What is the eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understanding of mortal and venial sin?

There is no such distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sin in the fashion you suggest within the Eastern Orthodox Church, but it must also be understood that sin, as well as the related concepts of grace and free will, is understood completely differently in the Orthodox Church.
Sin, within the Eastern Orthodox Church, is seen as a spiritual disease - a disease that we inherit as a result of man's Fall in Paradise.  It is seen more as a sickness to be treated than a crime to be punished.
A dogmatic definition of "sin" is provided in John's first Epistle - the definition that also appears in one of the few formal "catechisms" of the Orthodox Church (The Longer Catechism of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow):  αμαρτια εστιν η ανομια - "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4).  In the Latin: peccatum est iniquitas - "sin is iniquity".
Venerable Bede (672-735), who is considered a Church Father in both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church writes:

The force of this thought is grasped more easily in the Greek language
in which the Letter is written, since in that language iniquity is
called ἀνομία, which implies something done, as it were, against the
law or without the law, since in Greek νόμος means law.  When John
says therefore, Everyone who commits sin also commits iniquity, that
is, ἀνομίαν, and sin is iniquity, he clearly suggests that by every
single sin we act against the law of God, according to the saying of
the Psalmist, I have counted all sinners on earth as transgressors
[Psalm 118:119 LLX].  For all who commit sin are guilty of
transgression, that is, not only those who reject the known precepts
of the written law which have been given them, but also those who
whether through weakness or negligence or even ignorance destroy the
innocence of the natural law which we received in the first-created
man.
Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles (tr. Dom David
Hurst), pp.187-188

The Orthodox Christian monk and theologian Justin Popović (1894-1979) further explains this as follows:

Sin defiles man and his being, which is in the divine image of God and God-given.  It is the fundamental impurity, proto-impurity, and
the origin of all impurities.  Purity is, in reality, purity from sin
and its impurities.  That is holiness.
For such purity, such holy purity, is the divine law of man's being.
This purity is achieved and maintained by living in goodness in love,
in prayer, in righteousness, in meekness, in fasting, in
self-restraint, and in the rest of the virtues of the Gospel - simply
put, in holiness, conceived of as the synthesis and unity of all the
holy virtues and grace-filled energies.  In opposition to purity, to
holiness as law, to the divine law of man's being, stands sin as the
first and fundamental lawlessness.
Commentary on the Epistles of St. John the Theologian, p.39

While certain sinful acts - which we might refer to as specific "sins" - reflect a graver spiritual condition than others, there is really no systematic categorization of them as exists within the Roman Catholic Church.
I cannot really comment on the doctrine on sin that Uniates hold, but I would be surprised if it held to Eastern Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic doctrine.  The two theologies are quite distinct.  I am assuming that if there is a lighter emphasis on the mortal/venial distinction it is a residual influence of Eastern Orthodoxy.
(As a footnote, I attended high school at the Benedictine Abbey where Dom David, the translator of Bede's commentary above, was a novice at the time.  I was surprised to encounter him in print decades later as an Orthodox convert).


How can Dietrich Bonhoeffer's inclusion of non-Christians be explained theologically?

A common emphasis in Bonhoeffer's works such as "The Cost of Discipleship," "Life Together," and "Ethics" is the Church as a both a witness to Christ as well as a blessing to all people.  Since the Church is the body of Christ she is called to bring his love to all people.  (Goodreads has some good quotes from "The Cost of Discipleship" at: The Cost of Discipleship Quotes.

So, in the context of welcoming non-Christian prisoners into worship, I think this would have been an act of blessing and loving them; i.e. sharing in their pain and discomfort.  Christ came to bless all people and made a particular effort to reach out to those who were considered "outsiders" by others.  The Church, as the body of Christ, is called to do the same, both as an act of witness to the reconciliation we have in Christ as well as simply to be a source of mercy and blessing, showing the love of Christ through us.

So, in the three options you propose (i.e. worship as evangelism, a belief in universal salvation, a belief in interfaith worship under extreme circumstances), I think it is the first option, although not explicitly so.  What I mean is that the Church, and particularly Lutherans (such as Bonhoeffer), trust in the Word of God to bring people to faith.  So, Lutherans do not press people to "make a decision" or decide anything.  Rather, the emphasis is on God doing the work to bring people to faith.

Bonhoeffer has, however, been criticized by some people for things such as this (because people perceive a universalist tendency in Bonhoeffer), as well as his participation in the plot to kill Hitler. (See, for example: WHO WAS DIETRICH BONHOEFFER AND WHAT DID HE BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE?)

From actually reading Bonhoeffer, I think the criticisms of him are due to misunderstandings of what he was actually saying, particularly by those who are not acquainted with Lutheran theology.

A good article that talks more about these issues is at: Bonhoeffer's Costly Theology.

A quote from the article which applies to this question is:

  In Bonhoeffer's theology, there is an intimate relationship between Jesus Christ and the church. In his letters from prison Bonhoeffer spoke of Jesus as "the man for others." And in parallel fashion he wrote that the church is truly the church only when it exists for others. Just as Jesus lived his life completely for others (even unto death on the cross), so the church is to serve God by serving the world of need.


In 1943, the Russian Orthodox Church permitted the women's name Svetlana. Was it made specifically for Stalin's daughter?

It is ok for Russian Church, historically some names, which we can find in ROC calendary, for example: Вѣра (Věra), Надѣжда (Naděžda), Любовь (Ljubovj), Боголѣпъ (Bogolěp), have an other view of their origin names, for those names they are Greek ones: Elpis, Pistis, Agapi, Theoprepios. At the time of Rus Baptial time the greek names yet used in their original view, it can be observed, for example, in cathedral of Sofia Kievan. And the reason of view transformation is that the slavic forms of the names, keeping their meaning, are more understandable for the people. The similar one yet name is the Leont, which becomes Лев (Lev).
There is the name pair, which form migrated from slavic to gree view. That is name Злата (Zlata), which became in Greek calendary as Chrisi. The name has appeared in calendary by the martys Zlata Moglenska.
So when we are seeing to the name of Свѣтлана (Světlana), the approach of appearing and using the name Fotini, was that, Wikipedia says that the name was blessed by the Synod of ROC in 1943. But I have not found confirmations of that point of view in the deeds of that Synod. And my point of view is the next. When at the end of XX century many women with the name of Světlana went to the Church, and the question on how to baptise them had arisen. So the church popes and bishops, which know the languages and tradition of namegiving in Church, just bless the equality of the names Světlana and Fotini by the meaning. Of course this reason can be applied to the time of Synod 1943.


Who exactly is resurrected and reigns in the millennial city in premillennialisim?

Both dispensational and historic premillennialists hold that all Christians who died or were raptured prior to the beginning of the millennium will reign with Christ during it.

One standard dispensational commentary, the Moody Bible Commentary, describes two groups of people that will reign with Christ in its treatment of Revelation 20:

  Verses 4a-b refer to the Church saints resurrected at the rapture, who rule and reign with Jesus.  After this, John saw the resurrection of another group, the tribulation saints, those who had been beheaded (martyred) during the tribulation for resisting idolatry. "They came to life" means that their bodies had now been joined, through resurrection, to their souls that were already in heaven.  They also "reigned with Christ."

This commentary views both of these groups as part of the "first resurrection":

  The phrase "this is the first resurrection" (v. 5b) summarizes the experience of all believers, including those martyred in the tribulation.

Prominent Dispensationalist John MacArthur says in a sermon on this passage:

  So you've got resurrected Old Testament saints, you've got resurrected saints who followed Jesus during His lifetime, you've got resurrected New Testament saints, and now you've got resurrected Tribulation saints and it's all the resurrected saints who reign. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [emphasis added]

Historic premillennialists like Wayne Grudem see things similarly.

  After that time of tribulation at the end of the church age, Christ will return to earth to establish a millennial kingdom. When he comes back, believers who have died will be raised from the dead, their bodies will be reunited with their spirits, and these believers will reign with Christ on earth for one thousand years. [...] The believers who have been raised from the dead, and those who were on the earth when Christ returns, will receive glorified resurrection bodies that will never die, and in these resurrection bodies they will live on the earth and reign with Christ. [bold added]

Given the disagreement over the finer points of interpretation of Revelation, it's quite likely that some espousing premillennialism will diverge from this position.  But it's significant that these prominent proponents of their respective eschatological views agree that all dead and raptured Christians will reign during the millennium.

Grudem's summary is found in his Systematic Theology, chapter 55, page 1112.  The notes from Moody Bible Commentary are found in the section on Revelation 20:4–6.  I cleaned up the formatting and made several unmarked omissions of parenthetical remarks when quoting from the latter.


What is the biblical basis for Jeremiah and John the Baptist being born without original sin?

Is there a biblical basis for believing that the Prophet Jeremiah and St. John the Baptist were born without original sin?

Some Catholics do believe that the Prophet Jeremiah and St. John the Baptist were born without original sin. This pious belief, however has of yet not been raised to the level of a dogma.

First of let us consider St. John the Baptist.

As Catholics we believe that, by a divine prerogative from God, Mary was conceived with no stain of original sin. It is not impossible that St. John, although he was not conceived immaculately may have been purified while still in the womb of St Elizabeth! Although not dogma , the Church has not yet pronounced on this subject.

"There is a solid tradition in the Church that says St. John the Baptist was purified of original sin shortly after he was conceived, while still in the womb of St. Elizabeth. So, this episode of the Gospel referring to the child in the womb hearing Our Lady’s voice, understanding her words and loving her is completely credible." - Professor Plino Correa de Olivra

Here is how Wikipedia puts it:

  "Some Catholics have held to a belief that John the Baptist never sinned, though this has never been a point of doctrine and is not binding in belief upon any adherent as is the sinlessness of Mary. In her Treatise of Prayer, Saint Catherine of Siena includes a brief altercation with the Devil regarding her fight due to the Devil attempting to lure her with vanity and flattery. Speaking in the first person, Saint Catherine of Siena responds to the Devil with the following words:

  ...humiliation of yourself, and you answered the Devil with these words: 'Wretch that I am! John the Baptist never sinned and was sanctified in his mother's womb. And I have committed so many sins..." — Catherine of Siena, , A Treatise of Prayer, 1370.[85][86]"

St. Catherine of Sienna was declared a Doctor of the Church on October 3, 1970 by Pope Paul VI.

  "Now during the sixth month, the Annunciation had taken place, and, as Mary had heard from the angel the fact of her cousin's conceiving, she went "with haste" to congratulate her. "And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant" — filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost — "leaped for joy in her womb", as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord. Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the child should "be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb". Now, as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin. When "Elizabeth's full time of being delivered was come. . .she brought forth a son" (Luke 1:57); and "on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they called him by his father's name Zachary. And his mother answering, said: Not so, but he shall be called John. And they said to her: There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name. And they made sign to his father, how he would have him called. And demanding a writing table, he wrote, saying: John is his name. And they all wondered" (Luke 1:59-63). They were not aware that no better name could be applied (John, Hebrew; Jehohanan, i.e. "Jahweh hath mercy") to him who, as his father prophesied, was to "go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto remission of their sins: through the bowels of the mercy of our God" (Luke 1:76-78). Moreover, all these events, to wit, a child born to an aged couple, Zachary's sudden dumbness, his equally sudden recovery of speech, his astounding utterance, might justly strike with wonderment the assembled neighbours; these could hardly help asking: "What an one, think ye, shall this child be?" (Luke 1:66)." - Catholic Encyclopedia.

Now if St John was in fact purified while in the womb of his mother he would the greatest of those born of women (Matthew 11:11). Mary's immaculate conception still puts her above St John!

  "Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

As for the Prophet Jeremiah, the biblical references are seemingly limited to a single passage.

St. Joseph’s “confirmation in grace” makes perfect sense in light of the Holy Family’s role in the Incarnation, and St. John the Baptist’s similar confirmation is biblical. But, why does tradition single out Jeremiah, of all the prophets, for a similar honor?

Most sources point to a single passage:

  “Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5, D-R)

  [Cornelius] Lapide says that Jeremias was the one prophet of the OT who was sanctified in the womb for the reason that by his holiness he sustained Jerusalem and the assembly of Israel at the most difficult time in Old Testament history – the exile.

  Also, Jeremias was a prophet not only to the Jews but also the Gentiles:

    et antequam exires de vulva, sanctificavi te,

    et prophetam in gentibus dedi te. (Jer 1:4)

  So in this way, Jeremias belonged to the New Covenant in a mystical sense.

  I (Dr Tallor Marshall) would also add, though Lapide doesn’t say it, that Jeremias appears again in 2 Maccabees as the special advocate of Jerusalem.

  Why Was Jeremias Sanctified in His Mother’s Womb?

Here are a few helpful articles for those interested:

According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying that the least in the kingdom of heaven in greater than John the Baptist?
Who Was Born Without Original Sin?


Can a person be forgiven outside of confession? (Catholic)

Yes, if one has perfect contrition, which Fr. John Hardon, S.J., defines in his Catholic Dictionary as:

PERFECT CONTRITION
Sorrow for sin arising from perfect love. In perfect contrition the sinner detests sin more than any other evil, because it offends God, who is supremely good and deserving of all human love. Its motive is founded on God's own personal goodness and not merely his goodness to the sinner or to humanity. This motive, not the intensity of the act and less still the feelings experienced, is what essentially constitutes perfect sorrow. A perfect love of God, which motivates perfect contrition, does not necessarily exclude attachment to venial sin. Venial sin conflicts with a high degree of perfect love of God, but not with the substance of that love. Moreover, in the act of perfect contrition other motives can coexist with the perfect love required. There can be fear or gratitude, or even lesser motives such as self-respect and self-interest, along with the dominant reason for sorrow, which is love for God. Perfect contrition removes the guilt and eternal punishment due to grave sin, even before sacramental absolution. However, a Catholic is obliged to confess his or her grave sins at the earliest opportunity and may not, in normal circumstances, receive Communion before he or she has been absolved by a priest in the sacrament of penance.

cf. imperfect contrition (also called "attrition"):

IMPERFECT CONTRITION
Sorrow for sin animated by a supernatural motive that is less than a perfect love of God. Some of the motives for imperfect contrition are the fear of the pains of hell, of losing heaven, of being punished by God in this life for one's sins, of being judged by God; the sense of disobedience to God or of ingratitude toward him; the realization of lost merit or of sanctifying grace. Also called attrition, imperfect contrition is sufficient for remission of sin in the sacrament of penance. It is also adequate for a valid and fruitful reception of baptism by one who has reached the age of reason. And if a person is unable to go to confession, imperfect contrition remits even grave sin through the sacrament of anointing of the sick.

Protestants believe they always have perfect contrition, when the reality is most penitents do not (although they easily could, with God's grace), hence the necessity of Sacramental Confession to a priest.
See also the Council of Trent Session 14 on Penance and Extreme Unction, esp. ch. 4 "On Contrition" and the following canons condemning Protestant heresies regarding confession.
Perfect Contrition Implies Desire for Sacramental Confession to a Priest
Also, the Council of Trent session 14 chapter 4 on contrition notes that perfect contrition is incompatible with a lack of desire for sacramental (auricular) confession to a priest:

The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that [perfect] contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.


If every stone of the temple was thrown down how is the Wailing Wall still standing?

Refer to..

  “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone
  here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

  Mark 13:2

And,

  “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one
  stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

  Matthew 24:3

As well as,

  “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will
  be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

  Luke 21

The reference is to the buildings, those that are "seen".  Specifically and only, this prophecy refers to "seen" "buildings".

The Western Wall (also referred to as the 'Wailing Wall') is actually the retaining wall built as part of Herod's expansion of the temple.  It is...

Not in view from while in the temple area (it's over the wall, and over the cliff)
Not a building.

The prophecy is literally and specifically fulfilled (if you consider the past a fulfillment, not taking into account futurist eschatologies which claim it must be "rebuilt" and "re-torn-down" yet again).

ADDENDUM: There are two parts to the current wall. Going from bottom to top, there are the large blocks that make up the lower section of this wall, which is the retaining wall dating to the Second Temple Period.  This was not part of the prophecy, and not destroyed, as there would have been no need for the Romans to destroy this.  The smaller stones on the top were rebuilt in the years after the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem.  The original wall, visible from the Temple mount, was fully destroyed as foretold.


What is the scriptural basis for clerical celibacy?

One good biblical argument for celibacy (for those called):
Matthew 19:9-12

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
[His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

The teaching of the Catholic Church would take a bit to unpack, but as I understand it:

Priestly Celibacy is a teaching or instruction, not a doctrine or dogma.

Deacons may be married, but are not allowed to remarry after their wives die.

You're right that ministers of other Christian denominations can continue in their vocation as a priest, while married.

But that's not an argument for anything. For one thing, priests need to be chaste in order to perform their duties at Mass.  They need to be free to perform their duties completely selflessly without needing to care for their families.  The top down structure of the Church means that a parish community will be assigned a priest, not a parish community will raise up a priest, like they might in another tradition.
In short, for diocesan priests it wouldn't be fair to the wife to be subject to the Bishop with her husband.  It wouldn't be fair to the parishoners to come second to the wife and children.  For priests in various religious orders, they mostly take vows which include Chastity (which is not exactly the same as celibacy, but in this sense it is).  Those vows come out of monastic traditions reaching back to the 5th-6th Century.
More info from Catholic Encyclopedia


Early church is not a technical term, so it can be used fairly loosely, but generally follows the history and writings of church leaders which are divided by time period into the Ante-Nicene era (prior to the council of Nicaea in 325AD) and the Nicene/Post-Nicene era, up to the scholasticism of the Middle Ages.

There is no period of the church which is devoid of meaningful history, but the early church is often cited as a form of implicit evidence to the earliest interpretations of various traditions, especially when the scriptures do not go into detail about how various doctrines and traditions were practiced. Yet Protestant bodies generally seek to denounce traditions, even early ones, when they are perceived to violate the teachings of scripture.


Why did God make it a sin to eat an apple?

There was probably no power at all in the fruit. The issue was that God gave them a choice and they chose to disobey Him. And so sin, in this case disobedience, entered the world.

I suspect that it could just as easily have been a, "Wet paint, do not touch!" sign.


Does Revelation 22:19 apply to the whole Biblical canon or only the Book of Revelation?

Revelation 22:19 (NIV)

  And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God
  will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in
  the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

"THIS SCROLL"

Literally, "this scroll" refers to the scroll which Apostle John was writing. John was a prisoner in Patmos Island and on the Lord's Day(Sunday), he saw Jesus and Jesus commanded him to write down what was shown to him.

  On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud
  voice like a trumpet, which said: “Write on a scroll what you see
  and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum,
  Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.” (Revelation 1:10-11, NIV)

There are many reasons why "this scroll" cannot refer to the whole Bible.

The whole Bible would not fit into a single scroll: The scrolls in the first century were big and thick. The Five Books of Moses were usually on a single large scroll but other books were on separate scrolls. For instance, when Jesus returned from the wilderness after the Baptism, Jesus read from the scroll of prophet Isaiah, which was a single scroll (source: Pulpit Commentary on Luke 4:17).

  and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it,
  he found the place where it is written... (Luke 4:17, NIV)
  The New Testament was not yet Canonized: When John was writing these words, know that even the Book of Revelation was still in the process of development. John still had to send it to the seven churches first and then it would take few months to write it down in the existing scrolls that they had, which doubtfully was not a complete New Testament canon. From the History of Development of the New Testament canon, the Canonization was a gradual process, which didn't take place in the first century but later, 2nd or 3rd century.


According to Christ, the greatest command is to "love the Lord your God with all you heart, soul, mind, and strength" and the second like is to "love your neighbor as yourself".

Also according to Christ, He is "the way, the truth, and the life" - NO one comes to the Father except through Him.

Paul expands on Jesus' statements through his writings - never in contradiction of our Lord, but always in congruence with Him.

By telling the Corinthians that "the greatest of these is love", he has not excluded faith and hope. Rather, he has pointed the way higher than "mere" faith. Higher than "mere" hope. Paul is telling the Corinthians that faith and hope are only the beginning of the journey - the culmination is in completely fulfilling Christ's own command to "love one another".


"Ask and you shall recieve" Can we ask for anything?

No, you cannot ask for anything and expect to receive it. You can only expect God to give you what you pray for if what you ask for is consistent with His will.

See 1 John 5:14-15

  14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask
  anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he
  hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

Don't expect God to give you what you ask for if what you ask for is not in His will.

From Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary (Emphasis mine)

  5:13-17 Upon all this evidence, it is but right that we believe on the
  name of the Son of God. Believers have eternal life in the covenant of
  the gospel. Then let us thankfully receive the record of Scripture.
  Always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that our labour is
  not in vain in the Lord. The Lord Christ invites us to come to him in
  all circumstances, with our supplications and requests,
  notwithstanding the sin that besets us. Our prayers must always be
  offered in submission to the will of God. In some things they are
  speedily answered; in others they are granted in the best manner,
  though not as requested. We ought to pray for others, as well as for
  ourselves. There are sins that war against spiritual life in the soul,
  and the life above. We cannot pray that the sins of the impenitent and
  unbelieving should, while they are such, be forgiven them; or that
  mercy, which supposes the forgiveness of sins, should be granted to
  them, while they wilfully continue such. But we may pray for their
  repentance, for their being enriched with faith in Christ, and
  thereupon for all other saving mercies. We should pray for others, as
  well as for ourselves, beseeching the Lord to pardon and recover the
  fallen, as well as to relieve the tempted and afflicted. And let us be
  truly thankful that no sin, of which any one truly repents, is unto
  death.


What test is used to determine communicability of an attribute of God

The attributes that are speaking of his deity are clearly not communicable.  You mention his aseity.  I also point to his eternal nature.

However, the attributes that are bound to his personality are communicalbe.  For example, grace and love can be found in us.

We have to be careful though to note that while these attributes of God's can be transferred to us, it is actually God in us that brings about these attributes.

See also:  Attributes of God


Was Voltaire's house being used by the biblical society?

Apparently it is not true:

  There is an apocryphal story that his home at Ferney was purchased by the Geneva Bible Society and used for printing Bibles, but this appears to be due to a misunderstanding of the 1849 annual report of the American Bible Society. Voltaire's chateau is now owned and administered by the French Ministry of Culture.

Source: Wikipedia


How do (non-Catholic) proponents of an intermediate state interpret 2 Corinthians 5:4-9?

This answer is from the perspective that we do not enter into eternal heaven after death, but await Christ's second coming and the resurrection in an intermediate state.
First, we must go a bit further back in the passage than the question quotes. I will be doing this in a commentary like style, all brackets and emphasis is mine.
Opening Observations
The first thing that becomes evident is Paul's choice of words to describe these bodies. The earthly one is a tent, connoting a temporary dwelling, perhaps even recalling thoughts of Israel's tabernacle tent in the wilderness. In contrast the eternal body is described as a building, a house, a more permanent structure, this time referencing the finished Temple.
Second, the our current bodies are earthly, and our eternal one is heavenly. These descriptions are qualitative, not substantive.

The heavenly one is made by God, while ours is made by men (God made Adam's but we now produce our own).
The heavenly one is eternal, while the earthly will be destroyed.
The heavenly will further cloth us, cloths more and better, than the old tent.
The mortal body is swallowed up by death, the new will swallow the old up in life.

And lastly, there is a running contrast of old to new, earthly to heavenly, mortal to immortal, temporary to eternal, perishable to imperishable: old body [OB] to new body[NB]. Recognizing this continuing point and counterpoint pattern is important to understanding the meaning of the passage.
2 Cor 5:1-10 (ESV)

1 For we know that if the tent[OB] that is our earthly home[OB] is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house[NB] not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this tent[OB] we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling[NB],

Earthly tent to heavenly building/house.

3 if indeed by putting it[NB] on we may not be found naked.
4 For while we are still in this tent[OB], we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed[NB], so that what is mortal[OB] may be swallowed up by life[NB].

The heavenly one will further cloth us, will be better than our current and will be swallowed up in life. Our current bodies are swallowed up in death but when perishable puts on imperishable, death in our bodies will be conquered: 1 Cor 15:54

54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.” (Isaiah 25:8)

The key point here to not misunderstanding verse 8 is the point that we are not to be unclothed, that is, without a body, but rather the new will replaced the old. No where in any of Paul's descriptions is there a condition without either body that Paul wants. He, in fact, expressly does not want to be unclothed, that is, being found naked without the mortal body, but still without the new immortal body.

5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body[OB] we are away from the Lord,
7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.
8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body[OB] and at home[NB]with the Lord.

First, v8 is a clear reversal of v6. Instead of being home in the body and away from the Lord, Paul wants to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. The "body" here must be identified not as any and all bodies, but as the old body.
The contrast of the whole chapter thus far continues and by now we should know of what and when this is describing. We will not be away from our mortal body, naked and unclothed, without being clothed in our heavenly body. So to be away from this body means to be clothed in the next.
What is this really talking about? As we saw in v1 our current home is our earthly body and while in it we are separated, away, from true union with the Lord.
But the emphasis from v5-7 is in having faith, in taking courage and the Spirit being a guarantee. Faith in what? That we will be further clothed when at home with the Lord.

9 So whether we are at home[OB] or away[NB], we make it our aim to please him.

Whether we are in this body or in our eternal body, we aim to please the Lord. The pattern continues, there is no new "away" option that does not involve one of the two bodies.

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

Those who would quote v8 but take it out of its v10 context do it injustice. v10 is telling us that we will not receive our reward until the judgment seat of Christ. This is the context and focus point that Paul has in mind. Paul always points to Christ's coming and our resurrection, never to heaven, as our reward and hope.
Greek
If we examine the original Greek we see there are two words used here that are very uncommon. These words are translated in most modern translations, including the ESV I’ve quoted above, as Home and Away.
In an excellent answer to the question "Meaning of ἐνδημέω and ἐκδημέω in 2 Cor 5?" the author summarizes:

The apostle Paul uses the verbs ἐκδημέω and ἐνδημέω according to δῆμος in the sense of “country.” Thus, the verb ἐκδημέω means “to be out of (ἐξ) the country,” which is synonymous with “to be away from home,” “to travel abroad,” or “to emmigrate.” The verb ἐνδημέω means to be “in (ἐν) the country,” which is synonymous with “to be at home.” 2

After examining the usage and context of these two words used by Paul within this passage, the author ultimately concludes:

he[Paul] seems intent on discussing the mortal (corruptible, physical) v. immortal (incorruptible, spiritual) bodies.” 2

The KJV rendering of “present” and “absent” has likely helped to propagate the idea that verses 6 and 8 are saying when we leave our earthly bodies we will go to be present with, or in the presence of,  the Lord (irrespective of a heavenly body). However, as the evaluation above reflects, and as most major modern translations agree, the translation as “home” and “away” is truer to the original language.
Conclusion
So we see that those who quote v8 alone as proof we go to be with the Lord when the body dies misunderstand the point. Paul is telling us to be encouraged that we have a guarantee that we will not be left in these mortal bodies and separated from the Lord, but rather to have faith that Christ will come again and resurrect us in eternal bodies. He will neither leave us in our old, nor leave us naked and unclothed, but He will cloth us further and better when we are with Him when He comes again.
This passage is not saying we do not go into the presence of the Lord in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection, but it also does not say that we do. Rather, it has little to say directly about the intermediate state. We could reason that it does say we are unclothed of any body during the intermediate state, since Paul affirms we do not receive the new body until the resurrection. But that does not preclude the possibility that biblical writers see man as continuing to be clothed in the earthly body, even in death, until the resurrection.


Why are some denominations so against the idea of personal revelation as a source of Truth?

According to the doctrines of Sola Scriptura, and Biblical Infallibility we already have completed revelation from God in the Bible, and this revelation is sufficient for us to know all that God desires of/for us: "All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16

The problem is that if someone says God told him something (even if it's not unbiblical), I have no real way of knowing that he is telling the truth (unless it is clearly unbiblical, in which case I know that he is either lying or deceived).  In fact, this is why there were signs and miracles at the founding of the Church (before the completion of Scripture): to demonstrate that the apostles' teaching was indeed Truth from God.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the 1918 influenza was caused by Satan?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't necessarily attribute the Spanish flu directly to Satan, but they do believe Satan at least played a large role in it, since it was in the aftermath of World War 1.

—w14 2/1 p. 7 "The War That Changed the World"
War on Earth and War in Heaven
Some 19 centuries before the outbreak of World War I, Satan offered Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world.” (Matthew 4:8, 9) Jesus rejected that temptation, but he later described the Devil as “the ruler of the world.” (John 14:30) Additionally, the apostle John wrote that “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.”—1 John 5:19.
If Satan the Devil has so much power over the world, would it not be reasonable to conclude that he played at least a part in the first world war and its aftermath? Sure enough, the book of Revelation links Satan to the calamities the earth has suffered since 1914. Here is a brief outline of the events described in Revelation chapter 12:
Verse 7 War breaks out in heaven between Michael (Jesus Christ) and the dragon (Satan).
Verse 9 The Devil, “who is misleading the entire inhabited earth,” is hurled down to the earth.
Verse 12 “Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.”
Bible chronology and world events indicate that this heavenly war occurred after God’s Kingdom was established in the heavens in 1914.* So the same pivotal year saw the outbreak of war on earth and war in heaven.

In 2005, there was an Awake! magazine where the cover subject was all about the Spanish flu. It also mentions the book you mention by Gina Kolata. The whole magazine is pretty interesting, but here's the part which deals specifically with how it relates to Bible prophecy.

—g05 12/22 p. 10 "The Next Global Epidemic—When?"
Pandemics-What the Future Holds
SOME students of the 1918-19 flu pandemic have been powerfully reminded of Bible prophecies. For example, Gina Kolata notes in her book Flu—The Story of the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 and the Search for the Virus that Caused It: “They called the plague of 1918 influenza, but it was like no influenza ever seen before. It was more like a biblical prophecy come true.”
Does the Bible actually say anything that bears on this human calamity? In fact, it does.
Bible Prophecy and Pestilences
The disciples of Jesus Christ asked him for a sign of “the conclusion of the system of things.” (Matthew 24:3) Jesus answered by saying: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there will be great earthquakes, and in one place after another pestilences.” (Luke 21:7, 10, 11) The Bible also foretells that during the time of the end, there will be “deadly plague.”—Revelation 6:8.
The Spanish flu epidemic began toward the end of the Great War (1914-18), later called World War I. That period saw the start of the fulfillment of Bible prophecies regarding “the last days.” These prophecies mention horrific food shortages, great earthquakes, increasing lawlessness, and a remarkable deterioration of human values. No doubt you are well aware of those very conditions in the world today.—Matthew 24:3-14; 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

For more information, see these search results on jw.org for "Spanish flu".


What are the Presbyterian denominations in England?

I'll describe the denominations you mention, for the purpose of completeness, but you've only left out one small denomination, from what I have found.  The denominations are:

United Reformed Church (founded 1972)

Formed by the merger of the Presbyterian Church of England and the Congregational Church in England and Wales.
Theologically liberal, and no longer exclusively presbyterian.

Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster (1951)

Theologically conservative (Westminster Standards, but permitting credobaptism).  Based in Ireland; only a small minority of its churches are in England.

International Presbyterian Church (1969)

Theologically conservative (Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity).  One of its four presbyteries is in the UK, of which several churches are in England

Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales (1987)

Theologically conservative (Westminster Standards).  About 20 congregations, most of which are in England.


Where did the disciples meet Jesus after the resurrection?

Christians who believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible argue that these two accounts are not contradictory: that Jesus met his followers in both Jerusalem and Galilee after his resurrection.

Such an argument first requires establishing that there was a lengthy period of time between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Luke 24 is a summary of that period.  Acts 1:3, also believed to have been written by Luke, says:

  [Jesus] presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. (ESV, emphasis added)

Once this is established, one can argue that Jesus appeared to his followers multiple times.  For example, the New Bible Commentary (1970) says:

  There need be no doubt that Jesus appeared to His disciples both in Jerusalem (as in Luke, Acts and Jn. 20) and in Galilee (as in Matthew and Jn. 21).


What is the origin and explanation of the Catholic teaching that Mary was and is sinless?

Immaculate Conception

That teaching is known as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It means that she was conceived without original sin and had no inclination to sin as a result of original sin, she had freewill, but was as we will be (hopefully) in Heaven, following our intellect and not our passions.

  The Immaculate Conception

  490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role." The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

  491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

    The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

  492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".

  493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

CCC - 490-493

If she were sinless, then it would be because God made her so, i.e. He saved her before or at the moment of her conception.

Assumption

The other part, about her not dying, or at least not dying as we know it is the Catholic dogma of the Assumption of Mary. That dogma was never codified until the 1950's but is a very old tradition;  older even than the apocryphal manuscript that corroborates it.  The reason for her assumption is that she wouldn't feel the effects of sin (age, illness and death - or pain during childbirth). But, as a good Christian, the first Christian, she is thought to have desired to follow her Son in death.  So, at the end of her earthly life, she was assumed into heaven and all this was done according to the will of God, because it was done in accord with the will of God and not against it.

Mediatrix?

There is disagreement, or at least a need for clarification, about what Mary's role is in our salvation.  A lot of Catholics (me included) would like a definition of Mary as the Mediatrix of All Graces, but that hasn't happened yet.  So, that part of your question is more or less up in the air as far as concrete Catholic teaching is concerned.

Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway) in just a few minutes of thinking about a question I doubt you ever considered before, you uncovered 2000 years of mariology (a separate branch of dogmatic theology from soteriology) and the rationale for the two dogmas and the one potential dogma - good job!


How do Catholics observe Lent through a dignified and appropriate use of food?

In the Roman Rite Lent starts on Ash Wednesday and finishes on Holy Saturday. This comprises a period of 46 days. This includes six Sundays which are not considered part of the Lenten fast, but they are traditionally is still part of spirit of abstinence in Lent.

The period of Lent observed in the Eastern Catholic Churches corresponds to that in other churches of Eastern Orthodoxy that have similar liturgical and Lenten traditions.

  Age for Fasting in the Catholic Church: According to Church law, all persons 14 years and older are bound to abstain from meat on the days prescribed (Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities, or the conference of bishops has established another penance). Children under 18 are not bound to fast; adults under 60 years of age are bound to fast on the days prescribed (the only specific days prescribed for the whole Church are Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, though fasting more often is encouraged). Of course, those really unable to fast for reasons of health are excused from fasting. - Fasting

Pope Benedict XVI has this to say about Fasting:

  It seems abundantly clear that fasting represents an important ascetical practice, a spiritual arm to do battle against every possible disordered attachment to ourselves. Freely chosen detachment from the pleasure of food and other material goods helps the disciple of Christ to control the appetites of nature, weakened by original sin, whose negative effects impact the entire human person. Quite opportunely, an ancient hymn of the Lenten liturgy exhorts: “Utamur ergo parcius, / verbis cibis et potibus, / somno, iocis et arctius / perstemus in custodia – Let us use sparingly words, food and drink, sleep and amusements. May we be more alert in the custody of our senses.” - MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI FOR LENT 2009

Here are a few suggestions for Lent, whether on a traditional or a regional note:

Ecuador: Franesca Soup is a traditional dish served during Lent. This soup has 12 grains (representing Jesus' 12 disciples), dried cod, peanuts, hard-boiled eggs and mini cheese empanadas floating in a creamy base. On Good Friday, vendors serve it out of large vats. It's a bit of work to make yourself, but so worth it.
Greece: The following dishes a popular in Greece during lent: Lenten Cake, Octopus with paprika and Cake with no eggs.
Jejunium: Where fasting is indeed taken seriously as in many traditional religious communities breakfast may consist of a bowl (mug or cup, depending from which county you are from) of coffee or milk taken with a slice of bread. It is the tradition in some Religious Orders to place on the table a sign with the word JEJUNIUM in bold letters to remind everyone entering the refectory for breakfast that it is a fast day. With the suppression of greater part of the Church’s discipline of Lenten fasting, the Latin word for fasting, ‘jejunium’, is removed from the original text of the traditional hymns of Lent and substituted with ‘abstinentia’.
The evening collation: Besides a complete meal, the Church now permits a collation usually taken in the evening when one must fast. This might be something like a small amount of soup, a very small serving of some dish such as macaroni or leftovers and a slice of bread. In Europe and many religious communities, the main meal is around noontime or early afternoon. Due to work, many people who fast, reverse their collaton and their main meal times.
St. Benedict's Model for his monks: "We think it sufficient for the daily meal, whether at the sixth or the ninth hour, that there be at all the tables two dishes of cooked food because of the weaknesses of different persons; so that he who perhaps cannot eat of the one may make his meal of the other. Therefore, let two cooked dishes suffice for the brethren; and if there is any fruit or fresh vegetables, let a third dish be added. Let a full pound of bread suffice for each day, whether there be but one meal or both dinner and supper. If they are to take a second meal, let a third part of the pound be reserved by the cellarer, to be given to them at supper. But if the work has been rather heavy, it shall be in the discretion and power of the Abbot to make some addition, if he thinks it expedient, provided that excess be avoided above all things, that no monk be ever guilty of surfeiting; for nothing is more unworthy of any Christian than gluttony, as our Lord says: "Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with self-indulgence and drunkenness." Let not the same quantity be allowed to children of tender years, but a smaller amount than that allowed to their elders, so that frugality may be observed in all things. All, however, except the very weak and the sick, are to abstain from eating the flesh of four-footed animals." - Chapter 39
Corned Beef on Fridays of Lent?: Some US dioceses have permitted corn beef (or other meats) when the Feast of St. Patrick falls on a Friday of Lent. The following dioceses or archdioceses had announced giving the clear for Catholics to eat meat on March 17 when it falls on Lenten Fridays: Baltimore; New York; Milwaukee; St. Paul and Minneapolis; Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia; Omaha, Nebraska; and Jefferson City, Missouri. Corned beef conundrum: Some dioceses give St. Patrick's Day dispensation Many Catholics are seem to be Irish, or at least Irish for a day, and that means they'll have to pass on the traditional corned beef and cabbage or shepherd's pie — maybe.
Rauchbier (Smoked Beer): Rauchbier, or “smoke beer,” is made using malts that have been dried over fire—-thus gaining the smoky taste of cured meats like ham and bacon. At one time all beers malts were produced over fire, but in medieval Bavaria beers of this type came to be associated with Lent when the rich, smoky tones of meat were dearly missed. There is, of course, an official blessing for beer (“Bless, O Lord, this creature beer . . . ”) which one may safely assume is more efficacious in the original Latin: "Benedic, Domine, creaturam istam cerevisiae, quam ex adipe frumenti producere dignatus es: ut sit remedium salutare humano generi, et praesta per invocationem nominis tui sancti; ut, quicumque ex ea biberint, sanitatem corpus et animae tutelam percipiant. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.”
Black Wine: Black was the liturgical color for Lent before becoming replaced with violet.
Rosé Wine: For Gaudete and Laetare Sundays when Rose colored vestment are used at Mass.
Alligator: Alligator meat is permissible to eat on Fridays of Lent (in the USA only), the archbishop of New Orleans assured a conscientious parishioner, and his approval has been backed by the national bishops' conference. Try these for example: Alligator Fingers or Chef John Folse’s Alligator Sauce Piquante.
Torrija: Traditionally eaten in Spain during Lent
Croccante Quaresimale (Italian Cookies for Lent)
Ember Day’s Tart: Great for fasting days like the Ember Days and Lent.
Lent (in general): Spaghetti al nero di seppia (pasta + squid ink) It is penitential just by its color. Fare warning should be announced here. It stains your teeth. Onion Pie Onions were commonly eaten in Biblical Times. Also popular in lent are the following: Falafel, Almond Milk Frumenty (Medieval recipe) and Lenten Eggs Benedict. The Feast of St. Benedict (March 21) often falls in Lent. Oh, yes do not the tradition pretzel association with Lent.
Clean Monday: Lenten Bean Salad and Cuttlefish With Spinach (Σουπιές-με-σπανάκι) are cooked on Clean Monday in Greece as part of the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches' traditions.
Fridays (of Lent): Friday Fritters
Friday of the Third Week of Lent: La Samaritana Festival is held on the fourth Friday of Lent at Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico. The custom of the day involves churches, schools, and businesses giving away fruit drinks to passers-byes. In the Extraordinary Rite (EF) of the Liturgy the Gospel of the day is taken from St. John 4:5-42 which details Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritian women at the well.
Mid-Lent: Mid lent in the East is on Wednesday of the fourth week of Lent. In Armenia,  Mid Lent Fortune Bread (Michink) is traditional made and eaten this day.
Mid-Lent: Thursday before Laetare Sunday (Pancakes and crepes are popular this day for those undergoing the traditional 40 day fast of Lent, in the Roman Rite.)
Fourth Sunday of Lent:  Pretzel Sunday (Bretzelsonnden) in Luxenbourg. Mothering Sunday (Simnel Cake)
Passiontide: Passion Flower (Passiflora) The "Passion" in "passion flower" refers to the passion of Jesus in Christian theology. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Spanish Christian missionaries adopted the unique physical structures of this plant, particularly the numbers of its various flower parts, as symbols of the last days of Jesus and especially his crucifixion.
Palm Sunday: Palm Sunday is also called Fig Sunday, because figs were traditionally eaten that day, memorializing the fig tree cursed by Christ after his entry into Jerusalem.
Holy Week: Traditional Church’s Lenten fast and abstaining from both meat and eggs until Easter Sunday. Torrija traditionally eaten in Spain in Holy Week
Holy Thursday: Christian Seder Meal. Some communities will watch Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ following the Seder Meal.
"Judases":  In the Czech Republic one eats Judases (Jidáše) at breakfast on Holy Thursday, which are bread rolls made in a twisted manner, to recall the rope with which Judas, the betrayer of Christ, went out and hung himself. One dips them in honey to prevent disaster falling on oneself. For dinner one eats green herbs and green salad.
Green Thursday: Germans call Holy Thursday Gründonnerstag or “Green Thursday", eat green vegetables, especially spinach. This is custom in other European countries, especially the Czech Republic.
Good Friday: Hot Cross Buns & Cold Tomato Soup with Wine. Hot Cross Bun originated from St Albans, where Brother Thomas Rodcliffe, a 14th Century monk at St Albans Abbey, developed a similar recipe called an 'Alban Bun' and distributed the bun to the local poor on Good Friday, starting in 1361. There is also a little known Louisiana tradition: Pie Day: Louisiana’s Lenten Custom
Święconka: Although this is not a truly "fasting" tradition, it is a very valid tradition held on the last day of Lent (Holy Saturday) in many parts of the world like Poland. Święconka is the Polish tradition for "the blessing of the Easter baskets," and is observed in Poland as well observed by Poles in the U.S., Canada, the UK, and other Polish Parish communities. The tradition of blessing food at Easter has early-medieval roots in Christian society and dates back to the 7th century in its basic form. The more modern form containing bread and eggs (symbols of resurrection and Christ) are said to date from the 12th century. This tradition is also popular in other cultures also such as Czechs, Croatians, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Russians, Rusyns, Slovaks, Slovenes and Ukrainians. As to what goes into a food basket depends on the region one is from, the family's preferences, and financial means.
Popular items in the traditional Easter Basket are butter, bread, horseradish, hard boiled eggs (coloured egg; pysanky ), sausages, ham or lamb, smoked bacon, cheese, wine, salt and sweets. Some traditional blessings can be found here: Święcone - Blessing of Easter Food. Simply follow the links for the Latin prayers if so desired.
Holy Saturday: Drought of Honey Tradition. It is a custom, in some of the more traditional communities (Benedictine) to let the deacon or priest who chants the Exsutet to be given a draught of honey just prior to the commencement of the Easter Vigil in order to make his voice sound even more melodious than ever in the Divine Liturgy.

Honey and the Bee is also a symbol of wisdom, for it collects nectar from many flowers and turns it into nourishing and pleasing honey, which is the 'gold' of bees. We should do the same, take whatever we can and transform it through our labor into a superior element useful for us and our neighbor.

The symbolism of bees also signifies the way the Church generates her spiritual fruits because bees are virginal, they don't have any sexual contact. As the Church gives grace through the purity of her divine Sacraments, so the bees give us honey and wax by the labor of their pure bodies. This is why their wax, considered the fruit of a virgin labor, is worthy to burn in the candles on the altar at the offering of the Holy Sacrifice.

The honey, so agreeable to the palate, is symbolic of spiritual sweetness and religious eloquence. For this reason, the beehive is emblematic of St. Ambrose and of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, two Doctors whom the Church surnamed mellifluus and mellificuus.

Here follows some pictures for the curious:

Rauchbier or “Smoke Beer"

Ember Day Tart

Spaghetti al nero di seppia {pasta + squid ink} This truly looks like a penitential food to eat. It only for the courageous to eat.

For Holy Week, bring Jewish roots of Mass to life and host your own family Seder meal.

Blue passion flower (P. caerulea) showing most elements of the Christian symbolism.

  The "Passion" in "passion flower" refers to the passion of Jesus in Christian theology. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Spanish Christian missionaries adopted the unique physical structures of this plant, particularly the numbers of its various flower parts, as symbols of the last days of Jesus and especially his crucifixion:

  The pointed tips of the leaves were taken to represent the Holy Lance.
  The tendrils represent the whips used in the flagellation of Christ.
  The ten petals and sepals represent the ten faithful apostles (excluding St. Peter the denier and Judas Iscariot the betrayer).
  The flower's radial filaments, which can number more than a hundred and vary from flower to flower, represent the crown of thorns.
  The chalice-shaped ovary with its receptacle represents a hammer or the Holy Grail.
  The 3 stigmas represent the 3 nails and the 5 anthers below them the 5 wounds (four by the nails and one by the lance).
  The blue and white colors of many species' flowers represent Heaven and Purity.

Święcone blessing of Easter food on Holy Saturday.

  Whether Poles are church going or not, this is a tradition that has stayed with practically everyone, so that Easter just isn’t Easter without a basket of goodies. Here’s a typical church scene in Poland where the baskets just keep on coming all day long and the priests bless them every 5 minutes, as soon as the table has been replenished with more.  Last year I met my retired renal consultant with his family here in the UK. They are English but his son’s Polish fiancee was visiting and insisted on preparing a basket and heading for the nearest church – so others are learning about this ancient practice. - Święcone – What to put in your Polish Easter basket


What is the argument against the ICOC doctrine of "Disciples Baptism"?

There are two main arguments against it.

One argument is that it is fairly arbitrary to decide how far advanced in
discipleship someone needs to be in order to be baptized. Whatever
level you set, there will be some who never attain that level of
discipleship - however normal Christian doctrine would say that
those people are nonetheless true Christians and members of the
church. Likewise some may attain that level of discipleship and then
fall from it.
The main argument however is that the Bible is full of examples of people
who were baptized as soon as they were converted. Acts 2, Philip and
the Ethiopian in Act 8, and a whole host more.


How do small groups pray the Liturgy of the Hours?

The format you have specified looks correct, but we follow a slightly different format:

In the absence of a priest or deacon, it is recommended to have one person who presides the office. It is to be noted that he is only one among equals and he does not greet and bless the people. (GILoH 258)
The one who Presides says the opening versicle (God come to my assistance) and the whole group responds.
The one who Presides says (the first) glory be and the whole group responds.
The invitatory psalm alone is recited differently than other psalms.
A single individual recites the antiphon, the whole group repeats the antiphon. Then the invitatory psalm (Ps 95, Ps 100, Ps 67, or Ps 24) is recited by that individual and at the end of each para the group responds with the antiphon. At the end of the whole psalm the individual says glory be fully. (That is the usual second part as it was in the beginning is also recited by the same individual) for which the whole group responds with the antiphon.
Regarding the the Antiphon, the presider say the first few words of the antiphon, the rest of the group joins in saying the Antiphon.
The responsory is supposed to be led by the one who presides.
Each intention consists of two parts; First part can be read by one side and the second by another.
Just like the hymn, gospel canticles (i.e the Magnificat) is said together.
The one who Presides should say the closing prayer.
Also don't forget the gestures:

Make the sign of the cross, from forehead to breast and from left shoulder to right, at the beginning of the hours, when God, come to my assistance is being said; the beginning of the Canticles of Zechariah, of Mary, and of Simeon. The sign of the cross is made on the mouth at the beginning of the invitatory, at Lord, open my lips.
All taking part stand during: the introduction to the office and the introductory verses of each hour; the hymn; the gospel canticle; the intercessions, the Lord's Prayer, and the concluding prayer.
All sit to listen to the readings, except the gospel.
The assembly either sits or stands, depending on custom, while the psalms and other canticles (with their antiphons) are being said.

[Don't forget to read the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours]


Blaspheme one part of the Trinity but not the whole?

While the three persons of the Trinity are one God, they are three persons. If it is possible to talk about one of the persons alone (and it clearly is) then it is also possible to blaspheme against only one.


What did Jesus mean by "whoever believes in me will do greater works than I do"?

Earlier in John is a verse that could potentially help provide an answer to your question:

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” - John 6:29 NIV

Another verse in John a little later (after the resurrection) gives further insight:

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” - John 20:29 NIV

This tells us something about God's priorities and what Jesus could possibly mean by "greater works". With this frame of reference then examples such as Acts 2:41 could be considered as fulfilling this promise:

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Peter preaches a sermon and about three thousand people put their faith in Jesus.  To put this in context, Peter is asking them to follow a leader who has been publicly executed in that locality less than two months previously and they themselves weren't witnesses of a resurrected Christ.


How do proponents of the dual nature of man address Hebrews 4:12, "dividing soul and spirit"?

Proponents of dichotomism argue in two primary ways:

That the division is between soul and spirit, but that these are simply two aspects of the same thing
That the division occurs within the soul, and within the spirit, not between them

Between soul and spirit
In his remarks on this passage (Commentary on Hebrews, §222), Thomas Aquinas affirms the dichotomism taught by the church, but nonetheless does not see soul and spirit as synonyms here:

the soul is that to which pertain the powers by which the soul acts in conjunction with the body; whereas the spirit is that to which pertain the powers by which it acts without the body

He connects this understanding the passage as follows:

The Word of God effects and distinguishes between all those divisions and species [...] [The phrase] can be explained according to a Gloss in two ways: so that the soul refers to carnal sins which involve bodily pleasures, such as lust and gluttony; but the spirit refers to spiritual sins, which involve an act of the mind, such as pride, vain glory, and the like. Or by soul is understood evil thoughts, and by spirit good thoughts. Then the sense is this: reaching, i.e., discerning, unto the division of the soul and the spirit, i.e., between carnal and spiritual sins, or between good and evil thoughts.

Within soul and spirit
Other commentators argue that the penetration of the Word of God occurs within both soul and spirit, not to separate them from each other.  John Calvin writes:

The word soul means often the same with spirit; but when they occur together, the first includes all the affections, and the second means what they call the intellectual faculty. [...] Now, to come to the passage before us, it is said that God’s word pierces, or reaches to the dividing of soul and spirit, that is, it examines the whole soul of man; for it searches his thoughts and scrutinizes his will with all its desires. (Commentary on Hebrews)

Berkhof argues similarly (ST, 2.1.2.A.2), and Wayne Grudem sees the words as essentially synonomous:

The author is not saying that the Word of God can divide "soul from spirit," but he is using a number of terms [...] that speak of the deep inward parts of our being that are not hidden from the penetrating power of the Word of God.  If we wish to call these our "soul," then Scripture pierces into the midst of it and divides it and discovers its inmost intentions.  If we wish to call this inmost nonphysical side of our being our "spirit," then Scripture penetrates into the midst of it and divides it and knows its deepest intentions and thoughts. [...] In any case, soul and spirit are not thought of as separate parts; they are simply additional terms for our inmost being. (ST, 479)


Is Political Correctness showing shame for our God?

My experience is that this form of political correctness is an over-reaction against something that isn't really a problem anyway, and is intended to appease people who are offended by Christianity--most likely a small minority of vocal athiests and those with similar political views.

I am never/would never be offended when a Jew wishes me a "Happy Hanukkah," or for that matter if a Catholic wishes me a "Happy X" (where X is a holiday celebrated by Catholics, but not by protestants--and there are many).

I think it is reasonable for Christians to wish "Merry Christmas" to non-Christian friends. After all, we do want non-Christians to have a merry Christmas, don't we?

Now if I know that it offends a friend for some reason, I would be happy to abstain from that greeting for that friend.  In much the same way Christians who consume alcohol would (hopefully) abstain from consuming alcohol in the presence of those it would offend, or for whom it would be a "stumbling block."

But I'm not going to refuse to wish Merry Christmas to strangers (store clerks, waitresses, etc), or otherwise profess my faith, for fear of offending.

The Gospel of Christ is offensive, after all.


What do I do when watching a video of someone praying?

I've wondered the same myself, especially during times when I'm watching a video of someone praying. However, technology allows people to communicate through Skype for instance. Which leads me to the belief that the spirit of unity and agreement is still legit. It may not be face to face, but it still matters, and there is still unity in that.

For example, Paul in his letters mentions praying for the different churches he is writing to all the time.

  “...God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of
  His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my
  prayers” (Rom. 1:9, NKJV).

Even though it isn't in person, there is still unity in his prayer with the church in Rome. And there was quite a delay from Paul sending the letter to the recipients actually getting it.

So in my opinion, it doesn't matter if it's a live stream, delayed video, or whatever other thing you can think of. Prayer is conversing to God, and it doesn't matter if it's prerecorded or not.


The story of The Rich Man and Lazarus, found in Luke 16:19-31 tell us it is impossible to visit others in Hell:

  'And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’


How do creationists explain the geologic column?

The long-age view of the geologic column is uniformitarian, in which the rock layers represent time, and burial order of fossils represents the order of evolution.  In contrast, the young-earth creationist explanation is catastrophic, where the rock layers represent a big watery catastrophe (Noah's flood) and the burial order of fossils shows where creatures were carried to and rapidly buried in the flood.

The mainstream geologic column is divided into different epochs and eras in time which the layers are supposed to represent.  The creationist geologic column is divided in the same kind of way, but the timescale is very different.

And overview of a creationist geologic column can be seen here http://biblicalgeology.net/Model/Biblical-Geology.html

More detailed classification and subdivisions can be seen here http://biblicalgeology.net/Model/Detail.html

This is of course just one model, which may be helpful for creationists to understand and interpret the rocks.


Did the Jansenists deny the gratuity of grace?

No, Jansenists did not deny the gratuity of grace
According to one of the foremost authorities on Jansenism, Dr. Shaun Blanchard, the Jansenists were fighting for the gratuity of grace!

The Augustinians who came to be known as Jansenists thought that this new system [of Molinism] was basically semi-Pelagian. It made humans the authors of their own salvation and sacrificed the total gratuity of grace.
-Are Jansenists Among Us?

Blanchard's extensive writings on the topic include some of the following:

The Synod of Pistoia and Vatican II: Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform
The Neglect of Catholic Theology From Westphalia (1648) to the Bastille (1789)
Jansenism: A Rough Sketch of a Complex Phenomenon
“Third Party” Catholic Reformers of the Eighteenth-Century: Between Jansenists and the Zelanti
A Quasi-Defense of Gallicanism
Are Jansenists Among Us?
The Long History of Catholic Dissent
The Twists and Turns That Led to the First Vatican Council

Gratuity of Grace
Grace is not gratuitous precisely when it is earned or merited.  One of the basic problems with Jansenism, as seen in the third condemned proposition of Cum Occasione, is that Jansenism makes it impossible for humans to merit.  Therefore for Jansenists nothing can be earned or merited, including grace.  And if grace cannot be merited, then it must be gratuitous.
The doctrine of irresistible grace is very much in keeping with the doctrine of the gratuity of grace, and those who hold to this doctrine often do so in order to safeguard the gratuity of grace.  This was the case with the Jansenists.  If one cannot resist something, then that thing is clearly not under their control.  If one cannot resist grace, then grace is under God's control, not man's.  This is very much in line with Ephesians 2 as quoted by the OP, "...it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory..."
The denial of the gratuity of grace is characteristic of the Molinist Jesuits, who were the opponents of the Jansenists.  The Molinists were accused of denying the gratuity of grace not only by Calvinists and Jansenists, but also by Thomists such as Domingo Báñez.  The Jansenists were accused of denying the freedom of man (which was thought to be a denial of the ability to keep commandments, the ability to merit, the ability to resist grace, and the ability to cooperate with grace, which respectively align with the first four condemned propositions).  This is the same thing that Calvinists and Thomists are often accused of.


It's a global flood. There are several logical points why.

First, the gathering of all of the animals in the world would be useless, if the Flood was only a local flood. If the Flood was only local, not all of the animals would drown, and thus, bringing all the animals of the World on the ark would have been a useless act.

Secondly, if the Flood was only local, would all the people die? Obviously not. There'd be other people in the world that wouldn't have died besides Noah.

Thirdly, if the Flood was only local, why did Noah have to spend 100 years to build a massive ark, when all he had to do, was merely pack his bags and walk to some other place on Earth?  Consequently, why build a massive 400 ft. Ark, if it's only a local flood?

Lastly if the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?

Now, the major problem that you posed, was that , where did all the water go?

Edit:, Due to Caleb's statement, I looked it up, and found this:

  Even if the glaciers and ice caps melted, the oceans would only rise some 70 m (230 ft), yet Mt Everest rises 8,848m (29,029 ft) above sea level.

  It may surprise you to learn that we don’t need any more water to cover the earth. There is already enough.

  The reason water doesn’t envelop the globe now is that the earth’s surface is uneven. The ocean basins sit low and the continents sit high. Some mountains are especially high and some ocean trenches are very deep, but these extremes do not account for a large percentage of the earth’s surface (see graph).

  If the earth’s surface were even, then there is enough water in the oceans to cover the globe to a depth of about 3 km.

  This suggests that, during the Flood, the ocean floor moved vertically relative to the continents, something mentioned in the Bible (Psalm 104:8 NASB).

  In the first half, the pre-Flood ocean basins rose and the pre-Flood continents eroded down until water covered everything.

  That does not mean the earth’s surface would have to be completely even. The ocean basins would have only had to rise enough for the water to cover everything.

  Then, in the second half of the Flood, other parts of the earth’s crust sank. The water flowed off our continents into new ocean basins. Movement of the earth’s crust at this time also pushed up new mountain ranges, including the one that is home to Mt Everest.1

  So where did all the water go? It is in the ocean.

Just for the reader, Psalm 104 : 6-8 states:

  Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

  7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

  8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.


The apparent wordplay of Bathsheba bathing in the story of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 is purely an artifact of English translation.

In the original Hebrew, the "Bath" in "Bathsheba" has no connection at all with the word translated "bathing" in some translations of 2 Samuel 11:2.

The Hebrew name בַּת־שֶׁבַע (bath-sheba) is a compound word composed of בַּת (bath), "daughter (of)" and שֶׁבַע sheba "seven" or, as often interpreted, שָׁבַע (shabah), "oath." So the name means "daughter of seven" or perhaps more likely, "daughter of an oath."

The Hebrew word for "bathing" or "washing" in 2 Samuel 11:2 is רָחַץ (rachats).

So in the original Hebrew there is no pun or wordplay involved in Bathsheba bathing.

Meanwhile, the English word "bath" comes from Germanic, not Hebrew, roots. It has no connection with the biblical story of Bathsheba. See "bath" at the Online Etymology Dictionary.


What is the earliest record of using icons to worship God in the Catholic or Orthodox traditions?

According to Gibbons:

  the public religion of the Catholics was uniformly simple and spiritual; and the first notice of the use of pictures is in the censure of the council of Illiberis, three hundred years after the Christian aera. Under the successors of Constantine, in the peace and luxury of the triumphant church, the more prudent bishops condescended to indulge a visible superstition, for the benefit of the multitude; and, after the ruin of Paganism, they were no longer restrained by the apprehension of an odious parallel.

It appears that the creeping in of images was long before the schism that brought about the RC and EO traditions -- so though your question apparently concerns post-schism timeline, I hope this answer is relevant.

See also the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Council of Elvira/Elliberis/Illiberis for arguments on dates.


What differentiates a priest, a clerk, a capellanus, a subdeacon and a rector?

I'm no expert, but will attempt a partial answer - first, the educational qualifications refer to:-

BA - Bachelor of Arts

MA - Master of Arts (traditionally awarded automatically to Oxford graduates one year after graduating)

BD - Bachelor of Divinity

AM - I think another description on of MA.

A clerk would probably refer to a clerk in holy orders - there were many grades of holy orders, most men at Oxford or Cambridge would be in minor orders.

A priest is a generic term for a man (prior to modern times) who had been ordained priest by a Bishop. Only a priest could absolve sins, or consecrate the bread and wine at Mass.

A subdeacon was, I think the lowest form of holy orders, originally to assist the deacon and serve at Mass.

A rector is somewhat different. Parish priests were entitled to tithes - one tenth of the parish produce. These were divided into greater and lesser tithes - a rector received the greater tithes and was effectively the owner of the living. (A vicar was appointed by a rector and, I think, received only the lesser tithes or a stipend.)

A capellanus is a chaplain - either employed by a great family or paid to say Masses, for example, for the souls of the dead.

I think you really need to consult a good local history manual, medieval/early modern church law and practice were pretty complicated!

Edit The **rector* of a parish is, essentially, the owner - the one entitled to the great tithes and to appointing the priest. The rector may be the priest, but - pre-Reformation - could well be a monastery, university, prelate or other. Post-Reformation, rectors were often the largest landowner locally, or indeed some distant noble. S/he could obviously not act as priest, not being ordained, but were said to have the gift of the living - eg could appoint a vicar (priest)  as a form of patronage. In the Anglican Church, lay patrons still exist, and can offer a candidate for a parish, subject to the Bishop's approval.


Earliest case of pointing to heaven as consolation and hope to loved ones

While the following passage in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Typho the Jew doesn't mention consolation, it does establish that by the second century, some people were teaching that the deceased go straight to Heaven. It also suggests that at that time, the teaching was considered heterodoxical. The strength of Justin's language may actually be surprising to most Christians, since he refers to the doctrine as "blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish" and warns his audience that people who teach such things should not be thought of as Christians.

  Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines delivered by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this truth, and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist, Meristae, Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are only called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.


It is relevant that Methuselah died just before the flood. Just have a look at the names of the first 10 generations leading up to Noah:

Adam - Man (CJBPG)
Seth - Appointed
Enosh - Mortal, weak (Smith's, Hitchcock's, Nave's)
Kenan - Sorrow
Mahalelel - The Praise of Lord (Smith's, Fausset's, Easton's, Nave's)
Jared - Descend  (Smith's, Fausset's, Easton's, Nave's, Hitchcock's, ISBE)
Enoch - Dedicated
Methuselah - His death shall bring (Fausset's)
Lamech - Lamentator, the poor, brought low (Hitchcock)
Noah - Comfort

Putting this together:

Man is appointed to be mortal and sorrowful. But the Praise of the Lord will descend, dedicated that His death shall bring the desparing, low, and poor comfort.

I imaging that every time Methuselah had a cold, everybody worried.

But what a prophecy into God's plan for humanity!

Now, based on this it is my believe that Methuselah died before the flood. There is no prove for that, though.

Jewish counting works different from ours: When Jesus was dead for 3 days, that means that he died on one, was dead the next, and rose the third. (which would make it possible for him to be dead for only 27 hours: He died at 3pm, and the third day started at around 6pm the next evening.)

Therefore Methuselah could have died on his 968th birthday and still have lived 969 years.


What is the "New Theological Movement" within the Catholic Church?

This "New Theological Movement" seems to be something specific to Fr. Ryan Erlenbush.

There is a movement called New Theology (Nouvelle Théologie), whose tenets were condemned in Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis. See:

Nouvelle Théologie New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II (2010) by Jürgen Mettepenningen
"The structure of the encyclical Humani Generis" by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

To the question "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?", Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange responded: back to Modernism.

There is also a movement called the New Theological Movement, which began in the early 20th century as a movement to educate the faithful about the Holy Mass, but in the years leading up to Vatican II, it was hijacked by Modernists who wanted to change the Mass (dumb it down) to accommodate "modern man". The New Theological Movement today has returned to the movement's original intentions.


Did St. Paul know the doctrine of the Trinity?

Taken from St. Pauls writings:

For in Him (Jesus)all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form Col 2:9

Perhaps one of the clearest indications that Paul thought Jesus was Yahweh comes from the fact that he used Monotheistic Old Testament passages which uniquely referred to Yahweh and applied them to the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 10:13 cf. Joel 2:32; 1 Cor. 1:31 cf. Jer. 9:24; 1 Cor. 2:16 cf. Isa. 40:13; 1 Cor. 10:26 cf. Ps. 24:1; 2 Cor. 10:17 cf. Jer. 9:24 for just a few examples).  1 Corinthians 2:16, for example, alludes to Isaiah 40:13 which is in the context of some of the most explicit monotheistic statements in the entire Old Testament (cf. Isaiah 40:13-28; 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5).

Paul also described Jesus as Creator, "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (1 Cor. 8:6).

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Col 1:15


Which denominations teach that Christ received the Holy Spirit at His Baptism by John?

As a Reformed Baptist, I can say I have never heard this taught as worded in the question.

The baptism of Christ clearly states (Matt 3) "He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him" - and that the Father said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased" (3:17).

As taught in RB circles, this was a special manifestation of all three Persons of the Trinity at one time - as signs of: the Trinity, Jesus' special place in earthly ministry (which was to "begin" about 40 days hence after His wilderness temptation period), how His followers were to be baptised, that Jesus actually was God, and, perhaps, but only perhaps (ie, not dogmatically) that it was a special outpouring/enabling of the Spirit as Jesus was to enter His ministry period in the earth.

It has never, in my experience of 30+ years of paying attention, that Jesus didn't "have" the Spirit until His baptism. He most certainly knew who He was far earlier than this - else how could He, at age 12, have been able to debate with the religious leaders of the day in the temple, and tell His parents, "Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?" (Luke 2:49)


I would argue that the premise that free will is "the ability to act apart from one's nature" is essentially flawed.  Free will is the ability to act within your power according to your nature.

However, regardless of your definition of free will, the question is also influenced by a finite viewpoint.  God is both infinite and perfect.  He has free will, and his will is perfect and his nature is infinite such that his will is perfectly executed.  Being both infinite and perfect in nature, it is not possible for any of the three persons of the Trinity to ever act contrary to their perfect nature - that's one of the reasons it's possible for God to be three persons without inter-relational conflict.

We tend to over anthropomorphize God, and we must be very careful not to reconstruct God in our image, instead of the other way around.  We image God but imperfectly; we are like him, but we are not identical to him (as if that needs to be said).

In a mysterious way, within this creation, God has created us sufficiently in his image such that we have free will; and we will according to our nature, which is fallen and corrupted.  Somehow, God has organized things in this dimension (or these 4 dimensions, if you like), such that we can exercise our free will without contravening his.  It's as if he has deliberately chosen to limit himself for the sake of our creation - how this resonates with his will I cannot explain... as I said, it's a mystery.


The sacrificial perogative of the kings of Israel

I would add to the above explanation that Saul was offering a sacrifice while being in rebellion to the command to kill everyone and destroy the spoil.
1Sa 15:3  Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
This should be a warning to us that we can't offer sacrifice while in rebellion and expect it to be accepted.


Are the twelve spiritual disciplines biblically sound?

The twelve items you mention are not found as a list anywhere in the Bible. However that does not mean they are contrived. They are, I believe, very ancient and proven over a long period. I don't believe that they were ever intended to be an exhaustive list.

Each of the disciplines can be justified with biblical references, and they are definitely "biblically sound". I can provide references if necessary, but the Renovare site you link to, or Richard Foster's book, will give a foundation much better than I could.


What is meant by, "mild drinks" in D&C section 89?

The interpretation and implementation of the Word of Wisdom has changed over time, which is why portions of it (like this reference to mild drinks) can be confusing to modern readers. I divide my answer into three portions.

Early Leaders (pre-1900)

As far as I know, there are no statements from early prophets and apostles about their interpretation of the phrase "mild drinks." Historians who do make inferences about their interpretation of the Word of Wisdom do so on the basis of their recorded behavior. Because early leaders of the church drank wine and beer moderately, some infer that they did not consider the moderate consumption of these beverages to be an infraction of the Word of Wisdom. For instance, see this quote from a BYU Master's thesis titled "An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom" on page 26:

  Despite the injunction contained in the revelation discouraging the drinking of wine, (except for sacramental purposes) the casual nature of the allusions to this beverage suggest that many Church Authorities did not consider moderate wine drinking in the same category as the use of strong drinks.

See also this discussion from FAIR, a Mormon apologetics group.

Early 1900s

In the early 1900s, leaders of the church began to enforce the Word of Wisdom as a commandment. Joseph F. Smith describes this shift as follows, from the October 1913 General Conference (see page 14):

  The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given as not by "commandment or restraint" was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law.

At the beginning of this shift, there was some disagreement between leaders of the church over what was or was not allowed by the Word of Wisdom. A paragraph from this article (in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, page 78) helps illuminate the fact that some leaders thought beer was not forbidden under the Word of Wisdom:

  Though it is clear that some church leaders, like Heber J. Grant and Joseph F. Smith, insisted upon complete abstinence from tea, coffee, liquor and tobacco, all General Authorities were not in agreement on all aspects of the Word of Wisdom. During a discussion in 1900 after he became President of the Church, Lorenzo Snow again emphasized the centrality of not eating meat, a point rarely emphasized by others, and in 1901, John Henry Smith and Brigham Young, Jr., of the Twelve both thought that the Church ought not interdict beer, or at least not Danish beer. Other apostles, like Anthon H. Lund and Matthias F. Cowley also enjoyed Danish beer and currant wine. Charles W. Penrose occasionally served wine.

However, this disagreement was overcome, and the Word of Wisdom began to be enforced in its current form.

Today

The church's current enforcement of the Word of Wisdom clearly forbids drinking any alcoholic beverages, the moderate consumption of wine and beer included. But if you still want to quench your thirst for a mild barley-based beverage, you could grab one of these.

Some helpful links, in addition to the ones in this answer:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/History_and_implementation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom#Beer


The 3 major creeds that every good Catholic knows about are

The Apostles Creed

The Nicene Creed (aka the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed)

The Athanasian Creed

There are definitely others, but if you want the 3 most oft repeated ones, you can see the rest of them here seems to me that wiki article is lacking a few creeds.
Now, to find their meaning consider whether the following commandments are in the Bible.

Did Our Lord want His followers to keep the teaching that He entrusted to them?

If you love me, you will keep my commandments
John 14:15 (NABRE)

Did Our Lord want His followers to defend the faith he left with them?

Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope
1 Peter 3:15 (NABRE)

Were we instructed to hand down the truths that we were given?

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
2 Timothy 2:2 (NABRE)

So, that is why there are creeds.  So that we may keep the faith, so that we can defend the faith and so that we can pass it down.


Is healing with honey mentioned in the Bible?

The Bible repeatedly refers to honey as a good thing – for example, the land promised to the Israelites is regularly referred to as "a land flowing with milk and honey" (e.g., Exodus 3:8).  But in such cases honey is more clearly a reference to wealth or sweetness, not necessarily physical healing.

The clearest connection between honey and physical healing is probably in Proverbs 16:24:

  Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body. (ESV)

More frequently, honey is sustenance that physically benefits people.  For example, Jonathan's "eyes became bright" after eating honey in 1 Samuel 14:24–30.  Honey also sustains people in passages like Deuteronomy 32:13, 2 Samuel 17:29, Psalm 81:16, Ezekiel 16:13, and Matthew 3:4.

On the other hand, eating too much is warned against in Proverbs 25:16:

  If you have found honey, eat only enough for you, lest you have your fill of it and vomit it.

A complete list of references to honey in the Bible can be found by using a concordance, or an online tool like Bible Gateway.