Was there ever a "Martin Luther" or a reformation in the Eastern Orthodox Church?

I don’t know if the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) is relevant, but it’s worth mentioning that the at this meeting, equal honour was assigned to the Church of Constantinople and the Church of Rome. The council gave the title “patriarch” to the most prominent bishops and concluded that the church of Constantinople (“New Rome”) held a position of authority similar to that of “Old Rome.” The Pope rejected that particular article, while accepting the rest of the Chalcedonian Creed. Eventually, the rift between Rome and Constantinople led to the Great Schism when the Oriental Orthodox split off from Catholic and Eastern Orthodox alike as a consequence of the Council of Chalcedon.

Perhaps the events of the 16th century are more relevant because they have to do with the events surrounding Luther and the Protestant Reformation.  Here is a partial quote from an article I found:

  Philipp Melanchthon worked with Demetrios Mysos, a deacon sent by the patriarch of Constantinople to find out about the new religious movement in Germany, to complete a Greek translation/paraphrase of the Augsburg Confession, called the Augustana Graeca. Mysos was supposed to take the document back to Constantinople, but he died on the journey.  Some Lutheran theologians at Tubingen tried to establish an even closer connection. The "Eastern Orthodoxy" entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand, reports: In 1575 the Lutherans sent the Augustana Graeca to Patriarch Jeremias II (d. 1595), asking his opinion. There ensued over the next six years a friendly but candid exchange of extensive doctrinal ...   Source: What did the reformers think about the Eastern Orthodox Church?

I found this reference to events that took place during the 17th century:

  In Eastern Orthodox Church history, the Old Believers or Old Ritualists are Eastern Orthodox Christians who maintain the liturgical and ritual practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church as they existed prior to the reforms of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow between 1652 and 1666. Resisting the accommodation of Russian piety to the contemporary forms of Greek Orthodox worship, these Christians were anathematized, together with their ritual, in a Synod of 1666–1667, producing a division in Eastern Europe between the Old Believers and those who followed the state church in its condemnation of the Old Rite.  Source: Old Believers (Wikipeia)

Then we have the Greek Old Calendarist schism within the Greek Orthodox Church which occurred in the early 20th century.  Both sides of this schism refused to recognize each other’s baptisms as a consequence of this dogmatization of the calendar. Source: Why did the Orthodox Church never suffer through a Protestant Reformation like the Catholic Church?

Finally, I found this article, but it must be noted that there are no sources identified to back up the claims being made:

  There are four Reformed Orthodox Churches in Eastern Christianity. The term "Reformed Orthodox" is given to an attempted Protestant Reformation of the Orthodox Christian beliefs and practices of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Presently the Ukrainian Lutheran Church, the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India, Evangelical Baptist Union of Georgia, Ukrainian Reformed Orthodox Church (ru), Evangelical Orthodox Church and the Nihon Christ Kyodan Miyakojima Church (ja) are revised according to Lutheran, Anglican, Baptists and Pentecostal Protestant reforms, respectively. Another term applied primarily to the reformation of Non-Chalcedonianism is Protestant Oriental.  Source: Reformed Orthodoxy (Wikipedia)

I do so hope someone with expertise in this subject will post an answer.  I simply did a bit of research because I wanted to find out more about the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church.


Is there any evidence that Paul was a descendant of Jonathan?

I'm not sure if this question has arisen in Christendom. As, most of Christendom is fascinated by Moses, King David, Jesus, Peter, and Paul. I'd say it's 'unlikely' but...there are billions who have gone before us. :) I'm sure it's come up before but I'm not sure that the question has been documented.

As to the question itself. My current understanding is no jew desired to keep a detailed tally of their heritage, with exception to the descendants of David (Luke 2:4) since they were ancient jews, it was their conviction that the Messiah would come through the line of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16). The only identification they, all Israelites, used are two fold. Whom was their parent and what tribe did they come from? As you can see this thread throughout scripture.

The prophetess Anna, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher (Luke
2:36)
king Saul, son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin (Acts
13:21)
Bezalel, son of Uri, grandson of Hur, of the tribe of Judah
(Exodus 31:2)
Oholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan (Exodus
31:6)

If you want a lot of these examples, go here.

In conclusion, someone throughout the ages could've asked this same question but I haven't seen it yet. Also, the jews simply wouldn't ask this question because they were focused on the Davidic line to find the Messiah.


What is the basis for believing that the wrath of God is not an accommodation?

Definition
Accommodation means that we use finite terms to describe an infinite God, and thus naturally come up short.  This is certainly true, so in some sense every description of God is an accommodation.  However, that does not mean a given description does not correspond to a truth.  Thus, for the purposes of this answer, I am restating the question to be "What is the basis for believing descriptions of God's wrath correspond to a true aspect of His nature?" which I think is the real question here.
Basic principle
Perhaps the strongest argument against viewing God's wrath as an accommodation is the lack of evidence for this understanding.  The view is primarily driven by human desire to avoid putting "impure" emotions such as anger on to God.  However, the idea that anger is "wrong" is driven my philosophical ideas about how the ideal person should act, not the Bible.  Indeed, Paul writes:

Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. (Ephesians 4:26-7, ESV)

Notice what Paul does not say here - "do not be angry." Instead, he says something like "It's OK to be angry, but resolve your angry quickly, so that it doesn't develop into something actually sinful."  This line is actually an illusion to Psalms 4:4:

Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent.

So, if anger is not automatically sinful for man, then there is no need to "explain" God's anger.  And there is a real danger is seeking a way to explain away things that make us uncomfortable.  If "negative" emotions attributed to God are merely accommodations, who is to say that "positive" ones aren't?  Perhaps God is actually ambivalent to humanity and we just think He loves us because that  of our finite understanding of God...  It is one thing to say the "eyes of the Lord" (e.g. 2 Chronicles 16:9), which can easily be read as a metaphor in context, are an accommodation.  It is quite another to say something (e.g. wrath) that is explicitly described as an attribute of God is one.
Finally, it should be noted that while "wrath" a synonym for anger, it is not equivalent.  Biblically, God's wrath is the opposite of his satisfaction or pleasure in men's actions.  That is, it is a term used to describe His displeasure with man.  It is described in terms of anger, sadness, even hatred, but it is not merely an emotion, but rather part of God's righteous judgement. (e.g. Romans 2, see below)
I will now analyze some specific verse that illustrate that the "wrath of God," while perhaps not a 100% perfect description, is a fundamentally accurate way to describe an aspect of God.  The list is by no means exhaustive.
Romans 1

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Paul's argument here is that everyone is without excuse for knowing God because his actions are plainly seen, and from these actions his divine attributes are evident.  To back up his argument, he says the "wrath of God is revealed from heaven."   That is, evil and unrighteous behavior have clearly been punished.  If God was not truly wrathful, and was only described that way for our benefit, then Paul's argument would have no force.  The unbelievers certainly could not be expected to naturally perceive wrath that did not actually exist.
Indeed, the wrath of God is contrasted with "the righteousness of God [which] is revealed from faith for faith." (v17) While righteousness can only be seen through the eye of faith, wrath is apparent to all.  One would have to jump through hoops to explain how the "unreal" wrath of God is apparent while the "real" righteousness of God is invisible to unbelievers.
Deuteronomy
A similar theme is found in Deuteronomy.

Take care lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain, and the land will yield no fruit, and you will perish quickly off the good land that the LORD is giving you. (Deuteronomy 11:16-17)
Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.' This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike.The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. And the LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law. And the next generation, your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, will say, when they see the afflictions of that land and the sicknesses with which the LORD has made it sick-- the whole land burned out with brimstone and salt, nothing sown and nothing growing, where no plant can sprout, an overthrow like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger and wrath (Deuteronomy 29:18-23)

Here, we have two instances of a specific sin (turning away form God) leading to a specific punishment (barren land).  The specific language makes it difficult (exegetically) to see this as anything but a literal description. Furthermore, this punishment is something that "all the nations" will recognize as God's wrath (v24).  If wrath was a mere accommodation and not actual action by God, it is hard to explain how Gentiles will understand that God is in action here.
Romans 2

We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
... but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek (Romans 2:2-5; 8-9)

In this passage, Paul clearly ties the wrath of God to His righteous judgment of mankind.  By doing evil, the sinner is "storing up wrath" that will be result in judgment on the "day of wrath."  If the wrath being stored/delivered is not literal or not roughly equivalent to human wrath, then it is difficult to see what "tribulation and distress" the sinner will be suffering.  Note also that the suffering is tied not an abstract person, but rather "the Jew" and "the Greek" - precisely Paul's original audience.  If we were to understand this passage as a metaphor for God's character, we would expect at least some sort of textual clue, but instead the message is delivered in very concrete terms, and explicitly directed at the (original) reader.
Leviticus 26
Leviticus 26:14-43 describes the punishment Israel will face for failing to keep the commandments. Here again, specific sins are met with specific punishments, making it difficult to view God's wrath as merely accommodating language.  The whole section illustrates the point, but I would like to focus one thought:

But if in spite of this you will not listen to me, but walk contrary to me, then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and I myself will discipline you sevenfold for your sins. (26:27-8)

These verses uses the doubled pronoun I myself to emphasize the personal nature of God's punishment.  If, for example, man's punishment was just the natural consequence of sin and not a direct action of God (i.e. if God's wrath was accommodating language), this emphasis would be out of place.  Furthermore, the sevenfold nature of the discipline would seem to indicate that the punishment is more than the inevitable consequence of the sin.  The author of Leviticus is making it quite clear that the punishment given is from the direct action of God, which means it emanates from an actual aspect of God's nature.
Matthew 11

Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you. (Matthew 11:20-24)

In Matthew 11, Jesus harshly rebukes a series of cities for failing to repent.  In Matthew 23, He casts similar judgment on to the scribes and Pharisees.  Although neither passage uses the term "wrath," it is apparent that Jesus is passing judgment on these groups.  The passages certainly read much more naturally if one sees an element of anger in  Jesus' speech.  In Mark 3:5, He is explicitly described as angry:

And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart

Jesus on Earth can legitimately be described as angry, and He describes judgment of certain groups in harsh "wrath-like" terms.  As such, it is only natural that passages that describe God's judgment in heaven in similar terms be read as accurately describing a true aspect of God's nature.
Variety of contexts
Another reason to believe that the wrath of God is not merely an accommodation is that the descriptions of wrath occur in a wide variety of contexts. It occurs in history writings (Exodus 32), the Law (Leviticus 26), Poetry (Psalm 59), prophetic writing (Isaiah 13), the Gospels (Matthew 11), letters (Romans), and of course the Apocalypse (throughout Revelation).
Wrath is attributed to God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 3).  It is brought against Israel, Gentile nations, mankind as a whole, specific individuals, and the Serpent/Satan (Genesis 3).  It is hard to find a context where God's wrath is not described in some fashion.
Conclusion
The idea that God's wrath is an accommodation stems from a desire to avoid the difficulty in seeing God as angry.  It is often phrased in a condescending fashion such as "ancient people needed to see God that way, but we moderns know better" - either by believers to make God more palpable, or by nonbelievers in an effort to discredit the Bible.
The idea that anger is wrong does not stem from the Bible, however, but rather a man-made sense of the "enlightened man" ideal where man acts rationally and without emotion, or at least without negative emotion.  This "ideal" is directly contradicted by the Bible and also carries unwarranted pride in one's own intellect.  In reality, emotion is an essential part of human nature and logically an essential part of God's nature if we are indeed created in His image.  Just as one cannot fully understand God's infinite, perfect love, one cannot fully comprehend His wrath either.  That, however, does not mean that our terms to describe His wrath do not correspond to a true aspect of God.  Furthermore, that His wrath is real is backed by straightforward exegesis.  Those who wish to say otherwise must twist scripture to an extent that if applied elsewhere could make God's love just as "unreal."


I assume you're refering to Mark 12:25 where it says:

  When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (NIV)

First a couple of notes on context. This was the answer to a trick question from a group of Sadducees. The Sadducees were an elitist liberal group similar to the Pharisees, who were an elitist conservative group. Among their many beliefs was a rejection of the resurrection. Their question from Mark 12:18-23 is an attempt to make Jesus look ridiculous for believing in the resurrection.1

  Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

So back to the original question. "Why did Jesus say there will be no marriage?"

The first answer, from the Pulpit Commentary on Mark 12:18, is that if she'd been the wife of only one or all seven brothers someone it would cause problems and after the resurrection there's not supposed to be any problems.

The second answer, also from the Pulpit Commentary this time on Mark 12:25, states:

  There will be no necessity for marriages in heaven. Here, on earth, the father dies, but he lives on in his children after death. In heaven there is no death, but every one will live and be blessed for ever; and therefore it is that St. Luke adds here, "Neither can they die any more." St. Augustine says, "Marriages are on account of children; children on account of succession; succession on account of death. But in heaven, as there is no death, neither is there any marriage."

1 Remember that this was (and still is) a conservative Jewish belief. It's not something Christ introduced.


How easy was it to get a Bible (Old Testament or both Testaments) in the Eastern Roman Empire during the early reign of Justinian?

Generally speaking, I think the answer to your specific question of obtaining a Bible is "likelihood = 0". And the reason is pretty simple. There were no used book shops, no Amazon, no B&N, no Gideons, no etc. In other words, no way to even obtain a Bible.

Some things to consider:

Books in the 6th century were absolutely precious artifacts. Secular books were copied by hand by slaves trained as copyists. If you wanted a copy of Juvenal or Plato or something, you borrowed a book and took it to a copyist and haggled for his slaves' time and skill, quality of writing, etc. Either that, or you hired the slave and brought him to the book.

Bibles, of course were different. These were probably copied without thought of monetary cost --- they would have been copied as a spiritual work of love. By the sixth century, there are probably within the Church, copyists doing this work.

Bibles are also HUGE. The Codex Sinaiticus (oldest complete Bible MS) is 13x15 inches, made of vellum requiring the hides of more than 350 animals. It's said the cost in labour and materials would equal the wages of a single workman's entire career. This is not something a teenage boy will just happen across (unless he discovers a crime scene where a wandering monk has been robbed and the precious Bible he was carrying has been discarded as junk by the thieves).

The likelihood of a random teenager living in a tribe along the silk road even being literate enough to read a Bible in Greek or Syriac, to say nothing of Latin or Coptic, is about zero. The likelihood of there being a physical Bible for him to spend time with during that time frame is also about zero.

Much more likely scenario, especially given the time frame: a wandering priest or monk (who may or may not have some parts of a Bible with him) is travelling the Silk Road among the traders and your teenage boy hears him teach. He's attracted by the Truth and all the rest follows from there. Though, of course, he won't have to travel to Byzantium to learn about salvation! That he could learn directly from the monk, or even from the Gospel itself.

560s might be a little early for much Christian activity in the region. However, the Religion of Light (Christianity) was certainly established and flourishing in China by the 8th century, as one stele of the late 8th century there records 150 years of Christian activity in China (meaning activity since about 630s). So Christian activity along the Silk Road in the 560s might not be too far off, after all.

Interesting premise for a story, but I think you might have to scrap the idea of the hero getting a hold of an actual Bible.


What is considered chaste behaviour from a Catholic perspective?

I kind of think the answer to this question is purely pastoral.  It's not in any Encyclical or the Catechism, but the answer comes to a person who forms their conscience well and the Church has a lot of guidance on how to form your conscience.

Seek first the Kingdom and the Will of God.

Marriage (and the acts that follow) is what God calls man to most of the time,  we can tell it's His will through the natural law (it's the only way we're going to get anything accomplished) and because He said so "Go forth and multiply" in Genesis a few times. But, even though it seems obvious that you should just have sex right away. It may not actually be the right person you're having sex with therefore:
Pray with (and for) your future spouse

In one very Jewish story that only Catholics and Orthodox seem to remember is the story of Tobias who, not wanting to be killed on his wedding night by the demon in his wife, prayed with her before the consummated their marriage. And
Pray for purity every day

This is a pretty concrete and well known practice of praying three hail mary's before bed for purity of heart.  Purity is something you pretty much always get when you ask for.

So, I know that you probably think that didn't answer your question in the least, but that's the approach a Catholic might take in forming their conscience towards the questions that you raised.

What I, as a Catechist, would tell my students if they asked how far they could go with their boyfriends or girlfriends.  Is that the purpose of dating in null, what they need to do is court.  That involves knowing the entire family of ones future spouse and getting to know them intimately so that you know if your heart is in the right place.  Kissing, other than customary kissing, shouldn't be a part of that pre-marital relationship.  You shouldn't have any sexual intimacy that would be reserved for marriage before marriage.  That would be unchaste.

Chastity is a virtue, not a verb, like all virtues, it's really a spiritual muscle that can be worked up over time to just react rightly in all situations.


Do people go to heaven immediately when they die?

That death and "sleeping," are often conflated in Scripture is perhaps a useful metaphor here. Notice how, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul likens those who have died to those who have "fallen asleep in Christ."

  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

This is a useful metaphor, for when a normal person falls asleep, they are unaware of the passage of time.  Whether or not there is a time lag between dying and being raised back up is, in fact, irrelevant.

The person who has died is unaware of the passage of time.  For that person, whether Christ tarries a thousand years or only minutes, is, to the dead, indistinguishable.  There is no sensation between now and then, so it doesn't really matter.
To the person who is still alive, there is no communication in any event, so that the precise location of the soul is not important.  We thus do not "mourn as the Gentiles do," but rather we have a hope and a peace that passes understanding - because we know that at the end of our temporal existence, we will be reunited with our loved ones.  Once we die, sensation ceases for us as well - and at that point, eternity begins.
To God, who is outside of time, time and space are irrelevant.  All things occur at once.

The next communication we have with our loved ones will, in fact, be in heaven - so in a sense to say they "are in heaven" - which may or may not, at that exact moment, be temporally accurate or not - is not really the question being addressed.  That our next moment of contact will be in heaven is the point, and on that point, if it is not true, then everything else is vain any way.

In any event, the focus is that at some point, the promise of the Christian life is the hope that we will be resurrected - that we will be "awoken" is beyond doubt - and when we are, oh what a day of rejoicing that will be!

  50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Put another, the current chronology is irrelevant.  The end state is the same - we will all, at some point, in an instant, be together in heaven with Christ.


What is the purpose of describing who is son of who?

In many cultures, genealogy roots a person in who they are. By saying, "so and so is the son of so and so," you are establishing an identity.  As the old saying goes, "we don't want nobody nobody sent."

In the specific case of Genesis 5 & 10 (sometimes called "the Table of Nations"), however, there is a very interesting theological point being made.  Namely, the Israelites were a nobody.

In many creation myths, the creation myth is set up in such a way as to highlight the fact that the culture that came up with it has pre-eminence amongst the peoples. In Babylonian myths, for example, the Mesopotamians were the firstborn among creation. In Egyptian creation myths, the same holds true, and the pattern is repeated in many places.

What is different about Genesis is that Abraham is kind of a nobody. He's not always the firstborn of the firstborn of the firstborn.  He's just another guy in creation.

What makes him different is that God chose him to say, "through you I will bless all nations."  The Jewish scriptures are remarkable in their lack of ethnocentricity.  As you state, these genealogies are very objective in their fact taking stance.


What are Mormons allowed to discuss about the temple, when not inside the temple?

From lds.org:

What can I say to others about my experience in the temple?
You can talk about what the interior of the temple looks like, and you can freely share the feelings you have in the temple. However, temple covenants and ordinances, including the words used, are too sacred to be discussed in detail outside the temple. By avoiding discussion of these sacred things outside the temple, we protect them from mocking, ridicule, or disrespect. Do not be casual when talking about your experiences in the temple.

For much more on the topic of temples, what is sacred, and how to treat sacred topics with respect, see the special edition of the Ensign magazine, October 2010 issue. For pictures, try a PDF copy of the issue.
In particular, see The Holy Temple by President Boyd K. Packer. He says:

The ordinances and ceremonies of the temple are simple. They are beautiful. They are sacred. They are kept confidential lest they be given to those who are unprepared. Curiosity is not a preparation. Deep interest itself is not a preparation. Preparation for the ordinances includes preliminary steps: faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, worthiness, a maturity and dignity worthy of one who comes invited as a guest into the house of the Lord.


According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, where does the Devil come from?

Quoting from their 'Reasoning From the Scriptures Book':

"All of Jehovah's works are perfect; he is not the author of unrighteousness; so he did not create anyone wicked.  (Deut. 32:4, Ps. 5:4)  The one who became Satan was originally a perfect spirit son of God.  When saying that the Devil "did not stand fast in the truth," Jesus indicated that at one time that one was "in the truth." (John 8:44) But, as is true of all of God's intelligent creatures, this spirit son was endowed with free will.  He abused his freedom of choice, allowed feelings of self-importance to develop in his heart, began to crave worship that belonged only to God, and so enticed Adam and Eve to listen to him rather than obey God.  Thus by his course of action he made himself Satan, which means "adversary." -- Jas. 1:14, 15


Does Catholicism teach that Trinity is reflected in Man?

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses the question "Whether in creatures is necessarily found a trace of the Trinity?" in his Summa Theologica I q. 45 a. 7. He writes:

  …the processions of the divine Persons are referred to the acts of intellect and will, as was said above (q. 27). For the Son proceeds as the word of the intellect; and the Holy Ghost proceeds as love of the will. Therefore in rational creatures, possessing intellect and will, there is found the representation of the Trinity by way of image, inasmuch as there is found in them the word conceived, and the love proceeding.


First of all, Paul was the Roman citizen, and during his imprisonment he was been waiting for Caesar's judgment:

  (Acts 25:10-12) Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged (...) I appeal unto Caesar. Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.

His crime was imputed to him not by Roman citizens, but by persons of occupied nation.

So, this wasn't just imprisonment as for ordinal criminal, but it was something like house arrest before sitting of the court. It was quite comfortable restraint of liberty, so Paul could even preach:

  (Acts 28:16, 30-31) And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the
  prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him. (...) And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received
  all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching
  those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence,
  no man forbidding him.


A confusion about the fullfilment of the law

As @curiousdanni pointed out in comments, the text here does not put forth the eternality of the Law and Prophets but rather highlights two conditions in which they may or will pass away:  If the current created order passes away or if everything in them is fulfilled.  It is possible that these two are to be understood as concurrent but that is not necessary.

Jesus said that he came for the purpose of fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, some of which has been accomplished and some of which is still yet to be.  Paul makes it clear that the Law's purpose as a means for obtaining righteousness has been brought to an end.  This is not a terminal end but an objective end;  Jesus is the righteousness that the Law was intended to produce.  "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." - Romans 10-4  Also, the epistle to the Hebrews is filled with elements of the tabernacle and sacrificial system that typified and were fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews chapter 9).  In 1 Corinthians 10:4 Christ is pointed out as the spiritual rock the Israelites drank from in the desert and there are many more such examples.  The Messiah was also prophesied to need to come and to suffer and to enter into glory (Isaiah 53 and Luke 24:26 among many others).  So, there are a great many aspects of the Law and Prophets which have already been fulfilled in the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus into heaven as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28) and the inauguration of the Church (Hosea 2:23).

But the Law and Prophets are not yet passed away.   "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." - Romans 3:31  We do not set the Law aside because "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." - Romans 7:12  What has ended regarding the Law is that it is no longer the means by which righteousness may be obtained.  Christ has met every requirement of the Law for us in that regard; he has kept the Law in a positive sense, not only in letter but in spirit and he has borne the curse of the Law for us as well so that, through faith, we are now able to fulfill the righteousness that the Law required: "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,  in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." - Romans 8:3-4  This is why Paul speaks so harshly against those who claim that he taught a flaunting of the Law (Romans 3:8)

And there are many prophesies yet to be fulfilled regarding the second coming of Christ (Zechariah 12:10), the resurrection (Job 19:26), the permanent settling of God's people in the Land (Ezekiel 36), the creation of a new heaven and earth (Revelation 21) to name just a few.

In summary, God's Word is said to never pass away even if heaven and earth do pass away (Matthew 24:35) but the Law and Prophets, having been given for specific and limited purpose do have an expiration date that has yet to be reached.  It is also certain that these will ultimately be totally fulfilled by Christ "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory." - 1 Corinthians 1:20

"so shall my word (Christ) be that goes out from my mouth;
    it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
    and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11


Did Jesus suffer on the Cross in all possible senses?

You're thinking too hard, and not quite straight.

Obviously Jesus didn't not experience everything. Your example is pretty convoluted but lets do an easier one. As a sinless man, there is at least one emotion Jesus didn't experience: a guilty conscience. God "made him to be sin who knew no sin", so he experienced in some fashion what it was like to be guilty, but clearly there must be a dimension in which he did not experience it the way we do.

But that's to miss the point.

The point is He suffered FAR BEYOND anything we do. He bore the weight of God's wrath against sin in a way that a Christian never will. He experienced far more senses of suffering than we do. There is left to us no sense in which he would be unable to understand what we experience.

And yet I still think that whole discussion is missing the point.

It sounds to me like you're confused about what we are saved from. Jesus doesn't save us from ourselves, our our self inflicted miseries or general sufferings. His primary work was to save us from the wrath of God. Until you understand that this is the central problem which he came to solve, none of the other stuff will quite make sense. When you get that out of the way, in having the broken fellowship between us and God restored through Christ we find that our other woes begin to heal as well -- the new creation we are is able to deal with suffering in a way that it never could before -- and as all of creation will one day be restored, the sufferings of a fallen world will likewise be wiped away with it.


Is the sign of the Cross as well as the crucifix a Catholic “trade mark”?

The Catholic Church does not have a trade mark on this subject, but the sign of the cross, crosses and crucifixes are extremely popular in the liturgy and in private devotions.

The Crucifix is a visual reminder for the Catholic faithful of the enormous price Jesus paid for our salvation.

Why do we have to make the Sign of the Cross physically?

There are several reasons why we make the sign of the cross physically.

Man is composed of a soul and a body.
As such the body is united in the prayer of the soul though a physical action.
The sign of the cross sets us apart from other men.
Our salvation was secured by the Cross which hung the Savior of the World.

  The Devil flees from the sign of the cross.
  The sign of the cross is a blessing in itself.
  The first “sign of the cross” that early Christians made was tracing a small cross on their foreheads. Around the year 200, Tertullian, an early Christian theologian, wrote about this sign: “In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.” By the fifth century, other Christian writers reveal that the sign of the cross was also being made on the lips and on the chest. Over time, Christians began making large crosses over their bodies as Catholics do today. It is unknown exactly when and how that developed, but the sign of the cross as we know it today is probably about 1000 years old. - Why do Catholics make the Sign of the Cross?

The Sign of the Cross is the sign of the Christian, that is to say, it is the outward sign which distinguishes the Christian from other men. And why is this?

  1st. Because it recalls to him who makes it, and to those who see it made, that Jesus Christ is the God of Christians and the Lord of their whole lives. Because it reminds us that God has loved us so much as to give Himself up for our sakes to suffer on the Cross, and that we must love Him with our whole hearts. It places incessantly before our eyes Jesus Christ crucified; and Jesus crucified is the Divine and living rule of life to each one of His disciples, and His sacred Cross their moral law. The sign of the Cross recalls to him who makes it with reverence and devotion that he is bound to imitate in his daily conduct the penance, mortification, humility, meekness, patience, detachment, chastity, and obedience of his Master; His love for His heavenly Father and His Blessed Mother, and toward all men; His mercy to His enemies, and His love of suffering.

  2nd. The Sign of the Cross is distinctively the sign of the Christian, because it reminds him of the blessed eternity which awaits him. It was after His passion and death that Jesus rose again. And by His Cross He entered into glory. And so it must be with His disciples. Their glory in heaven must be the full fruition of the crucified life they have led on earth, like unto the life of their Saviour. The Gospel also declares to us that when He shall come at the last day to judge the world, the sacred sign of the Cross shall appear in the heavens, to be recognized by the elect with thankfulness and love, and by the reprobate with fear and trembling; for then shall it be the disciples of the Cross, and none but they, whom He will acknowledge for His Own.

  3rd. It is the sign of the Christian because it brings before his mind the most important doctrines of the Catholic religion. It recalls the mystery of the holy and undivided Trinity, for in making it we say, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; three persons, but one God. In the name; and not, In the names. And also the mystery of the Incarnation, that is to say, the coming down of the Son of God from Heaven to earth, to assume a body and soul like ours in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary; for, in saying "In the Name of the Son," we move the hand down from the forehead to the breast, a lively image of the annihilation of the Son of God, who reposes in the hearts of the faithful, as formerly in the chaste womb of Mary. And, again, the mystery of the Redemption, since it was upon the Cross He died to wash away our sins, to merit for us pardon and salvation, and to open the gates of Heaven which sin had closed. And the mystery of the Church of God, that great society of the disciples of Jesus Christ, that perfect union, holy, Catholic, and apostolic, of the children of the Cross; since, being the same for all, it is necessarily the sign of their union in one body under one head: a most distinctive mark of the Catholic Church, for it recalls by its unity that the Church is one, and by its universality that the Church is Catholic. - The Sign of the Cross

As well as being traditionally placed in Catholic homes and churches, it is also a sacramental.

    The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen). – Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1182

  It has long been a tradition of Catholic families to hang crucifixes throughout their homes, or to even have a crucifix embedded into the foundation of the house. Some merely hang the crucifix on the walls of their home as a reminder of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, but beyond this it is also a sacramental, used in devotion to Our Lord and as a guard against evil.

  The tradition is hard to date exactly; the earliest Christians did not openly display the crucifix partly to not scandalize the weak, and partly to avoid subjecting it to the ridicule of Pagans. Instead they carried and used veiled symbols in art, for example an anchor, to refer to the Cross of Jesus. However, by the 5th century, the open depiction of the crucifix had become widespread; by the 6th century veneration to the Cross was firmly established. The Christian Faithful not only used it in art and to hang on walls but also on household utensils and plates, medals, lamps, toys, combs, the seals of wine-jars, and even on water-pipes.

  The two traditions that have lasted and remain prevalent in the lives of Catholics today are to wear a crucifix and to place them throughout the home.

  They are often hung on the wall, but standing crucifixes which stand on a table are also popular. The Vatican’s exorcist, Gabriele Amorth, encourages the faithful to keep a crucifix in every room.

  Prayer in front of a crucifix is encouraged as a means of focusing contemplation on Christ. Many of the saints practiced this, both in everyday prayer and also when they were suffering. Catherine of Siena was known to look upon a Crucifix for hours each day and when Joan of Arc was martyred, she asked a member of the clergy present to hold a crucifix before her. - Why have Crucifixes and Crosses in the Home?

The exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth has stated that the crucifix is one of the most effective means of averting or opposing demons.

  Roman Catholic (both Eastern and Western), Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran Christians generally use the crucifix in public religious services. They believe use of the crucifix is in keeping with the statement by Saint Paul in Scripture, "we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God". (1 Cor 1:23-24) - Crucifix (Wikipedia)

The pectoral cross of prelates May be either an actual cross or a crucifix.

  A pectoral cross or pectorale is a cross that is worn on the chest, usually suspended from the neck by a cord or chain. In ancient and medieval times pectoral crosses were worn by both clergy and laity, but by the end of the Middle Ages the pectoral cross came to be a special indicator of position worn by bishops. In the Catholic Church, the wearing of a pectoral cross remains restricted to popes, cardinals, bishops and abbots. The modern pectoral cross is relatively large, and is different from the small crosses worn on necklaces by many Christians. Most pectoral crosses are made of precious metals (platinum, gold or silver) and some contain precious or semi-precious gems. Some contain a corpus like a crucifix while others use stylized designs and religious symbols.

  In many Christian denominations, the pectoral cross symbolizes that the person wearing it is a member of the clergy, or that the wearer is a member of the higher or senior clergy. However, in many Western churches there are an increasing number of laypeople who choose to wear some form of a cross around their neck.

  Throughout the centuries, many pectoral crosses have been made in the form of reliquaries which contain alleged fragments of the True Cross or relics of saints. Some such reliquary pectorals are hinged so that they open to reveal the relic, or the relic may be visible from the front through glass.

  One of the earliest mentions of a pectoral cross is its mention by Pope Hilarius in 461. In 811 Nicephorus sent Pope Leo III a golden pectoral cross. At this time, pectoral crosses were worn by both clergy and laity.

A pectoral cross worn by the 7th-century female teenager of the Trumpington bed burial


Why didn't the Jews understand "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"?

There are two basic theories here. The first is that the crowd misheard Jesus.  The second is that they purposefully twisted his words to mock him.  Commentators are fairly evenly split on which option is more probable.
Misheard
In the first view, the crowd was at a significant enough distance that they could not hear Jesus clearly.  Additionally, those in the crowd may have been poorly educated and/or Hellenists and therefore did not have a strong command over the Hebrew/Aramaic.  Thus when Jesus said "Eloi" (Mark)/"Eli" (Matthew) their brains interpreted as "Elias" (=Elijah).   In support of how this would be an easy mistake to make, Ellicott's Commentary cites Matthew 16:14 and Matthew 17:10 which show that it was a common expectation during Jesus' time that Elijah would return at the coming of the Messiah (in reference to Malachi 4:5).

The dominant expectation of the coming of Elijah would predispose men to fasten on the similarity of sound, and the strange unearthly darkness would intensify the feeling that looked for a supernatural manifestation of His presence.

A couple previous answers mention the idea that those who misheard were Roman soldiers.  While it is probable there were Romans present, and some commentators have suggested the comment comes from Romans, that is not very likely.  While the soldiers may have had some basic understanding of Aramaic, it is not likely they would have knowledge of Elijah, much less automatically thought of him when they heard someone crying out in anguish.
Purposely distorted
The other option is that the crowd heard Jesus alright but seized on the opportunity to mock Jesus.  In this view, the crowd was referencing the same Messianic prophecy (Malachi 4:5), but were essentially saying "even Jesus realizes the prophecy was not fulfilled."  Barnes' Notes writes:

The taunt would be more cutting, because it was the universal belief of the Jews, as well as the doctrine of Christ, that "Elias" would come before the Messiah. They derided him now, as calling upon "Elias" when God would not help him; still keeping up the pretensions to being the Messiah, and invoking "Elijah" to come from the dead to aid him.

The entire mock trial-crucifixion episode has been about demeaning Jesus, so it is certainly possible that it ends on one last note of mocking.
Analysis
In my view, a simple misunderstanding is more likely.  In Matthew, the episode continues:

And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” (Matthew 27:47-49, ESV)

It seems that the man offering up the sponge probably heard Jesus correctly and understood He was suffering and tried to help.  The statement by the rest to "wait and see" could be read as further mocking, but to me more naturally suggests a initial misunderstanding, followed by doubt that Elijah would actually come without fully ruling out the possibility.
As the Pulpit Commentary points out, the fact that the insult theory relies on a Jewish audience purposefully distorting the name of God also creates a significant difficulty:

The time of ribaldry and abuse is now past; the supernatural darkness has had a calming and terrifying effect; and there is no spirit of mockery left in the awed bystanders. Besides this, it is not likely that Jews, who with all their errors and vices paid an outward respect to holy things, would have presumed to make a play on the sacred name of God.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not pray with people of other faith?

Both Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS have different meaning of God and Christ, so their understanding the very nature of God differs from the rest of the christians and from each other.

Jesus in Jehovah's Witnesses views is created by God. Whereas in LDS, Jesus is born and is first of many sons. Not to mention that Jehovah for LDS cosmology is Jesus.
See also
What exactly does it mean that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

  When servants of God assemble and pray together, their petitions can be effective. If the group is united in spirit and the prayer offered in their behalf reflects Scriptural principles, God is pleased. JW.org

As for Orthodox views on praying with others - christians can pray by themselves to God in any situation (in mosque for example), but social, common praying cannot be done with heretics. Thats why symbol of faith exists.

  If anyone pray in company with one who has been excommunicated, he shall be excommunicated himself.
  Canons of the Apostles, nr. 10,45,46

Even catholic and orthodox praying is separate. For example when Alexy II visited France, praying was done in order, not together.

  No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics. Canon rule nr. 33 of the Council of Laodicea

My personal understanding of this is that prayer is a message. Labeling who the target is, is important. You can help with delivery by doing it in group, or through saint, deed or with use of icons. But if its collective, then its important to have same target and message for all participants.


Does an understanding of how the Bible was written, play a strong role in any Christian sect?

As a Catholic, you study the books of the bible taking into account to whom the books were written.

The Catholic faith is based on Scripture and Tradition (with a capital 'T'). We realize that in the early church, many things were passed down by word of mouth. In other words from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  82      As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44

As far as I can tell, there is not great importance placed on who specifically wrote a book, but the author is taken into account while reading the scripture.


Is Seventh Day Adventistism considered an orthodox denomination?

I'll first direct you to a decent summary of SDA differences from typical (i.e. common) protestants: What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches?

Now let's examine a few definitions of orthodox.

  orthodox adjective
    or·tho·dox | \ˈȯr-thə-ˌdäks  \

      Definition of orthodox (Entry 1 of 2)

        1a : conforming to established doctrine especially in religion
          // orthodox principles
          // the orthodox interpretation
        1b : CONVENTIONAL
          // took an orthodox approach to the problem
          // orthodox medicine

        2 capitalized : of, relating to, or constituting any
        of various conservative religious or political groups: such as
          a : EASTERN ORTHODOX
            // Greek Orthodox rituals
          b : of or relating to Orthodox Judaism
            // Orthodox Jews in their black suits and hats and modest dresses
  - Merriam-Webster

In a religious academic setting, Orthodox is almost always used as in the second definition. That is, it is a specific thing, a proper noun. In this case, Seventh Day Adventist is trivially not Orthodox.

Outside of the academic setting, but still within highly religious settings (i.e. casual Bible studies, sermons, religious books for popular consumption) orthodox takes more of the first definition. The scope of it's use tends to coincide with many preferring to call their own beliefs "orthodox", which is to say they believe what they think is right and all biblically significant characters believed it as well. In a phrase, they think what they believe is historically correct. Many protestant denominations believe this about themselves.

However, the fact is most of them do not fit this definition. They have little to no evidence that their particular beliefs were common or even existed before the founding of their denomination. What is clear is that Catholics have quite a broad leg to stand on in this regard, and they are not shy to mention it as a point of validity for themselves. And in a broad sense, "Catholic" refers also to those ancient denominations that take the name "Orthodox". These are the first denominations and they have the history to prove it. Therefore, even in these settings, "orthodox" should be reserved for only these old denominations because they have the traditions of the first Christians.

As Protestants are outsiders to Orthodoxy, Seventh Day Adventists are outsiders to Protestants. It is clear that they have quite a few beliefs that most Protestants roundly reject and would even call heresy. And SDAs gladly accept this image. They understand they have some starkly different beliefs on some really big topics, and it is on exactly those topics that they proselytize. They preach consistently on keeping the Sabbath and the mercy of Annihilationism, neither of which are tenets of common protestant denominations.

The answer is clear: No, Seventh Day Adventists are not orthodox. They do not use the label for themselves and no other denomination calls them such. The word simply doesn't fit with any definition.

I came across my own answer here a year later and notice one missing point that is probably related. Adventists consider themselves a "remnant church". They believe strongly that their beliefs are the original beliefs of Christianity and that remnants of their orthodoxy has survived through the ages (claims of African churches mostly), though they do recognize that their prophet, Ellen White, is responsible for their creation as an American denomination. Contrast this with LDS (mormons) who believe that they are a restoration of a once lost orthodoxy.

A caveat: As you tighten scope of any labeling effort, you will often find the word "orthodox" used in conjunction with other specific terms. This is usually to denote that within a denomination there are disagreements and even schisms. For example, see the Anglican Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Both already protestant and distinctly not Orthodox Anglican and Presbyterian Churches split into one or more denominations, with one keeping closer to their respective traditional beliefs. The SDA is no stranger to this usage of the word, as this article references an "Adventist Orthodoxy". Given some time and a significant disagreement, we may see the birth of The Adventist Orthodox Church, but that name would only imply that it holds to the traditional beliefs of Adventists.


When was the third heaven where God dwells created

Just so we all know what you're talking about...

  2 Corinthians 12:2 ESV I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

Whether Paul was talking about a literal third heaven or a metaphorical vision, I am not sure. But if there is one, my guess is that it would be included with the heavens talked about in Genesis 1:1.

  Genesis 1:1 ESV In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Though I wouldn't say that God dwells there as he created it

  Isaiah 66:1,2 ESV Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?
  All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.


To what extent does mainstream Christian doctrine teach that knowing a spirit's name gives you power over it?

Actually, this is more Kabbalah than Christianity and has further roots in the occult and other non-Christian mysticism and folklore (Rumpelstiltskin comes to mind, which is a decidedly non-Christian story).

The idea that knowing the name of a beast/demon/whatever gives you dominion over it came from the idea that naming a beast/demon/whatever showed your already existing domination over it. It's a very ancient idea that we see displayed in Genesis 2 when God brings all the beasts to Adam so that he can name them 1 2.

The concept is often called knowing the True Name and also has its roots from a time when it was believed that language itself, or a special unknown language, held actual power (which is where the concept of spells comes from too). These concepts are not foreign to the Bible, but because of your modern eye, you might have over looked them. As already mentioned, Adam names the beasts in Genesis, but going further we see that God doesn't necessarily create in Genesis 1 with His own hands, but by simply speaking and with authority too. We see this again with the prophets, where they would speak with the authority of God ("thus saith the Lord"). We also see this in the New Testament in Acts when the disciples cast out demons "in the Name of Jesus." We even see this in John 1 where Jesus is called the "Word" that was and is with God.

Historically, this god-like power extended to kings, where any utterance from the king was not only legal law, but divine and natural as well. 3 4 Today, this extends somewhat into Christendom. For example, within the Roman Catholic Church, there is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, though I concede that this doctrine did not originate from this ancient mythical concept, and also in a few sects, such as LDS and Seventh Day Adventists, that believe in a modern prophet that brought or clarified the Word of God, which also has different origins. Even secularly, this idea that words hold real power persists, as evidenced by the classic metonymy "The pen is mightier than the sword."

In general, "mainstream" Christianity really avoids these kinds of things. Most people find the topic very unnerving. Out on the edges is where you will find opinions favoring this. It is very difficult to Biblically support it. This idea leaves the impression that you can have some kind of intrinsic power over any spirit. Instead, what is readily supported is that it is God's power, Jesus Christ's power, that conquers the evil spirit. Jesus casts out demons by his own authority, while the disciples in Acts cast out demons "in Jesus' name," demonstrating that they have no power of their own, but that Jesus does.

Additionally, what is very common practice for exorcising demons is to never actually address the demon except to command it from the possessed (I can't find a source for this right now). This would show that in practice, asking for its name is something you should not do anyway, even if it would tell you the truth.

Addendum

In case you might ask about the story of the demon named "legion" ...

It's not particularly clear why Jesus wanted to know the demon's name, but it is very clear that the demon was in full submission to Christ before He asked.

  When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!”
  Mark 5

The demon immediately pleads and begs Jesus to spare him from a grisly fate. Jesus didn't even need to address the demon. It merely saw Him from a distance and fell promptly into submission.

Regarding having the power of God ... Any tradition that would claim that having God's power is possible, even only theoretically, is verging on blasphemy. I don't know for sure, but this does sound like something you would read in Kabbalistic literature.

Sources

Adam and the Woman by Sandra King
Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, and Authority by Matt Slick - CARM
Divine Right of Kings Definition - Duhaime's Law Dictionary
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia

An interesting related question on Literature SE: Where did the idea of a "true name" come from?


Why did the Catholic Church change so radically after Vatican II in regards to the status of Jews?

I disagree with the OP about his thesis that the Church has always been overtly anti-Semitic/Jewish.  The examples are not compared to the time period in which they were expressed to see what the rest of the world said and how they said what they said.  As a matter of fact, the Church has not been anti-Jewish in any official capacity.

St. Augustine has been infamously accused of many things including being anti-Jewish, yet his ruling in favor of a Jewish man in a case brought before him by the Jewish man in which the man's mother sold property that belonged to him to a bishop.  The bishop in question refused the man's request to return his land in which he offered to pay the bishop.  This is why the man brought his case before St. Augustine.  After reviewing the case, Augustine wrote to the bishop in question and told him he was sure he wished to do the right thing and told him he had to return the Jewish man's land to him.  Sounds anti-Jewish?  Didn't think so, because Augustine was not an anti-Semite.  Nor was Aquinas.

Gregory the Great "emptied the papal treasury to ransom prisoners of the Lombards and to care for persecuted Jews and victims of plague and famine" (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=3466).

What Vatican II did was to open new frontiers by referring to the Jews as our elder brothers in the faith from which all Catholics come.  Much good fruit has been borne with the improved relations between Catholics and Jews (amongst all religious traditions and non-Christian religions).


What is the Biblical basis for "righteous anger"?

This is consistent with other verses like James 1:20.

  because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.

Basically they are saying that you aren't going to do anything good when you are angry. One can be angry but one's actions will tend towards sin in these situations.


Is there a significance of the "Christian name"?

In some cultures, notably the UK but also others, the term 'Christian name' simply means (or used to mean) someone's first name. So David Cameron's Christian name is 'David'. The logic behind this is that babies were typically 'named' at their baptism, which typically occurred shortly after their birth. Going back thirty or forty years you would find official forms that referred to a person's 'Christian name' and 'surname', and the first name might be referred to like that even if the person had not actually been baptised. Nowadays the term has dropped out of favour as it becomes less and less likely that a person will be even nominally Christian. Someone who was baptized as an infant can still reasonably call their first name their 'Christian name'.

At Confirmation, Catholics and Anglicans may select a new 'Christian' name to go with their baptismal names, and adult converts are encouraged to do so. This is sometimes described as a 'Christian name'. It is not normally part of someone's official or legal name unless they explicitly change it.


According to Catholicism, is marrying a woman who had children out of wedlock a sin?

Traditional Catholic here.

To answer your main question, no, it is not a sin to marry someone who had children previously out of wedlock. The husband would be taking on the duties of fathering them by making her his wife. And perhaps the woman had not even sinned either: she might have been raped.

The fact of impregnating a woman does not make her a man's wife, much less merely having sexual intercourse with her.  The Scripture is "Let no man separate what God has joined together." God does not "join together" apart from marriage.

The Church has never taught that a man becomes a woman's "master" by having sex with her.  This is grotesque. (The husband is, of course, the head of the family, but that's a different matter.)

Marrying a divorced woman is a sin given that she was actually already married. For example, if she was a baptised Catholic, she had to have been married in the Church. (Details in The Code of Canon Law under Matrimony)  If not, her previous "marriage" was never valid (but it still has to be annuled). For anyone (since the Church also recognizes marriages of non-Catholics) there has to be mutual consent, the intention to have children, and the belief that divorce is never an option, et al.  Indeed, according to the Church, many people are not actually married today, neither sacramentally nor naturally.

Update: Korvin edited the last sentence above to include "(in the sacramental sense)." I politely re-edit this because it is not only that most people are not receiving the sacrament of Matrimony, but in fact many are not marrying even in the natural sense (called "natural marriage"). As I wrote, for anyone entering into marriage, natural or sacramental, there are certain conditions, as they pertain to the very definition of marriage. For example, the primary purpose of marriage is to have children. Therefore, if a couple gets "married" but expressly decides beforehand to not have children, they do not contract a valid marriage, according to the Church. The Catechism of Trent distinguishes between the two types of marriage but retains the same basic definition for both: "For as marriage, as a natural union, was instituted from the beginning to propagate the human race..." (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Matrimony.shtml)

Most of these teachings can be found in the Catechism, articles 1601 through 1666.  The above is a summary of orthodox Catholic teaching, which you can confirm for yourself using serious sources.


What is the foundational motivation of Lenten practices?

What are the fundamental motivations of the "Lenten Practices"?

Not all denominations observe Lent! There are a few fundamental motivations for partaking in the Lenten observation.

Preparation spiritually for celebrating the sacred paschal mysteries of Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection.
Imitating Our Lord Jesus Christ who gave us the example of how to fast during his temptation in the desert.
It is a time for spiritual renewal, through prayer, fasting, almsgiving and other forms of Lenten practice.

No doubt the most Christians will be in accord with the fact that Lent is a time for preparing ourselves for the great contemplation for paschal mysteries which will be celebrated during Holy Week and Easter Sunday!

  Lent is a solemn religious observance in the Christian liturgical calendar that begins on Ash Wednesday and ends approximately six weeks later, before Easter Sunday. The purpose of Lent is the preparation of the believer for Easter through prayer, doing penance, mortifying the flesh, repentance of sins, almsgiving, and self-denial. This event is observed in the Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, Moravian, Presbyterian, Oriental Orthodox, Reformed, and Roman Catholic Churches. Some Anabaptist and evangelical churches also observe the Lenten season. Lent (Wikipedia)

Although some denominations do not fast, many do such as Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans and so on. The traditional ways to prepare for Easter is through prayer, fasting and almsgiving.

  Prayer: Without prayer, fasting and almsgiving are merely actions we do out of tradition without much meaning. Prayer is our conversation with God. It is through prayer that we find the strength to fast. It is through prayer that we develop a closer, more intimate relationship with God. This relationship makes us so grateful for the blessings he has bestowed upon us, that we eagerly give to those less fortunate than us. The Church, in its wisdom, understands that prayer is essential to any action we Christians may undertake.

  Fasting: Fasting is one of the most ancient actions linked to Lent. Fasting rules have changed through the ages, but throughout Church history fasting has been considered sacred. The prophet Isaiah insists that fasting without changing our behavior is not pleasing to God. Therefore, the goal of fasting is linked with prayer. The pangs of hunger remind us of our hunger for God, and prayer and fasting together brings us to what Lent is about - a deeper conversion.

  Almsgiving: It should be obvious by now, that almsgiving is simply a response by us to God, a response that we have come to through prayer and fasting. It is an expression of our gratitude for all that God has given us, and a realization that in the Body of Christ, it is never just "me and God." Through prayer and fasting we come to a deeper understanding that the needs of all are the responsibility of all in the Body of Christ. Works of charity and the promotion of justice are integral elements of the Christian way of life we began when we were baptized.

  Why are prayer, fasting and almsgiving especially important during Lent?

It should be noted that Lent is not universally observed throughout Christendom.

  In the Anglican churches The Book of Common Prayer prescribes that Lent be observed with fasting. In Lutheran and many other Protestant churches Lent is observed with various services and practices, though Lent is not formally observed in many Evangelical or nondenominational churches. - Lent (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Christians who strengthen their faith with the three traditional practices of prayer, fasting and almsgiving are truly preparing themselves for the great events of Christ’s Resurrection on Easter Sunday. These are not the only practices Christians do during Lent.

More information may be gleaned from the following articles:

How Prayer, Fasting, and Almsgiving Help Fight Temptation
12 Traditional Catholic Lenten Practices
Lent: A Rookie Anglican Guide
Lutheran Liturgical Practices During Lent


How does the doctrine of British Baptists compare with their American cousins?

The BUGB is pretty liberal and there are many things on which it does not have a clear view. To that extent, I would guess it's a bit more like the American Baptists than the Southern Baptists who, from my transatlantic vantage point, appear to be more evangelical in their doctrine, generally.

Though there are some evangelical Baptist churches still within the BUGB, a large proportion of UK churches which bear the name "Baptist" are in fact either independent (in some cases affiliated with other independent churches through organisations such as Affinity, the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches [FIEC] or the Evangelical Movement of Wales) or part of other Baptist denominations such as the Grace Baptists.


Why did Jesus not want people to talk about his healing?

When reading the gospels there seems to be two or three main problems Jesus always encountered in terms of ministry and politics. The most deadly was the jealousy and hatred of the religious leaders. Jesus often had to move away from any opportunity where they might be overly aroused and have easy access in apprehending him (Luke 20:20) Jesus seemed to manage the timing of his arrest. The second was crowd control (Matth 8:18).  As more and more flocked to Jesus the crowds became too large to effectively minister to them so he had to move away to less crowded areas and even leave to a new region to avoid crowds. The third problem is less obvious but quite clear in Jewish history, that of the zealots who wanted a Messiah to lead them in war against roman rule.

All three of these concerns might be involved in Jesus wanting to limit his fame depending on the situation , where the religious leaders and their 'spies' were, how big the crowd was and how the zealots might have used his fame for their own agenda.

Of course there is no way of hiding a miraculous healing to those who knew the man. To those who would know he was healed he would have to explain what happened. He was not asked to 'hide' his healing, just refrain from telling people who would not already know. Jesus seems to simply want to avoid sensationalism and some political hazards. He did not want the man to broadcast his exciting experience, until perhaps much later on. Jesus managed the political landscape on which he was drawing more and more attention from crowds of people with differing motives of interest.


What evidence is there for the Resurrection of Jesus?

That's actually a very good question that people do not ask as often as they should. You are right that it is important to distinguish between evidence and the explanation of that evidence.

With historical evidence, it is also important to qualify what we mean by historical "evidence." Many people today limit this to physical evidence like archaeological records - something that can be seen, felt and measured. If this is what we mean by evidence, then the answer is that we actually have no evidence! There is no physical tangible item that proves definitively that Jesus rose from the dead according to our modern scientific standards of proof.

The only evidence that exists is the accounts of eye-witnesses - both written accounts and accounts shared orally that have passed down to us as one tradition or another, often recorded in the writings of an early Christian writer (first two hundred years).

I actually think that the question is not about how we explain the evidence, but whether we accept it as fact.

History is full of events that we have no tangible, scientific proof actually happened, but events that we do have eye-witness accounts of and, generally, we accept them as factual reports of what people saw, heard and experienced. Even modern day events are like this.

Imagine that you are out hiking in the woods with two or three friends and you stop for a break by a lake to eat lunch. As you are sitting there, getting ready to bite into your apple you brought along, a deer walks out of the forest, sees you, and runs back in.

Now, what actual proof is there that this event happened? It happened so fast that everybody was shocked by what they saw, and nobody had time to pull out their phones to record it. Besides, you are out in the woods - you should have your phones off and enjoy the world around you, anyway!

The only proof that exists is your eye-witness testimony. Either we believe that it happened, or we don't. No scientific proof, no evidence. You could march people back to the spot and look for footprints, but the weather may have washed it away. But you saw it - you know that it happened.

That's all that we have with many historical events - people's eye-witness account. Interestingly, this is normally enough for us, especially if it comes from a source that we trust.

What is most striking is that the resurrection of Jesus is attested to by at least three different people who recorded what they saw and many more who shared their experience with the resurrected Jesus orally to the community around them. This is far more "evidence" than we have for most of the history that we generally accept as "factually true!"

The problem, I believe, is not with the reliability of the testimony and the fact that the resurrection is one of the most attested to events in ancient history, but with the idea of resurrection. People start with the assumption that resurrection is not possible, so immediately the story - regardless of how many eye-witnesses there were - is assumed to be not true. This is true of any story or account that includes something we believe impossible. We reject it not because we have evidence that it didn't happen, but because we have no tangible empirical scientific proof that what you are talking about is possible - no empirical "evidence" that it did happen. None that we would accept, anyway.

I think that what you mean by explanation of evidence is just this - whether we accept it as fact or not. I'm not talking about all the details about Jesus walking through walls and eating fish, but whether or not the simple fact of his resurrection is real.

I do think, however, it is precisely the evidence itself that is controversial with this issue. Do we believe that their eye-witness evidence is fact, or do we believe that it is fiction? That all comes down to whether you believe resurrection is possible.

I believe that all things are possible with God. But there is no empirical truth for that. It must be accepted by faith.


First the easy part. The name of Haran and the name of the town of Haran are English homonyms but are actually spelt differently in the Hebrew language. So, the town was not named after Abram's brother, Haran. The 'town of Nahor' is simply the town where Nahor lived, Haran.

Genesis 11:26 says that Haran was born and died in Ur of the Chaldees. Although the city of Ur was certainly ancient, the Chaldeans did not inhabit the area until the ninth century BCE, which tells us that the passage was not actually written until some time after the ninth century BCE. Ur and Haran were the two principal cities of the moon god, Sin, and some scholars see this tradition as reflecting ancient traditions about the migration of the Sin cult from Ur to Haran and then into Canaan.


Are there any Catholic saints or notable theologians that have interpreted 666 in the manner as explained below?

The church father Irenaeus  (130-202) said there were many names that could be produced from the number, and he speculates about the name using the “Greek fashion of calculation”, using the value of the letters contained in 666 and trying to mathematically produce a name. He attributes the erroneous number 616 to a copyist error, and states that none of the names produced is certain. This would indicate that it wasn’t anything that he learned from the apostolic teaching tradition. However, Irenaeus offered an alternative interpretation of 666.

  And he will cause a mark [to be put] in the forehead and in the right hand, that no one may be able to buy or sell, unless he who has the mark of the name of the beast or the number of his name; and the number is six hundred and sixty-six,” (Rev 13:18) that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. [He gives this] as a summing up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during six thousand years." Irenaeus V.XXVIII.2

  For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works.” This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years;(2 Pet 3:8) and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year. Thus, then, the six hundred years of Noah (Gen 7:6), in whose time the deluge occurred because of the apostasy, and the number of the cubits of the image for which these just men were sent into the fiery furnace (Dan 3:1), do indicate the number of the name of that man in whom is concentrated the whole apostasy of six thousand years, and unrighteousness, and wickedness, and false prophecy, and deception; for which things’ sake a cataclysm of fire shall also come [upon the earth]." V.XXVIII.3

The church father Irenaeus associated the number of the beast (Rev 13:18) with the six days of creation as well as 6,000 years of Earth history. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Of course, Irenaeus got the number from the book of Revelation. According to this church father, the number was foreshadowed by the six days of creation, the flood, and the book of Daniel.

Surprisingly, the idea for 666 was preceded by the first-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria (25 BC-50 AD).

  Since, therefore, the first beginning of the generation of our race, after the destruction caused by the deluge, commenced with Noah, men being again sown and procreated, therefore he also is recognised as resembling the first man born of the earth, as far as such resemblance or recognition is possible. And the six hundredth year has for its origin the number six; and the world was created under the number six, therefore, by this same number does he reprove the wicked, putting them to shame because he would, unquestionably, never, after he had created the universe by means of the number six, have destroyed all the men who lived on the earth under the form of six, if it had not been for the preposterous excess of their iniquities. For the third power of six and the minor power is the number six hundred, and the mean between both is sixty, since the number ten more evidently represents the likeness of unity, and the number a hundred represents the minor power." Philo, Book 42: Questions and Answers on Genesis, II

Here is a quote from Hippolytus of Rome (170-235).

  But that we may not leave our subject at this point undemonstrated, we are obliged to discuss the matter of the times, of which a man should not speak hastily, because they are a light to him. For as the times are noted from the foundation of the world, and reckoned from Adam, they set clearly before us the matter with which our inquiry deals. For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day “on which God rested from all His works.” (Heb 4:4) For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” (Heb 4:5, Rev 20:6) when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” (2 Pet 3:8, Psa 90:4) Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: “five are fallen; one is,” that is, the sixth; “the other is not yet come.” (Rev 17:10) The interpretation by Hippolytus, Daniel


What arguments do adherents of a global flood give for how water was able to cover the entire earth?

According to http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml, the total volume of the world's oceans is 1.3 to 1.5 billion cubic kilometers, which comes out to 310 to 360 million cubic miles. The surface area of the Earth is about 200 million square miles. So if the Earth was a perfect sphere, with no mountains, no valleys, no ocean trenches, the water would cover the surface about 1.7 miles deep.

There's water in the ice caps, underground, and in the atmosphere. Perhaps all this water was on the surface during the Flood. But by most calculations this is a relatively small percentage -- hydrologic scientists generally say that 97% of the world's water is in the oceans, 2% in the ice caps, 1% underground, and lakes a rivers a tiny fraction of 1%. So unless there's some very large unknown water reserve -- underground, I suppose -- adding these things in wouldn't change the 1.7 miles much.

Of course the world does have mountains and valleys, so some places are above the water level and others below. The highest mountain is of course Mt Everest, which is 6 miles high. The lowest point is the Marianas trench, 7 miles deep.

So the most obvious scenario for a Flood to cover the whole world is that the mountains before the Flood were smaller than today and the trenches not as deep. If the highest mountains were 1/4 the height today, then they would all be covered by water.

Creation theorists generally suggest that the Flood caused major geological upheavals including relatively rapid movement of the Eartth's tectonics plates, resulting in mountain formation. That is, they say that the high mountains in the world today were formed during the Flood. Of course for the world to not be covered in water before the Flood, the amount of water in the oceans would have had to have been smaller. Genesis mentions water coming from both rain and "the fountains of the deep". The theory generally calls for more water vapor in the air in the form of a large vapor canopy, and also more water underground.

So ther's plenty of water if only the Earth was more nearly spherical before the Flood.


Are there any commentaries from Trinitarians that explain why the Holy Spirit doesn't have a throne/receive worship in Revelation?

The visions in Revelation that you cited in support of your contention (“that the Holy Spirit is, for all intents and purposes, absent from the major points, events, and these visions held in Revelation…”)  seemed to ignore a critically relevant point in Revelation 5:6 about “the seven spirits of God” which are “the seven eyes of the Lamb", who is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” – the glorified Jesus Christ at the centre of this one throne of God in heaven. This means that the Holy Spirit IS included in that particular scene of worship. Verse 6 is commented on by the Protestant and Trinitarian web-site below which details one possible interpretation of the phrase, ‘the seven spirits of God’:

  “The first is that the seven spirits of God are symbolic of the Holy
  Spirit. The Bible, and especially the book of Revelation, uses the
  number 7 to refer to perfection and completion. If that is the meaning
  of the “seven” in the "seven spirits," then it is not referring to
  seven different spirits of God, but rather the perfect and complete
  Holy Spirit.” https://www.gotquestions.org/seven-spirits-God.html

This would mean, then, that when the Lamb is receiving the worship of those surrounding the throne of God in heaven, the Holy Spirit is also being worshipped, as the seven eyes of the Lamb are part of his Being. There is no need for a separate throne for the Holy Spirit as he is 'within' the Lamb, Jesus, looking out from his eyes, as it were.

  Verses 13 to 14 state, “And every creature which is in heaven, and on
  the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all
  that are in them, heard I saying, ‘Blessing and honour and glory and
  power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for
  ever and ever’. And the four beasts said, ‘Amen.’ And the twenty-four
  elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.”

Not only is the Father being worshipped, but also the Son (the Lamb) whose seven eyes are the seven-fold Spirit of God. There is the triune Godhead being worshipped on this one heavenly throne.

Further to the matter of the Bible supporting the idea of worshipping the Holy Spirit equally as is the Father and the Son, here is another quote from the same Trinitarian web-site:

  “The question of whether we should worship the Holy Spirit is answered
  simply by determining whether the Spirit is God. If the Holy Spirit is
  God, then He can and should be worshiped. Scripture presents the Holy
  Spirit as not merely a “force” but as a Person. The Spirit is referred
  to in personal terms (John 15:26; 16:7–8, 13–14). He speaks (1 Timothy
  4:1), He loves (Romans 15:30), He chooses (Acts 13:2), He teaches
  (John 14:26), and He guides (Acts 16:7). He can be lied to (Acts
  5:3–4) and grieved (Ephesians 4:30). The Holy Spirit possesses the
  nature of deity—He shares the attributes of God. He is eternal
  (Hebrews 9:14). He is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–10) and omniscient (1
  Corinthians 2:10–11). He was involved in the creation of the world
  (Genesis 1:2). The Holy Spirit enjoys intimate association with both
  the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19; John 14:16 …Since the Holy
  Spirit is God, and God is “worthy of praise” (Psalm 18:3), then the
  Spirit is worthy of worship. Jesus, the Son of God, received worship
  (Matthew 28:9), so it stands to reason that the Spirit of God would
  also receive worship. Philippians 3:3 tells us that believers “worship
  by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus.” There is one God who
  eternally exists in three Persons. When we worship God, we naturally
  worship all three members of the Godhead.”
  https://www.gotquestions.org/worship-Holy-Spirit.html

I submit these two quotes in support of Protestant, Trinitarian belief in the Holy Spirit being worshipped in Heaven, particularly as depicted in the book of Revelation. The one throne in heaven is the 'seat' of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  It is worth noting, also, that Catholic views on the worship of the Holy Spirit would not clash with Protestant ones.


When in the development of trinitarian doctrine was the word "persons" first applied to God?

Tertullian: Earliest extant use of term

Tertullian (155 - 240) was, famously, the first Latin writer to use the word "trinity" in his anti-Sabellian treatise Against Praxeas. It also contains the earliest known uses (16 total) of the word "persons" in reference to the Godhead.

  The mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God.

Valentinus: Alleged earlier use of term

Marcellus of Ancyra (d. 374) claimed in his own treatise On the Holy Church (paywall) that Valentinus the Gnostic (100 - 160) was the first to propose three persons in the Godhead:

  These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him On the Three Natures. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.

There are significant reasons to doubt Marcellus' assertion:

On the Three Natures has not survived in any manuscripts or fragments, and we have no way of knowing whether Valentinus used the words "hypostases" or "persons" or if one or both was an interpretive flourish by Marcellus.
If it's specifically the word "hypostases" that Marcellus objects to, then it would seem to be an anachronistic reading of On the Three Natures, which was written centuries before the word was first used as a synonym of "persons."
Marcellus wrote this specifically to discredit the orthodoxy of the term "persons" by linking it back to a despised heretic, which lends credence to the "interpretive flourish" hypothesis.

It is also exceedingly unlikely that Tertullian borrowed the terminology from Valentinus, since he himself was a fierce critic of Valentinianism, even dedicating a whole book to it, Against the Valentinians.

Conclusion

We have no surviving writings from anyone prior to Tertullian using the word "persons" in a trinitarian fashion.

Whether Tertullian was or wasn't the very first to use the term cannot be proved. He has a reputation as an innovative theologian, but whether he was innovative in service of defense of orthodoxy or in service of inventing new heresies is a matter left to the reader. Of course, even if the concept was orthodox, that doesn't automatically mean that his use of the word had any precedent. In the absence of other evidence, we have no cause to say that anyone else was the originator of the use of the word.


If believing that Jesus is God is that important, why doesn't Jesus say it more often?

Actually he said it a lot. Enough to get himself killed for saying it. The Jews considered Jesus' statement that he was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" blasphemy, and Jesus' agreement with Peter's declaration is the reason they tried and executed him.

The disciples took a while to catch on, but not for lack of being told. Their dull, slow hearts took a lot of time to convince, and Jesus had a great deal to teach them before he stirred up the pot enough to end his ministry.

It is important to note, however, the disciples to a man eventually became so convinced their teacher Jesus was THE Christ that they devoted their lives to proclaiming that message. Most of them were also willing to die--and did--for the truth of it.

If anyone was in a position to know that Jesus was something less than what he claimed to be, his disciples would know, yet to a man (except for Judas) they went their separate ways proclaiming all over the world that Jesus was God and Lord.

Moreover, I suggest Jesus made his message so plain that after his resurrection the disciples were left with no doubts about who he was. Who dies for something they know is a lie?


Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?

As Christians we are first and foremost subject to God's commandments for us. However one of the instructions he gave us for life on this earth is that we be "subject to the governing authorities". In fact we learn that government itself, however secular and/or corrupt, is itself an institution that God places over us.

  Romans 13:1 (ESV)
  Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

In so far as the civil laws of a country do not cause us to violate the moral and other obligations we have to our maker, we are submit to them. This means: paying your taxes, not running red lights and yes, not breaking copyright law, etc.


Biblical basis for two aspects of the Gap Theory

It is uncertain when Satan and the rebellious Angels rebelled against God or even how far the war had progressed before Satan and his Angels were ejected from Heaven.

According to Scriptures which is the basis for Pink's analogy.

  Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

is simply a statement that God was the creator and:

  Genesis 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

is descriptive of his creation at that time.

Pink apparently deduced from:

  Luke 10:18  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

and

  Revelation 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

That since Revelation says that he was cast into the Earth it had to be without form and void.

This would make more sense if as; some believe, that the Earth was created at the time of their being expelled from Heaven as a place of interment for Satan and his Angels. This also gives more meaning to the bottomless pit also spoken of in the Revelation.

As far as the gap theory goes it's basis in not between Genesis 1:1 and 2, but between verses 1 and 3, and some validity for this theory lies in:

  Genesis 1:5  And God called the light Day, and *the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The darkness referred to in verse 5 can only be eternity preceding the creation of light, since God starts that first day with darkness, with the light being the second part of day one. This also gives reason to debate the 24 hour day theory for the creation, since the 24 hour day is based on the cycle of sunlight and darkness which does not come into play until:

  Genesis 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

This is of course depending upon whether or not Genesis chapter one is chronological, as you have stated in your question. The answer to that can only come from the numerology, that being that God divided his work of the Creation into days and broke it into successive numbers 1,2, and so on. The only logical reason for this is to delineate Chronology.

I can only give you the logic behind my answer to your question, you will have to determine for yourself what you choose to believe, since this is the most concrete evidence I know of and even that is subject to individual interpretation.

Hope this helps.