Also, a greedy person is not inclined to donate any of their money for those in need. In Luke 11:39 it is stated "And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness".

There is nothing in the bible that indicates collection hobbies are greed (as long as no moral standards with regard to collection dealings are violated).


Did the coins at the time of Jesus have distinct images and inscriptions?

Yes, during Jesus' lifetime, coins in the Roman Empire bore the likeness of the Emperor - who happened to be Augustus, also known as Tiberius, for most of Jesus' life.

These are actual Roman coins from Jesus' lifetime, bearing the image of Augustus Cæsar.

-  Source

Contrary to popular belief, coins bearing the image of a pagan were not inherently considered contaminated or unfit for use in the Temple:

  When Jews traveled to Jerusalem from other lands, they brought money for room, board, and souvenirs. Most importantly, they were required to pay the annual half-shekel tribute to the temple. The currency they had would be of their native land or acquired in trade along their way.

  Money changers performed a key service when they converted the varieties of local coinage into the required tribute of silver shekels or half-shekels of Tyre (Tosefta Ketubbot 13:20, Exod 30:11-16). Many writers have suggested that the Tyre currency was preferred because it did not defy the Decalogue by depicting the graven image of a foreign king, and that is true. But the Tyre coins portray a pagan god of Tyre, Melqarth-Herakles—which was certainly even more offensive!

  Images on coins, however, do not contaminate them even for payment to the temple. The Mishnah explains that money is unclean only if it is used for another purpose, such as for jewelry (Mishnah Kelim 12:7). The law stated that the temple must not be shortchanged in any way, so the silver coins of Tyre were most likely mandated because they were of good silver and true weight at a time when many coins were debased or lightweight.
  -  Source

Coin used at the Temple:


Is there any institution that has translated or is translating the Bible to Indian languages from Textus Receptus?

There is a relatively recent Nepali translation by the Trinitarian Bible society, as described in this news item. The gospel of John can be downloaded from here (pdf). Thanks to davidlol for the link.

In Hindi, I could only find this old 1851 Bible described on Reddit,  translated the Bible from the Textus Receptus in 1851 by William Carey and others.

  The Presbyterian Mission Press published a complete Hindi translation in 1851 that used the received text for the NT. William Carey played a key role in its early development. You can download electronic versions from archive.org.

And indeed,this page on Archive.org has a Hindi Bible you can read or download.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses interpret Jesus' words in Matthew 24:1–34, about the generation that would not pass away before great tribulation?

The following is found on the JW.org website. It is from 2014. Prior  to this it was taught that some of the group of Christians who were old enough in 1914 to comprehend the significance of the events that proved the messiah's second presence (parousia) had begun in that year would still be alive when the great tribulation starts.
The material below is quoted from the 2014 Watchtower article, "'Let Your Kingdom Come'—But When?"

In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year.—Rom. 8:14-17.
The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth. Thus, not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” of whom Jesus spoke. Today, those in this second group are themselves advancing in years. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 give us confidence that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation. This should add to our conviction that little time remains before the King of God’s Kingdom acts to destroy the wicked and usher in a righteous new world.—2 Pet. 3:13.


How do Trinitarians explain the Athanasian Creed saying that the "one God" is the Trinity rather than the Father as in the Nicene Creed?

Divinity & unity appropriated to God the Father
As is evident in many of the Trinitarian verses listed below, the names "God the Father" and "God" simply are often used synonymously. This is because the Father is the principle of the divinity of the other Divine Persons, Who proceed from Him; He communicates to them the one divinity.
Holy Scripture and the Fathers appropriate certain attributes to each Person. Appropriation is

A manner of speaking in which the properties and activities of God, though common to the three divine persons, are attributed to an individual person. The purpose of appropriation is to manifest the differences in the divine properties and persons. Four kinds of appropriations are known from Scripture and sacred tradition:

substantive names of God (Theos), applied to the Father, and of Lord (Kurios), applied to the Son;

absolute attributes of God, namely power, unity, and eternity applied to the Father; wisdom, equality, and beauty applied to the Son; goodness, harmony, and happiness applied to the Holy Spirit;

works of God, namely efficient cause (Father), exemplary cause (Son), and final cause (Holy Spirit);

worship of God, with the Father as recipient of adoration and sacrifice, and the Son and Holy Spirit as mediators between God and man.

(Etym. Latin appropriatio, ascribing, the attributing of a special characteristic.)

See also Whether the essential attributes are appropriated to the persons in a fitting manner by the holy doctors?, where St. Augustine is quoted as saying (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5):

In the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality; and these three attributes are all one because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, and all harmonious because of the Holy Spirit.

Trinitarian verses
The New Testament not only mentions the Divine Persons of the Trinity

individually, but also frequently, more than forty times, they are mentioned
together or at the same time. The main Trinitarian texts are:

Gospels:

Matt. 3:16-17 (Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:22), the theophany at the baptism of Christ.And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven [God the Father], saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matt. 28:19, the command to baptize. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 1:35, the annunciation of the Incarnation.And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High [God the Father] shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

John 14:16, 17, 23; 15:26; 16:7-11, 12-15, the promise of the Holy Spirit at the Last Supper.And I [God the Son] will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete [Holy Ghost], that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth [Holy Ghost], whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. […] Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we [with the Holy Ghost] will come to him, and will make our abode with him.[…]But when the Paraclete [Holy Ghost] cometh, whom I [God the Son] will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth [Holy Ghost], who proceedeth from the Father, he [Holy Ghost] shall give testimony of me.[…]But I [God the Son] tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete [Holy Ghost] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. Of sin: because they believed not in me. And of justice: because I go to the Father; and you shall see me no longer. And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged. I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth [Holy Ghost], is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he [Holy Ghost] shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

St. Peter:

Acts 2:33, 38-39; 5:31-32, Peter’s first sermons.Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he [God the Son] hath poured forth this which you see and hear. […] But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God [the Father] shall call.[…]Him [God the Son] hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.

St. Paul:

Rom. 8:9-11, 14-17; 1 Cor. 2:10-16; Eph. 1:17; 2:17-22, the divine action in the heart of the just.But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the [Holy] Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification. And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his [Holy] Spirit that dwelleth in you. […] For whosoever are led by the [Holy] Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). For the [Holy] Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.[…]But to us God hath revealed them, by this [Holy] Spirit. For the [Holy] Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the [Holy] Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the [Holy] Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the [Holy] Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the [Holy] Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that we may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.[…]That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation, in the knowledge of him:[…]And coming, he [Jesus] preached peace to you that were afar off, and peace to them that were nigh. For by him we have access both in one [Holy] Spirit to the Father. Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the [Holy] Spirit.

1 Cor. 6:15-20, Christians as the temple of God.Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit. Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body. Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body.

1 Cor. 12:3-6, the distribution of charisms.Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the [Holy] Spirit of God, saith Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of graces, but the same [Holy] Spirit; And there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all.

2 Cor. 13:13, benediction and greeting.The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God [the Father], and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.

Gal. 4:4-9,14, the mission of Christ.But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons, God hath sent the [Holy] Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God. But then indeed, not knowing God, you served them, who, by nature, are not gods. But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again? […] You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Eph. 3:14-19, the prayer of Paul.For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened by his [Holy] Spirit with might unto the inward man,That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; that being rooted and founded in charity, You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

Eph. 4:4-6, the unity of the Church.One body and one [Holy] Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.

Tit. 3:4-6, our regeneration.But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour [Jesus] appeared: Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost; Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour:

Hebr. 9:14, the sacrifice of Christ.How much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?

Hebr. 10:29-31, the evil of apostasy.How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the [Holy] Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

St. Peter:

1 Pet. 1:1-2, greeting and benediction.Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect, According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto the sanctification of the [Holy] Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you and peace be multiplied.

1 Pet. 4:14, reproach in the name of Christ.If you be reproached for the name of Christ, you shall be blessed: for that which is of the honour, glory, and power of God, and that which is his [Holy] Spirit, resteth upon you.

St. John:

1 John 4:11-16, charity.My dearest, if God hath so loved us; we also ought to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abideth in us, and his charity is perfected in us. In this we know that we abide in him, and he in us: because he hath given us of his [Holy] spirit. And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father hath sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God. And we have known, and have believed the charity, which God hath to us. God is charity: and he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.

source: Sacræ Theologiæ Summa IIA: One & Triune God p. 250


Why does the Lord's Prayer instruct us to ask God to forgive us "as we forgive others"?

Forgiving others is very, very important. Firstly, we emphasize the primary importance of love in the life of a believer:

  The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 1 TImothy 1:5 NIV

Compare also the well known Great Commandment. The vital importance of forgiving others is made manifest when we realize that it is utterly impossible to truly love those we harbor unforgiveness towards (certainly from 'a pure heart' or 'with all our heart, mind, soul and strength' or 'as ourselves')- we deceive ourselves if we think so. The gospels are quite clear that the graceless attitude of unforgiveness will prevent us from receiving grace ourselves, in the succeeding verses to the Lord's prayer given in Matthew:

  14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. - Matthew 6:14-15 NIV

Compare also The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant.

Viewed in human terms, the 'manner' of our forgiveness will not of course match the Lord's in view of His sublime perfection; however, God is fully committed to supply the required grace to enable us to forgive completely and sincerely if we trust him to do so:

  His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. - 2 Peter 1:3 NIV


Can Mass be celebrated at any hour of the day?

The short answer is: Yes, if there is a valid reason for it.

Masses can be said at any time day or night if there is a real necessity or spiritual need for it.

This answer will be based more on actual experience than with concrete sources. For some reason rubrics on this point are quite hard to locate for those who follow the Ordinary Form of the Mass (OF). Geremia gives a good answer, but the references treated are in reference to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF). I can not locate any guidelines for the New Mass.

Yet the rubrics that Geremia lays out could also be altered by some real need, circumstance or local custom.

  Under certain circumstances rubrics may be modified by custom, but in this respect they do not differ from laws in general. - Rubrics

I spent some 20 years affiliated with religious communities that say both forms of the Mass used in the Latin Rite. It is not uncommon for a priest in a religious community to say Mass extremely early because of the necessity of driving a great distance that day. This applies to both Forms of Mass of the Roman Rite.

New Years Day may be celebrated at midnight too. We had Mass celebrated by an Abbot in the Extraordinary Form on New Years Day 2000 as a way of welcoming in the New Millennium. I am sure some priests still do this.

In the monastery I stayed in for several years, one priest was assigned the task of saying Mass at 4:00 AM, so that the Brothers could be free to go and milk the cows. They called this the Farm Mass.

I can not tell you how many times I served a Mass (of either Form) between 2:00 AM and 5:00 AM because a priest (Religious or secular) had to leave on a long trip on that particular day.

Thus Mass may be celebrated at anytime day or night, if there is a valid reason for doing so. And that goes for both Forms of the Mass (OF and EF) in the Latin Rite.


Did the church fathers or OT talk about the visible and invisible church?

I'm not sure if this is precisely what you are looking for, but your question immediately reminded me of Augustine's City of God:

Chapter 35.—Of the Sons of the Church Who are Hidden Among the Wicked, and of False Christians Within the Church.
Let these and similar answers (if any fuller and fitter answers can be found) be given to their enemies by the redeemed family of the Lord Christ, and by the pilgrim city of King Christ.  But let this city bear in mind, that among her enemies lie hid those who are destined to be fellow-citizens, that she may not think it a fruitless labor to bear what they inflict as enemies until they become confessors of the faith.  So, too, as long as she is a stranger in the world, the city of God has in her communion, and bound to her by the sacraments, some who shall not eternally dwell in the lot of the saints.  Of these, some are not now recognized; others declare themselves, and do not hesitate to make common cause with our enemies in murmuring against God, whose sacramental badge they wear.  These men you may to-day see thronging the churches with us, to-morrow crowding the theatres with the godless.  But we have the less reason to despair of the reclamation even of such persons, if among our most declared enemies there are now some, unknown to themselves, who are destined to become our friends.  In truth, these two cities are entangled together in this world, and intermixed until the last judgment effects their separation.  I now proceed to speak, as God shall help me, of the rise, progress, and end of these two cities; and what I write, I write for the glory of the city of God, that, being placed in comparison with the other, it may shine with a brighter lustre.

I've emphasized several phrases that say:

Some of the elect are currently enemies of the Church,
Some within the Church are not among the elect, and
The Church and the World are currently intermingled.

It's not exactly the case that false Christians are "invisible"—Augustine notes that they may be found in the theaters with the godless.  (Augustine had a very low opinion of theaters at that time.  We could probably stand to be more critical of our entertainment choices in this day as my grandmother would have been quick to remind me.)


What is "new" in the New Perspective on Paul?

The NPP includes more than just a new set of interpretations for Paul's works, it also re-examines several other historical issues and purports to throw a different light on them. In reading through material from both sides, I find that much breath seems to be wasted on detailed analysis of issues that aren't actually new or different in any way, but that a few key issues (particularly the definition of Justification) are substantially different. While some NPP adherents claim that their new view of Justification is compatible with the old, most who hold the old view find the new to be incompatible.

Full disclosure: I believe that, while the NPP has some valuable perspectives to offer Christianity, some of its premises are invalid and some of its conclusions are heretical. Still, I will try to answer here carefully. If my treatment of the facts of the case are not fair, feel free to comment.

Was 1st Century Judaism so off track?

The basis for the "new" understanding of Paul's life and teachings is really rooted in a different understanding of the religious culture of his day.

Historically, most of Protestantism has understood 1st century Judaism to be a works-based religious system under which people crossed their t's and dotted their i's in accordance with a vast set of laws and regulations in order to earn or deserve God's favor. NPP submits that Judaism in Paul's time was actually more about grace than Reformation era Protestants give it credit for: that it taught grace as the basis of salvation and works as a basis of judgement, not works as the basis of salvation.

What goes around comes around.

If 1st Century Judaism wasn't a religion of works, then Paul's discourses on it must not have been raising that as an objection. If he was actually in agreement with Judaism on the issue of works vs. grace, then the contrasts we find in his teachings between works and grace must not have been a matter of right vs. wrong religion -- as most Reformed teachings claim -- but one of two parts of the same right religious understanding being contrasted. Hence, the NPP would have works and faith working together in the effecting of salvation.

How impudent!

With works and faith working together rather than one being the result of the other, Wright and others from the NPP movement must also recast the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Rather than Christ's work being the sole item to the credit of our accounts, our own works will be part of our judgement. Wright does not believe that God's righteousness can actually be transferred to anyone, only that he can declare (law court terminology) people to be in good standing; their own righteousness will still be based on their own works.


Is sacred music still sacred if performed by non-believers?

This is similar to a perennial question raised on a couple of Email lists devoted to Anglican and Catholic church music to which I subscribe, and ultimately comes down to the definition of "sacred music". In the email lists, it was found impossible to agree on a rigorous definition, but it was generally agreed that we could identify it when we heard it. One view posted there was that music which a person believed served to enhance the connection between him or herself and the Almighty was "sacred", and that the beliefs of the lyricist, translator, composer, orchestrators or performers, were of little or no consequence if the work led to a closer relationship with the Almighty. The consensus was that whether someone involved in a "sacred" composition was not Christian was similar to the production of other items used in meditation and worship. Would it matter if the pews in the church, or the furniture used in meditation at home is manufactured by a machine, a Buddhist, or a Christian?

Some famous pieces of 20th century sacred music, in fact, were composed by people who were not particularly religious. And yet, they are masterworks, included in Cathedral music lists on a regular basis, and have brought many people closer to God. Examples include the Peter Warlock ("Bethlehem Down"), and Ralph Vaughan Williams ("Mass / Communion Service in g"; "Blest is the Man"), among others.

There is another issue here, too. Both Old Testament and New Testaments contain examples of where the Almighty chose to use people who did not know they had a relationship with him as agents of his will. In my view, "Christian" music by non-Christian is an exact parallel to this.


It would be best here to start from how love is defined in 1 John itself.

In the gospel we have the ultimate display of love. We hate God, and yet God loves us so much that he sent his Son to die for us. In 4:9-11:

  In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his
  only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is
  love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son
  to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we
  also ought to love one another.

There's a similar verse in Rom 5:6-10 which raises the point that people would hardly even die for a good/righteous person, let alone sinners.

  For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the
  ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though
  perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- but God shows
  his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for
  us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much
  more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we
  were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much
  more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

So this is the kind of love we are to practise. You may say that Christians and non-Christians alike practise love on a daily basis. But often it stops where it becomes difficult and you must love someone who does not love you, or where you've been offended and you must forgive. Generally speaking, I think the world's standard of love today is to love as long as it feels good or where we get something back.

But this is not to say that Christians always truly love. In reality I think we often fail. Otherwise, 1 John would not need to teach and exhort his readers: 'let us love' (4:7). But the difference for Christians is that we have a reason to love others, even when it is not easy, because God loved us first. If you don't, then it is likely because you don't appreciate what God has done for us (Mat 18:23-35). To learn to love we need to begin with and continue in the gospel.

See also: Eph 5:1-2. Phil 2:1-8. 1 Pet 2:21-25.


If the Bible contains all of the word of God and there can be no more, then why do we need the Nicene Creed?

The old creeds are useful summaries of Christian doctrine. They are useful because the way God decided to shape the Bible was not like a systematic theology textbook, even though we might sometimes wish it was!

The creeds were written in times of division in the church to clarify what the groups that wrote them believe the Bible taught. In general each phrase from one of the creeds will have several passages which back it up, though occasionally that is disputed, such as with the Filioque.

I think the real value of the creeds is that they were written to be completely unambiguous. If you talk to a non-Trinitarian about the passages which a Trinitarian believes support the Trinity, they will probably have alternative ways to interpret them: "it means one in person, the spirit isn't distinct from the father/son here, begotten indicates a created being". For better or worse, the creeds allow you to very quickly establish whether someone is an orthodox Christian or not. But to actually convince someone of orthodox doctrine you'll still need to go through those passages one by one.


I'm looking for a multilingual glossary of Christian/Bible terminology

Unfortunately this isn't going to be as easy as finding a good glossary. That's not to say that there aren't some good resources, but you're going to have to pull from several sources.

In the end when trying to do a good translation nothing will substitute for domain knowledge. In technical fields like engineering, a good glossary can be indispensable and a decent translator can get by translating outside of their own area of expertise just by knowing the language and having the right equivalents for technical terms. Softer sciences like philosophy and theology don't work quite that way.

In hard sciences the thing itself is usually fixed and hanging a term onto the thing gives everybody a handle to work from. When it comes to theology the terminology is often the most tangible thing we have to hang our ideas on and hence there are not always agreed upon terms for everything.

For historic language and contexts (such as Biblical Greek and Hebrew) this is somewhat mitigated by time, the amount of research brought to bear and the limited amount of material. Good lexicon's exist that can help you parse how a word might have been used in, for example, the Greek New Testament. These will help parse the word in a given context and list off other contexts for the same word and how it got used, helping to narrow down the range of semantic meanings an author at a given time in history might have meant. However they certainly aren't a translators panacea. Biblical authors often hijacked words to mean something specific in the context of what they were writing that might not have been familiar to even native speakers familiar with the word. Context is king here and hearing the author out in any nuances they build into a passage is the only way to pick an accurate translation into another language.

Moving into the realm of modern language, I would say there are two main categories of problems that make life rough on a translator.

Much of the terminology used inside in Christianity doesn't actually come from the Bible or some fixed authoritative reference source. Don't get me wrong, the ideas do (hopefully) stem from the Bible and are fixed, but the words we use don't necessary come from there.

A classic example of this would be the concept of the Trinity (Üçlübirlik), one God existing in three persons. The concept of one single divine being God revealing himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is spelled out in the Bible, but the word "trinity" itself is an invention because people needed some shorter hand way to refer to the concept than rattling off the Athanasian Creed every time the subject came up.

In general the Trinity is a pretty well defined term and even in Turkish you won't have a lot of trouble making it fit across translations. (I'm not saying the concept of the Trinity is easy, it's pretty much universally agreed that's a mystery we can't quite wrap our minds around, I'm only saying we happen to have an agreed upon handy term to refer to it.) You might run into trouble when you start describing the beliefs on non-Trinitarian groups. For example the heresy of modalism (God revealing him self in three different forms or as playing different roles rather than as three distinct persons) is easy enough to label in English (as are specific instances of it such as Sabellianism or Patripassianism) but you'll have a rough time when it comes to Turkish. The somewhat unoriginal import term modalizm exists but only people that have studied theology in a second language will know what it means. You have to explain it in context nearly every time (Bu üç kişisel öz, ne tek bir kişi tarafından oynanan üç ayrı roldür (yani modalizm), ne de bir küme içinde üç tanrıdır (yani triteizm)).

That one is hard even though there is a very precisely defined meaning because either the words don't exist or people are always trying to explain it away as something simpler than it is.
Different traditions often use the same words to mean different things.

Knowing and understanding the theological background of an author will make all the difference it accurately representing them in another language. Even very basic words like "faith" or "merit" are used in very different senses by Catholics than they are by Protestants. Without knowing that the fundamentals of how salvation is achieved are understood differently between these two traditions you might not pick up when those terms are used attached to wholly different concepts.

Another good example of this might be "justification". While both Protestants and Catholics use the term, they imply a quite different set of events. While in a purely Protestant context using aklanma to translate justification is almost certainly your best bet for most contexts with an occasional use for doğru kılınma, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work very well at all to describe Catholic theology.

Other concepts will come with other problems. For example even inside of specific theological traditions such as Calvinism you will run into things like "limited atonement" (kısıtlı kefaret). Many people don't like this term. Largely the objection comes from other theological traditions where it doesn't fit inside their system and therefore seems to imply something they cannot accept, but even inside of Calvinism some authors prefer to use a different term emphasizing the positive aspect, for example "definite redemption" (belirli kurtuluş) is basically a synonym for limited atonement. Whether a given author actually means something  different by it or is just avoiding the negative imagery is something you'll have to pick out from context.

In short you've got your work cut out for you if you want to do a quality translation of a theological into any language. For Turkish the situation is even worse. Christianity has a very old history in Turkey, but it's current presence is very small and only in it's infancy. As a result theological terminology in the Turkish language is not well rooted or widely agreed upon. Many terms just don't exist. It's like a bad joke, but Christians are regularly stuck making up new words as handles for established ideas that Turkish just doesn't have established terminology for. To add make matters worse an overwhelming percentage of books that have been translated into Turkish come from a very narrow theological spectrum: mostly Pentecostal / Charismatic. If you want to learn what words they use for things there are plenty of books to read, but it won't give you a very broad picture of Christian theology or terminology usage. Those traditions in particular aren't even big on using language in concrete ways to define their beliefs, often their own beliefs only have names because other people name them for them.

I already mentioned that not all theological terminology is found in the Bible, but that is at least one starting point. There are two full Bible and five New Testament only translations available (all available on incil.info). Unfortunately the most accurate translation (Kitab-ı Makaddes) uses very dated language that most Christians in Turkey today are not using. The more modern translation (Yeni Çeviri) is a much more dynamic equivalent translation and is rather inconsistent in its own usage, often translating the same term different ways in different contexts for no particular reason other than it sounded better. This makes it hard to discern how terms are actually used. As a translator trying to compare the Turkish to Greek or even English I would recommend Thomas Cosmades's translation for the New Testament. It doesn't flow very well from a literary aspect but he was much more selective in trying to use verbs that were a good match for the Greek. For the Old Testament you're just out of luck. Hit me up off-site and I'll hook you up with answers.

For general usage of terms that are not directly from the Bible, what you really need is a good Systematic Theology that covers a whole bunch of topics and what terms are connected to what. Sadly this doesn't exist yet in Turkish either. Tho closest thing out there is going to be J.I. Packer's Concise Theology (Teolojiye Giriş). This has 94 short chapters on various topics covering a pretty broad range of theological ideas. The author is an Anglican but covers theology from a Reformed Protestant perspective. In the book he does get into differences between different perspectives so there is quite a variety of terminology. Get in touch with Via Christus Yayınları for a copy.

Full disclosure: I'm directly involved in Via Christus and oversee both the Bible site and the publishing house linked above. My own theological biases tend towards the Reformed Presbyterian end of things.