Are there any authors that who believe Eph. 4:11 is not describing titles but general characteristics of how God created the church to work together?

"Blueprint" implies that the Church was yet to be constructed, but this is not the case.  Its establishment at Pentecost was documented in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Praxapostolos of the New Testament documents its earliest years.

I don't think the allusions to the future (e.g. until we all attain to the unity of the faith) refer to how the Church will look in the future, but rather how each one of us must approach the Church during their life, whenever that might occur.  Also, the ASV has diluted some of the stronger wording in the original Greek.  Verse 12 does not read, "for the equipping of the saints", but rather "for the PERFECTING of the saints".  Verse 13 does not read "until we attain to ... the knowledge of God", but rather "until we attain to ... the FULL knowledge of God", nor does it read "mature man", but rather "PERFECT man".  In short, it is in the Church where we strive to attain the perfection that we were commanded by Christ to attain (Matthew 5:48).

One author who can provide a good perspective on the verse is John Chrysostom, who wrote and preached in Greek at Constantinople in the 4th century.  I think his commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles of Paul are the best available, even after so many centuries.  His commentary on the above passage is as follows:

  And He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the
  saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body
  of Christ.  What he said elsewhere, “Wherefore also God hath
  highly exalted Him” (Phil. 2:9), that saith he also here. “He that
  descended, is the same also that ascended.” It did Him no injury that
  He came down into the lower parts of the earth, nor was it any
  hindrance to His becoming far higher than the Heavens. So that the
  more a man is humbled, so much the more is he exalted. For as in the
  case of water, the more a man presses it downwards, the more he forces
  it up; and the further a man retires to hurl a javelin, the surer his
  aim; so is it also with humility. However, when we speak of ascents
  with reference to God, we must needs conceive a descent first; but
  when with reference to man, not at all so. Then he goes on to show
  further His providential care, and His wisdom, for He who hath wrought
  such things as these, who had such might, and who refused not to go
  down even to those lower parts for our sakes, never would He have made
  these distributions of spiritual gifts without a purpose. Now
  elsewhere he tells us that this was the work of the Spirit, in the
  words, “In the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops to feed the
  Church of God.” And here he saith that it is the Son; and elsewhere
  that it is God. “And He gave to the Church some apostles, and some
  prophets.” But in the Epistle to the Corinthians, he saith, “I
  planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.” And again, “Now
  he that planteth and he that watereth are one: but each shall receive
  his own reward according to his own labor.” (1 Cor. 3:6–8.) So is it
  also here; for what if thou bring in but little? Thou hast received so
  much. First, he says, “apostles”; for these had all gifts;
  secondarily, “prophets,” for there were some who were not indeed
  apostles, but prophets, as Agabus; thirdly, “evangelists,” who did not
  go about everywhere, but only preached the Gospel, as Priscilla and
  Aquila; “pastors and teachers,” those who were entrusted with the
  charge of a whole nation. What then? are the pastors and the teachers
  inferior? Yes, surely; those who were settled and employed about one
  spot, as Timothy and Titus, were inferior to those who went about the
  world and preached the Gospel. However, it is not possible from this
  passage to frame the subordination and precedence, but from another
  Epistle. “He gave,” saith he; thou must not say a word to gainsay it.
  Or perhaps by “evangelists” he means those who wrote the Gospel.

  For the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ.  Perceive ye the
  dignity of the office? Each one edifies, each one perfects, each one
  ministers.  Ver. 13. “Till we all attain,” he proceeds, “unto
  the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a
  full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of
  Christ.”  By “stature” here he means perfect “knowledge”; for
  as a man will stand firmly, whereas children are carried about and
  waver in mind, so is it also with believers.  “To the unity,”
  saith he, “of the faith.”  That is, until we shall be shown to
  have all one faith: for this is unity of faith, when we all are one,
  when we shall all alike acknowledge the common bond. Till then thou
  must labor to this end. If for this thou hast received a gift, that
  thou mightest edify others, look well that thou overturn not thyself,
  by envying another. God hath honored thee, and ordained thee, that
  thou shouldest build up another. Yea, for about this was the Apostle
  also engaged; and for this was the prophet prophesying and persuading,
  and the Evangelist preaching the Gospel, and for this was the pastor
  and teacher; all had undertaken one common work. For tell me not of
  the difference of the spiritual gifts; but that all had one work. Now
  when we shall all believe alike then shall there be unity; for that
  this is what he calls “a perfect man,” is plain. And yet he elsewhere
  calls us “babes” (1 Cor. 13:11), even when we are of mature age; but
  he is there looking to another comparison, for there it is in
  comparison with our future knowledge that he there calls us babes. For
  having said, “We know in part” (1 Cor. 13:9, 12), he adds also the
  word “darkly,” and the like: whereas here he speaks with reference to
  another thing, with reference to changeableness, as he saith also
  elsewhere, “But solid food is for full-grown men.” (Heb. 5:14.) Do you
  see then also in what sense he there calls them full-grown? Observe
  also in what sense he calls men “perfect” here, by the words next
  added, where he says, “that we may be no longer children.” That we
  keep, he means to say, that little measure, which we may have
  received, with all diligence, with firmness and steadfastness.


What do Protestants say was the source for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

One of the defining tenets of Protestant Christianity is sola scriptura--that the Scriptures are the fundamental basis for all doctrine.  This is in contrast to extra-biblical teachings.  The idea is that if it were important enough for us to know, God would have told us in the Scriptures themselves and not have us rely on extra-biblical teachings.  Protestants see the potential for great danger when there is reliance on the teaching of men rather than on the unchanging Word of God.

To answer your question specifically, Protestants generally believe that this was a teaching that was introduced by the Catholic church centuries after the life of Jesus.  There is no apostolic authority behind it, as it appears nowhere in Scripture.  All we are told is that Mary was a virgin at Jesus' conception and remained so until His birth, as @ryanOptini also noted.

  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angle of the Lord
  had bidden him, and took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth
  her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.  Matthew 1:24-25

Nowhere in Scripture does it indicate that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ.  This would certainly have been noteworthy, since it would not have been a normal thing for a married woman (and man, for that matter) to not have a consummated marriage and experience the normal and sacred aspects of marriage.  Yet, the best biblical support is quite vague at best.

It is also problematic to Protestants as to why it would have been necessary for Mary to remain a virgin--and for Joseph to remain celibate towards her as her husband.  Why is this level of intimacy denied both Mary and Joseph and what could possibly be wrong with it?

Now, it may have been the Mary began to be held up as a female example for women to follow.  Men could look to Jesus Himself or any of the apostles to see a male example to follow.  So, perhaps it was well-intentioned.  God found favor with Mary, much like He had done with Noah in the Old Testament.  Her virginity as an unmarried woman is commendable as well.  And perhaps over time, Mary's virginity was turned into eternal virginity to really set her apart and give her even more honor.

Summary

So, again, it may have been well-intentioned, but Protestants generally believe it was a teaching introduced by the Catholic church long after the apostles were gone.  So, the teaching lacks apostolic authority as well as biblical support, which is extremely important if something so unexpected is to be believed and held as such an important doctrine.


Marks of the true church in Protestantism or Catholicism?

In Catholicism, the marks of the Church are that she is

one
holy
catholic
apostolic

these words are taken from the second part of the Nicene creed, which is commonly prayed at every Mass and the tenents of which are generally accepted by mainline Protestant denominations.

I think, but have very little basis for this thought, that Protestant reformers used the word Marks to mean something different. And perhaps it means something different coming over to English from Latin as well as German, we just had one word that meant two totally separate things

Catholics use them as adjective to describe their Church, not as adjectives to describe the ideal church because they know that even though the Church is composed of fallen members, she is the ideal and would continue to be the ideal even if she had no members left alive.

more info in the Catechism


Why were the Israelites not circumcised in the desert?

Keil explains it well:

  The sentence upon the fathers, that their bodies should fall in the desert, was unquestionably a rejection of them on the part of God, an abrogation of the covenant with them. This punishment was also to be borne by their sons; and hence the reason why those who were born in the desert by the way were not circumcised. (Commentary on the Old Testament by C. F. Keil)

As the covenant of the Lord with the fathers was broken, the sons of the rejected generation were not to receive the covenant sign of circumcision. This curse upon the fathers, casting some shame upon the children for a period seems more like probation.  As far as the nation as a whole was concerned the covenant was not fully collapsed.
Only until the generation of men that were capable of bearing arms when they came out of Egypt were all dead would the younger generation which had grown up in the desert be under the shame. When the  time of punishment was over and the temporary suspension of the covenant passed, it was a good time to renew the terms of the covenant with a new generation.


According to the Southern Baptist Convention, what is the biblical basis for involving the church in politics?

The Southern Baptist Convention in the Public Sphere

There is no evidence that the SBC believes itself to be barred from issues relating to public policy, and there is much evidence to the contrary.  First, let's look at the SBC's understanding of the Resolutions it issues (emphasis mine):

  [...] Covering a wide range of theological, social, and practical topics,
  resolutions educate our own people about important moral, ethical, and
  public policy issues; speak to the broader culture about our beliefs;
  and provide helpful tools for our churches and entities to speak with
  authority in the public square about the biblical application of
  timely and timeless matters. [...]

  -Southern Baptist Convention: A Closer Look

Other Examples of the SBC opining on Public Policy

Let me give four easy examples of official SBC resolutions which relate to public policy and were given in the last three years:

Resolution on Immigration (2018)
Resolution on Defunding and Investigating Planned Parenthood (2017)
Resolution on Freedom of the Press (2016)
Resolution on Women Registering for the Draft (2016)

Concluding Answer

Paul Chitwood believes that the legalization of marijuana will have a detrimental effect on the well being of children.  He therefore decided to publicize and garner support for this issue within the churches of the SBC.  His decision to involve the SBC in a question of public policy is consistent with the stated principles of the SBC and is also consistent with SBC precedent.

(While I acknowledge that this answer is not Biblical, it does draw on official SBC sources as requested by the original questioner's bounty description, "Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources."  Given the theocratic nature of all cultures found within the Bible, seeking Biblical support on this issue may well be an anachronistic endeavor.)


Is there any Method in Methodism that people practice?

The Oxford Holy Club, founded by John Wesley, was the first of many Methodist societies that followed a set of general rules developed by Wesley himself:

  It is therefore expected of all who continue therein that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

  By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is most generally practiced
  By doing good; by being in every kind merciful after their power; as they have opportunity, doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as possible, to all men
  By attending upon all the ordinances of God; such are:

  The public worship of God.
  The ministry of the Word, either read or expounded.
  The Supper of the Lord.
  Family and private prayer.
  Searching the Scriptures.
  Fasting or abstinence.

The idea was to help Christians draw closer to God and attain Christian perfection through the process of sanctification*. Basically (my words here) you follow the rules and you build good habits and that helps you be a better Christian.

These three rules have been apart of Methodism since the very beginning and they're still prominent in many Methodist organizations today. There's actually a book based on the Wesley method called The John Wesley Great Experiment. In the 60s, John Wesley UMC in Tallahassee, FL started a study group based on the book called "Wanted: Ten Brave Christians" that still gets used today (I know because I did it last month).

*I can't begin to explain this well enough to do it justice so I suggest you visit the source. CCEL has an amazing collection of John Wesley's writings (among so many others) that are free and in the public domain.


From an Orthodox perspective...how do we know the saints specifically hear an individuals prayers?

A good deal of the Orthodox theology of saints is expressed during the services for the first Sunday of Great Lent - called the Sunday of the Triumph Orthodoxy (it commemorates the anathemas declared in the Ecumenical Councils against the Iconoclasts).  The Epistle reading for that particular day comes from Hebrews (11:24-26,32-12:2), which goes toward answering your question, "Where does the belief come from that they hear us?"

  And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us

I am not sure there is a belief within Eastern Orthodoxy that the saints "make individual intersession for us" in the sense you might be thinking.  As Romanian Elder Cleopa wrote:

  No one except Christ is able to intercede before the Father since only He presents Himself as a sacrifice for the salvation of the world.  Accordingly, no one except for Christ is able to save man from sin.1

This does not mean, however, that the saints - as well as people we know on earth - cannot pray for our salvation.  This is the only  sense in which saints are understood to "intercede" for us.  Again, from Elder Cleopa:

  In honoring the saints we don't put them in the place of Christ, or even adjacent to Him.  When the saints pray for us, it is precisely our salvation that they seek from Christ.  They intercede with Him for our salvation.  From Christ they entreat our salvation.  This is what we mean when we say they intercede for us.

Regarding how we know that saints are not acting on our personal behalf at times and not on behalf of all "believers" in general, I don't think there is a very rigorous theological answer here.

First, when saints pray for people collectively, we believe that they are praying for all men, and not just "believers" - since God desires that all men be saved and not just believers (1 Tim 2:4), and since saints are saints by virtue of their wills being aligned with God's.

As far as how we know that saints often act on behalf of specific persons, the witness here is two millennia of synaxaria describing the lives of the saints - the Church's documentation of some of the greater things that have been done (John 14:12) since the time of the Apostles.  For some modern accounts, you might pick up a copy of Everyday Saints, a best-seller in Russia (in general, not just in religious books), recently translated into English.  Another good sampling can be found in the account of the life of Arseny Streltzof, a Communist intellectual who became an Orthodox priest.  A good book here would be Father Arseny: Priest, Prisoner, Spiritual Father.

1. The Truth of Our Faith (3rd ed.), Vol. I (Uncut Mountain Press, 2007), p.68
2. Ibid.


What denominations don't believe in fasting? And Why?

Who fasts and who doesn't?
Do, and its important

Both the Eastern Orthdox and Roman Catholic churches have required fasting periods for their members, as shown by the links.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are encouraged to fast for the first Sunday of every month, which they call their fast and testimony meeting. Instead of speakers, members come up to the microphone and bear their testimony about the truthfulness of their experiences in the Gospel [per Gilbert LeBlanc]

Encourage, but in practice don't

Episcopalians are supposed to fast on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and on "lesser fasts", but I've never heard it preached from the pulpit in the five years I've been one. Pancake Tuesday? Sure.  Fasting the next day, not so much.

Baptists practice fasting as a private discipline but have no agreed upon days on which fasting is to occur. (Baptists can't even agree on a lectionary, so if you think you'd be able to pry the fried chicken out of my cold dead hands, think again! When I was ordained as a Baptist minister, I explained to my ordination committee that Baptists only believe in three sacraments - marriage, communion, and potluck.  They agreed.)

Methodists encourage fasting but offer no official guidelines on when to do it, since it is a "private matter"

Presbyterians, per the Westminster Confession of faith encourage fasting on Sundays, but do so with the admonition of Matt 6:17, in which believers are encouraged not to brag about how spiritual they are.

Lutherans encourage fasting but do not require it.

Why don't many Protestants fast?
Most Protestants don't fast - not because they think fasting is wrong, but because there is nothing compelling to make them think that it is important. Very few Protestants I know would say fasting is wrong, but in practice, it just isn't important*. (See note on "Papistry" below, however.)
For most evangelicals at least, and many protestants in particular, the emphasis on grace is such that anything that smacks of "works" is relegated to the "nice, but optional" category. Puritans would call some of the spiritual disciplines "superciliousness" - an over attention to the perfection that leads to pride. Additionally, many older Protestants view fasting as an artifact of Catholicism. This isn't accurate, but for many centuries, anything that smacked of "Papistry" was viewed with suspicion.
All of these basically leads to a culture in which many spiritual disciplines are just not part of the culture. Kids don't grow up thinking you do it, so they don't, and in turn, their kids perpetuate the cycle.
After attending a spiritual disciplines seminar or after reading Foster's Celebration of Discipline or anything by Dallas Willard, they tend to learn, but the point is that the culture of Protestant churches (and I am generalizing a bit there) simply doesn't emphasize it.
Finally, if you ask me, "why don't I fast?" It's really just laziness.  I know it would be good, and I have done it from time to time, but in my personal experience it hasn't done a lot. I suspect I'm not alone in thinking that.  It doesn't justify it, it just explains it.

Excursis on the textual evidence for fasting
For example, while I wouldn't argue this, the verse you reference in Mark is considered by many scholars to be a minor variant inserted after the original manuscripts.  I won't argue it either way, but it just doesn't rise to "really important" for a lot of Protestants.
From the Net Bible's footnote on Mark 9:29:

38 tc Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (Ì45vid א2 A C D L W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat co), have “and fasting” (καὶ νηστείᾳ, kai nhsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most important witnesses (א* B), as well as a few others (0274 2427 k), lack καὶ νηστείᾳ, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.

Matthew 17:21 is often ommitted (NIV, NRSV, ESV, Net Bible, HCSB, for example) for the same reason:

tc Many important mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Ë1,13 Ï lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

Just as a translation of some of those symbols, א is the Codex Sinaiticus (aka the Tischendorf's stolen manuscript) and  B is Codex Vaticanus, two of the most important manuscripts available.


Are foster children considered covenant children in Presbyterianism?

I  don't think any denominational body has ruled on this; until one does so, it remains a matter of conscience for individual believers. Part of the difficulty is that foster care as a named/organized phenomenon only goes back to the 19th century.

That said, there seem to be two main schools of thought: yes and no. End of answer. I'm kidding... but those are the main schools of thought.

As this answer explains well, two of the key concepts regarding paedobaptism are 1) that baptism replaces circumcision in the new covenant, and 2) that the command to baptize is issued to "you and your household/children." So arguments about whether or not to baptize foster children rely on applying these two concepts.

The real rub is, can they be rightly called the children of their foster parents?

Those who argue against baptizing foster children point out that baptizing one's children involves a commitment to rearing them in the ways of the faith; in most reformed congregations, both the parents and the rest of the congregants take vows to the effect that they will instruct the children in the faith. The key question posed by those opposed to baptizing foster children is: can you truly make such vows?

But this can be countered by pointing to the old covenant example. All male members of the household were circumcised: children on the eighth day, and slaves (and whoever else) as soon as possible. But slaves were not necessarily a permanent part of the household; if they were circumcised and left the household, they would still be covenant members. In the same way, foster children could be temporary members of the household while being permanent members of the covenant. While a part of the household, the parents bear responsibility to instruct them in the faith, just as they vowed to do.

I'm not advocating either position. I suspect that if you were to ask a representative of any of the large Presbyterian denominations what to do, they would say, "Discuss it with your pastor." It probably demands close attention to the specific situation, as well as prayer.


According to Catholicism, what did St Paul mean by "a thorn in the flesh"?

The Catholic Haydock Commentary on 2 Cor. 12:7 says:

  A sting of my flesh,[1] an angel, or a messenger of Satan, to buffet me. The Latin word [stimulus] signifies any thing that pricks or stings, the Greek word [σκόλοψ] a sharp stick or pale: he speaks by a metaphor, as also when he says to buffet me; that is, by causing great trouble or pain. Some understand by it a violent headache or pain, or distemper in the body. St. Augustine mentions this opinion, and does not reject it, in Psalm xcviii. tom. 4. p. 1069.; in Psalm cxxx. p. 1465. St. Jerome also speaks of it in chap. iv. ad Galatas, tom. 4. p. 274, Ed. Ben. But St. Chrysostom, by the sting, and the angel of Satan, understands that opposition which St. Paul met with from his enemies, and those of the gospel; as Satan signifies an adversary. Others understand troublesome temptations of the flesh, immodest thoughts, and representations, suggested by the devil, and permitted by Almighty God for his greater good.


How do Orthodox Christians celebrate Christ's resurrection on Easter Sunday?
The most obvious and almost universally Orthodox one is that they celebrate Easter on a different date than Churches in the West.
Orthodox and Western churches observe most holidays 13 days apart as they follow the Julian and Gregorian calendars, respectively.
Like the West their liturgical season of Easter ends with the Feast of Pentecost inclusively.
Here follows a sample of some Easter liturgical celebrations:
For Easter, their computations differ based on what dates the first full moon after the spring equinox and Jewish Passover fall in any given year. Accordingly, in some years, their Easter dates coincide, in others they can be weeks apart. The next "joint" Easter observance will be in 2025.
Seeing that there the Orthodox communion consists of 14 autocephalous (that is, administratively completely independent) regional churches, plus the Orthodox Church in America and recently the Orthodox Church of Ukraine; the diverse liturgical celebrations and regional customs would take a entire book to write about. They are quite diverse!
To start with here is a sampling for the liturgical celebrations of Easter:

About Greek Orthodox Easter: Everything You Need to Know
On Holy Saturday, psalms are read and Resurrection hymns are sung, telling of Christ’s descent into Hades: “Today Hades cried out groaning,” the psalm says.
The hymns speak of the conquering of death and the day’s celebration is called “First Resurrection.” Most of the readings of this day are from the Old Testament on the prophecies and promise of the conquering of death.
Finally, at midnight, there is the moment that all Greeks around the world eagerly anticipate: The Resurrection ceremony, when the faithful can finally greet one another by saying “Christos Anesti!” (Christ is risen!).
On this night, Greeks wear their Sunday best, take a white candle, and go to church to attend the liturgy, waiting for midnight.
Children hold their lampatha (λαμπάδα) a decorated white candle given to them by their godfather or godmother. This is a much-anticipated gift by children.
Children keep their lampatha throughout the year because the blessed candle which has been lit by the Holy flame on Resurrection night can be used in other special liturgies such as baptisms and weddings.
At midnight, all the priests come out and chant “Christos Anesti!” while they pass the Holy Light from which all the faithful light their candles and pass the light to one another, saying “Christos Anesti!” with the recipient replying “Alithos Anesti!” or “Truly, He is risen!”
The Holy Fire
In Orthodox tradition, the Holy Fire is considered a miracle that occurs annually on the day preceding Pascha within Jesus Christ’s tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem.
In the church, a blue light is said to emit from within Jesus Christ’s tomb, rising from the marble slab covering the stone believed to be that upon which Jesus’ body was placed for burial.
The light is believed to form a column of fire, from which candles are lit. This fire is then used to light the candles of the clergy and pilgrims in attendance.
The fire is also said to spontaneously light other lamps and candles around the church. Pilgrims and clergy say that the Holy Fire does not burn them.
The Patriarch is inside the chapel kneeling in front of the stone, while the church is dark. Then the Patriarch comes out with the two candles lit and shining brightly in the darkness.
The crowd roars as they witness the bright candles with the Holy Fire and light their own, jubilant after seeing the miracle.
The Holy Fire, which Greeks call Holy Light, is taken to Greece by a special flight, while it is received in the country by political and church leaders with all the honors of a visiting state leader.

Individual Eastern Orthodox Churches have a variety and sometimes varies Eastern customs involving subjects as food to diverse religious practices. It is not uncommon where I live to see Greek Orthodox roasting lamb outside in their back yard.
It is customary among Orthodox Christians to greet one another during the Easter season with the Paschal greeting. The salutation begins with the phrase, "Christ is Risen!" The response is "Truly; He is Risen!" The phrase "Christos Anesti" (Greek for "Christ is Risen") is also the title of a traditional Orthodox Easter hymn sung during Easter services in celebration of Jesus Christ’s resurrection.
In the Orthodox tradition, eggs are a symbol of new life. Early Christians used eggs to symbolize the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the regeneration of believers. At Easter, eggs are dyed red to represent the blood of Jesus that was shed on the cross for the redemption of all men.
One of the most common Christian symbols associated with Easter is the lamb. It is often depicted with a banner that bears a cross, and it is known as the Agnus Dei, meaning "Lamb of God" in Latin.

In Lebanon, many Orthodox Christians attend a church liturgy at Easter, whether it is on Sunday morning or midnight liturgy between Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday. On Easter Sunday, many families hold a special lunch consisting of turkey or chicken stuffed with nuts and served with rice. The afternoon is spent visiting friends and family members. Many homes have maamoul (cookies) on a plate with other delicacies such as chick peas covered with sugar and sweet almonds.
In Bulgaria, many worshippers celebrate outside churches after midnight liturgy, carrying candles to symbolize the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Painted eggs are cracked or smashed and richly-painted Orthodox churches are filled with clouds of incense and choir songs.
In Greece, Easter Sunday is also a widely celebrated occasion. Lambs are roasted on a spit and the provision of wine is abundant. The roasted lamb is served in honor of Jesus Christ, who was sacrificed and rose again on Easter. Lamb is the most traditional Greek Easter food. Red-dyed eggs are cracked against each other and the person with the last remaining uncracked egg will have good luck. Easter Sunday is a time of festivity and people eat, chat or dance throughout the night.
On the island of Crete, many villages prepare for a bonfire effigy of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus Christ, as described in the New Testament of the Bible. In the lead up to the bonfire event, people gather sticks and branches to prepare to burn the effigy.
Around the world, many Orthodox Catholic Churches, including the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, hold Easter liturgies during the Easter period according to the Julian calendar. Families unite and join in Orthodox Easter activities, festivities and traditions.

Serbian Orthodox families traditionally begin the feasting after Easter Sunday services. They enjoy appetizers of smoked meats and cheeses, boiled eggs and red wine. The meal consists of chicken noodle or lamb vegetable soup followed by spit-roasted lamb.
Holy Saturday is a day of strict fasting for Russian Orthodox Christians, while families stay busy making preparations for the Easter meal. Usually, the Lenten fast is broken after the midnight mass with traditional Paskha Easter bread cake. - What Is Orthodox Easter?

Special mention should be made about the Holy Fire at Jerusalem.

The Holy Fire is described by Orthodox Christians as a miracle that occurs every year at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on Great Saturday, or Holy Saturday, the day preceding Orthodox Easter. However, many dispute the alleged miraculous descent of the Fire.
Orthodox tradition holds that the Holy Fire happens annually on the day preceding Orthodox Pascha (Orthodox Easter). During this time, blue light is said to emit within Jesus Christ's tomb, rising from the marble slab covering the stone bed believed to be that upon which Jesus' body is to have been placed for burial. The marble slab is now in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem. The light is believed to form a column of fire, from which candles are lit. This fire is then used to light the candles of the clergy and pilgrims in attendance. The fire is also said to spontaneously light other lamps and candles around the church. Pilgrims and clergy say that the Holy Fire does not burn them.
While the Patriarch is inside the chapel kneeling in front of the stone, there is darkness but far from silence outside. One hears a rather loud mumbling, and the atmosphere is very tense. When the Patriarch comes out with the two candles lit and shining brightly in the darkness, a roar of jubilation resounds in the Church.
Thousands of pilgrims as well as local Christians of all denominations gather in Jerusalem to partake and witness this annual event.
The Holy Fire is taken to Greece by special flight, and similarly to other Orthodox countries or countries with major Orthodox churches, such as Georgia, Bulgaria, Lebanon, Romania, Egypt, Cyprus, North Macedonia, Serbia, Ukraine and Russia, being received by church and state leaders.
History
The historian Eusebius writes in his Vita Constantini, which dates from around 328, about an interesting occurrence in Jerusalem of Easter in the year 162. When the church wardens were about to fill the lamps to make them ready to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, they suddenly noticed that there was no more oil left to pour in the lamps. Upon this, Bishop Narcissus of Jerusalem ordered the candles to be filled with water. He then told the wardens to ignite them. In front of the eyes of all present every single lamp burned as if filled with pure oil. Christian Orthodox tradition holds that this miracle, which predates the construction of the Holy Sepulchre in the fourth century, is related to the Miracle of the Holy Fire. They admit that the two differ, as the former was a one-time occurrence while the Miracle of the Holy Fire occurs every year. However, they have in common the premise that God has produced fire where there, logically speaking, should have been none.
Around 385 Egeria, a noble woman from Spain, traveled to Palestine. In the account of her journey, she speaks of a ceremony by the Holy Sepulchre of Christ, where a light comes forth (ejicitur) from the small chapel enclosing the tomb, by which the entire church is filled with an infinite light (lumen infinitum).

Holy Fire in 2018
Interesting enough is that Orthodox celebrate a particular celebration during Eastertide known as Mid-Pentecost

Mid-Pentecost or Midfeast, also Meso-Pentecost is a feast day which occurs during the Paschal season in the Eastern Orthodox Church and those Eastern Catholic Churches which follow the Byzantine Rite.
Mid-Pentecost celebrates the midpoint between the Feasts of Pascha (Easter) and Pentecost. Specifically, it falls on the 25th day of Pascha. At the feast of Mid-Pentecost, a Small Blessing of the Waters is traditionally performed after the liturgy of the feast.
Mid-Pentecost is a one-week feast which begins on the 4th Wednesday of Pascha, and continues until the following Wednesday. That is to say, it has an Afterfeast of seven days. Throughout these eight days (including the day of the feast) hymns of Mid-Pentecost are joined to those of the Paschal season. Many of the hymns from the first day of the feast are repeated on the Apodosis (leave-taking of the feast). Although it is ranked as a Feast of the Lord and has an Afterfeast, Mid-Pentecost itself is not considered to be one of the Great Feasts of the church year.


Good question.  There is confusion in some quarters that it refers solely to the 10 commandments, but it is clear from scripture that it refers to all of God's commandments as given in the Torah (first five books of the OT).  This would comprise the 10 commandments, the ceremonial aspect, and the sacrificial decrees.

This is easily observed from Luke 2:22.

  And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

The article "the" is in the original.

  2:22  Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωσέως ἀνήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα παραστῆσαι τῷ κυρίῳ

In turn Luke 2:22 refers to Lev 12:2-6.  Obviously this command is not one of the 10 commandments, yet it is considered part of the Law of Moses.

And as if to make this very point, Luke then writes the following regarding the law of the Lord as the same as the law of Moses.

  2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

Likewise we find the same Torah reference in Joshua 8:31, the first book after the books written by Moses.

  As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.

In turn this command refers back to Ex 20:25 and Deu 27:6.  Again neither of those commands refer to the 10 commandments.

So, the "Law of Moses" or "law of the Lord" refer to the same commandments given in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Some will say there are 613 commandments therein.  As Peter said in Acts 15:8-11 about this issue.

  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.  ow therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.


How to reconcile the number of people that went down to Egypt with Jacob?

There are a couple of possible ways to reconcile this, both within the established Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies used by Apologists.

Copyist errors.

The first comes by clarifying what "inerrancy" means, to debunk a straw-man argument that such a discrepancy in our current Bible is an issue in the first place.  For an in-depth dive into the doctrine of inerrancy, see From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase “Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God” mean?.

Short version:

Only the original manuscripts are considered inerrant, and we fully expect there to be copyist errors and other discrepancies in our current version.
We can overcome the "So how do we know we can trust the Bible if we know it contains copyist/translation errors" question by understanding that we have many, many, manuscripts to compare, and even though many discrepancies do exist between the manuscripts, none of them are doctrinally significant.  More at What is “Manuscript Evidence” and how is it useful?

So, the first obvious possibility is a copyist or translation error in some of the accounts somewhere along the way.  That's what's proposed at the "Contradictions in the Bible" website.

Counting differently.

Again, going back to the non-straw-man version of inerrancy, inerrancy does not mean hyper-literalism.  (See the link above for more.)

It's entirely possible that the authors were counting different sets of people.  Say you're a reporter writing about an invasion that involved 1000 infantry men and two generals.  You may record this as 1000 soldiers storming the hill, and another may record 1002.  (Yeah, that's a bad analogy, but it sets up the argument used in this Apologetics Press article on the subject.

  Similar to how a person truthfully can give different degrees for the
  boiling point of water (100° Celsius or 212° Fahrenheit), different
  figures are given in the Bible for the number of Jacob’s family
  members who traveled into Egypt. Stephen (in Acts 7:14) did not
  contradict the Old Testament passages where the number seventy is
  used; he merely computed the number differently. Precisely how Stephen
  calculated this number is a matter of speculation. Consider the
  following:

  In Genesis 46:27, neither Jacob’s wife (cf. 35:19) nor his concubines is included in the seventy figure.
  Despite the mention of Jacob’s “daughters and his son’s daughters” (46:7), it seems that the only daughter included in the “seventy” was
  Dinah (vs. 15), and the only granddaughter was Serah (vs. 17).
  The wives of Jacob’s sons are not included in the seventy (46:26).
  Finally, whereas only two descendants of Joseph are mentioned in Genesis 46 in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, in the
  Septuagint, Joseph’s descendants are calculated as being nine.

  Taking into consideration how many individuals were omitted from “the
  seventy persons” mentioned in the Old Testament, at least two possible
  solutions to this alleged contradiction may be offered. First, it is
  possible that Stephen included Jacob’s daughters-in-law in his
  calculation of seventy-five. Jacob’s children, grandchildren, and
  great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Genesis 46:8-26). If Jacob,
  Joseph, and Joseph’s two sons are added, then the total number is
  seventy (46:27). If, however, to the sixty-six Stephen added the wives
  of Jacob’s sons’, he could have legitimately reckoned Jacob’s
  household as numbering seventy-five, instead of seventy. [NOTE: Jacob
  is listed by Stephen individually.] Yet, someone might ask how
  sixty-six plus “twelve” equals seventy-five. Simple—not all of the
  wives were included. Joseph’s wife obviously would not have been
  calculated into this figure, if Joseph himself were not. And, at least
  two of the eleven remaining wives may have been deceased by the time
  the family journeyed to Egypt. We know for sure that Judah’s wife had
  already died by this time (Genesis 38:12), and it is reasonable to
  conclude that another of the wives had passed away as well. (In all
  likelihood, Simeon’s wife had already died—cf. Genesis 46:10.) Thus,
  when Stephen stated that “Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and
  all his relatives to him, seventy-five people” (Acts 7:14),
  realistically he could have included the living wives of Joseph’s
  brothers to get a different (though not a contradictory) number.

Note:

This last article also addresses the discrepancy between manuscripts, and discusses more issues with the account. It's worth a read, as is this one from Tekton Apologetics.


It simply means that Mary is blessed not only for bearing the flesh of Christ, but most of all because she heard the word of God and obeyed it.

  "Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ.  ...  For his brothers, his relatives according to the flesh who did not believe in him, of what advantage is that relationship?  Even her maternal relationship would have done Mary no good unless she had borne Christ more happily in her heart than in her flesh."  (Of Holy Virginity -3  - St. Augustine).

Please note that in the preceding verse a women acclaims, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!". Jesus is correcting that women by saying that bearing Him and nursing Him is of no importance.....

  In His answer He did not disgrace His mother, but showed that His birth would have profited her nothing, had she not been really fruitful in works and faith. - St. Chrysostom

...Rather the blessedness of Mary (Luke 1:48) is because of her Fiat...

  She was the mother of God, and therefore indeed blessed, in that she was made the temporal minister of the Word becoming incarnate; yet therefore much more blessed that she remained the eternal keeper of the same ever to be beloved Word. - St. Bede


Is the title of Jesus "Son of God" synonymous with "Messiah"?

Definitions
"Messiah" ("Christ" in Greek) is a Hebrew word that essentially means the anointed one. Prior to the crucifixion, the expectation of both Jews and Christians was that a man would arise who would be reminiscent of David, whom Samuel anointed to be king. The Messiah would deliver Israel from oppression and lead her as their king.
The NT authors and the early church saw Jesus as the Messiah; He was the deliverer from spiritual oppression, and the king of a spiritual kingdom. He would some day deliver them from physical oppression, and rule a physical kingdom.
"Son of God" essentially meant God's image bearer. The idea of a "son" in the first century was different than it is today. The term "Son of God" did not so much signify that Jesus was born, or that He had a beginning, or that He was somehow inferior to the Father, but rather that He came from God and bore His image. (cf)
Are the two synonymous?
Yes and no. They signify different things by definition, but in the Person of Christ they were seen as equally valid and important titles, and are often treated as if they were synonymous. Here is a brief sampling of places where we see this:

Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ. -Luke 4:41
She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.” -John 11:27
But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” -Matthew 26:63
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God -John 20:30-31


What is the difference between Arminianism, Molinism, and Calvinism?

I found an article that explains Molinism in simple, easy to understand language.  The second part of the article asks whether it is biblical, but I have left that part out since this is not what you ask. Here is a partial quote:

Molinism is named for the 16th-century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. Molinism is a system of thought that seeks to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. Molinism partly seeks to avoid so-called “theological determinism”: the view that God decrees who will be saved or damned without any meaningful impact of their own free choice. Today’s highest-profile defenders of Molinism are William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.

The primary distinctive of Molinism is the affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scientia media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.

1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths: all things which “can be.” In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths. This knowledge is independent of God’s will, a point few if any theologians would dispute.

2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge consists of what philosophers call counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. These are facts about what any creature with a free will would freely do in any circumstance in which it could be placed. This knowledge, like natural knowledge, is independent of God’s will.

3. Creative Command – this is the “moment” where God actually acts. Between His knowledge of all that is or could be, and all that actually comes to be, is God’s purposeful intervention and creation.

4. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create: all things that “actually are.” God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is. This knowledge is completely dependent on God’s will.

Using middle knowledge, Molinism attempts to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. In other words, man is completely free, but God is also completely sovereign—He is absolutely in control of all that happens, and yet humanity’s choices are not coerced.

According to Molinism, God omnisciently knows what you would have been like had you lived in Africa instead of Australia, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not, in each of those varying circumstances.

Accordingly, it is out of this (middle) knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world that corresponds to His ultimate desires. Therefore, while a person is truly free, God is truly in control of who is or is not saved. Molinists differ on how God defines His underlying desires. For example, some believe God is seeking the maximum number of people to be saved. Others believe God creates in order to maximize some other divine goal.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/molinism.html

As to how it differs from Arminianism and Calvinism, I doubt I could do justice to that.  Perhaps you could draw from these articles:
https://www.gotquestions.org/arminianism.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html
Like Nigel J, I am simply presenting one particular point of view in the hope it will help to answer your question.  I have permission to copy and paste the Got Questions article on Molinism.


What is "New Creation" according to Protestants?

John 3:4-10 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old…Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God…Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Notice that this conversation took place prior to the cross.  Also notice that Jesus chastised Nicodemus for not knowing of the new birth.

  Genesis 6:8 Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD

As did those mentioned in Hebrews 11 that placed their faith in the promise of God.

Christ said:

  John 1:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

This new thing that required the departure of Jesus Christ and His finished work established by His seat at the right hand of God the Father, enables the Holy Spirit to dwell in our heart.

The Holy Spirit bears out the will of God the Father.  Jesus Christ is the eternally-begotten, the manifest "will" of God the Father.  Christians are equipped by the overshadowing presence of the Holy Spirit to bear out Jesus Christ in their lives.  This is why Paul says:

  Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

So, the new creation is "Christ in our life"!


The attitude of animals before and after fall

The usual disclaimer - this is the Young-Earth Creationist, Biblical Literal view, which is not the only view out there.

Many Creationists, including Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and others believe and teach that the relationship between man and animals was changed directly by God after the Flood.

Before the Flood, man was vegetarian only:

  Genesis 1:29-30 (KJV)

  29 And God said, “See, I have given you every
  herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
  tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

  30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to
  everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have
  given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

but after the Flood, man became omnivores.

  Genesis 9: 1-3 (KJV)

  1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
  and multiply, and replenish the earth.

  2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast
  of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth
  upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are
  they delivered.

  3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the
  green herb have I given you all things.

As to when the animals became dangerous to each other, the Bible doesn't specify.  Some suppose it was after the banishment from the Garden of Eden, some speculate that it was at the same time the relationship between man and animals changed in Genesis 3.  But Scripture doesn't say for sure.

Answers in Genesis interprets Genesis 1:29-30 as stating that man and animals were all vegetarian, which does appear to be the case from a plain literal reading of the verses.  Kent Hovind claims the same thing.  So they would naturally assume that animals became meat-eaters after the Flood as well.


How do modalists understand the role of Jesus as mediator?

Who are the modalists?

The ancient modalists were condemned heretics such as Noetus, Sabellius, and Praxeas. We don't have much record of their own writings, and what we do know of them is based on what men like Tertullian and Hippolytus wrote in response to them. So we know very little of their actual theology.

In modern times, Oneness Pentecostalism has revived modalism. Though some of them reject the term modalism, many do not, and it's just about universal that that's exactly what they teach.

Note that Unitarianism is the opposite heresy. Oneness believers say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same person, while Unitarians say that only the Father is fully God.

Jesus' role as mediator to Oneness believers

In researching this question, I emailed Jason Dulle of OnenessPentecostal.com. Here's what he said:

  Yes, Jesus is our mediator.  I think different Oneness adherents have
  different understandings of this.  Some would say his mediatoral role
  is limited to the crucifixion.  Others, such as myself, would say that
  role, while based on the atonement, is ongoing and will continue until
  the consummation of all things.  This is no more problematic for our
  position that the issue of Jesus' communication with the Father while
  on Earth.  The response is the same to both.  For more information on
  how I understand the Father-Son distinction, see Avoiding the Achilles
  Heels of Trinitarianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, and Nestorianism:
  The Acknowledgement and Proper Placement of the Distinction Between
  Father and Son, A Oneness View of Jesus' Prayers, and Jesus' Prayers:
  It Doesn't Take Two Persons to Tango.

Dulles seems to summarize the differences between various Oneness views pretty well. His own views are rather unusual within that schema (positing two minds within the Godhead), but you can see a fuller discussion of them by accessing the revision history for this post.

Other Oneness theologians I contacted are consistent with each other in how they understand Jesus' role as mediator, though as Dulles said, they demonstrate disagreement over how "intercession" is to be understood.

For example, on the Oneness Q&A site Glorious Church, they affirm that "his mediatorial role is limited to the crucifixion:

  1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, 'For there is one God and one Mediator between
  God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for
  all....' From a Oneness perspective, we point out that the Mediator is
  specifically identified as 'the Man.' This agrees with Colossians
  1:21-22, which says, 'And you, who once were alienated and enemies in
  your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of
  His flesh through death.' Clearly the mediation and reconciliation
  between God and men was accomplished by means of the death of the Man,
  Jesus Christ, on the cross. We see the crucifixion as the once and for
  all intercession. We do not believe the Man Jesus is continuing to
  intercede in a literal way. We also believe that the Man who was
  crucified was God the Father in the flesh. We can make a distinction
  between God and His humanity, but we never want to think of them as
  two separate beings.

But in other ways, they agree with Dulles and the other theologians I contacted, all of whom believe that Jesus still intercedes for the church.

I also emailed William B. Chalfant, who has published Ancient Champions of Oneness as well as a number of historical novels about Sabellius. Chalfant engaged in a lengthy discussion of the key verses. Here are the highlights:

  Of course, in my view, the term "Mediator" usually refers to someone
  fulfilling a designated role or position rather than necessarily
  dictating a discrete, substantive individual.

  ...

  We can admit that a "mediator" is a "mediator" between two parties,
  but, as Paul wrote, we must still conclude that "God is One" (Gal.
  3:20).

  It must be, then, that God has "mediated" through His incarnation as
  the Messiah."God was in Christ": that is the incarnation.

  The "mediator" is the "man Christ Jesus" and not a second divine
  person as some would have it.

  ...

  Notice in this passage [1 John 2:1-2] that Jesus is identified as
  the "Paraclete" by John, who also wrote the Gospel of John, where
  Jesus promises, after his earthly demise and resurrection, the coming
  of the "Paraclete". Oneness teachers identify Jesus as the "Paraclete"
  (that is, the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit". Paul affirms that
  in teaching that there is "one Spirit" (Ephesians 4:4). And so we
  would see if there is any post-resurrection "mediation" is will be
  done by the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit).

  ...

  Again, "mediation" seems to refer to the earthly ministry of the
  Incarnation (God the Father manifested in the flesh), while
  "intercession" is again accomplished by the risen Christ (who is God
  the Father manifested in the glorified flesh).

  In short, the terms "mediator", "intercessor", "reconciliation", when
  expressed in relation to the exigencies of the "incarnation"
  (enfleshment of God the Father), who now subsists as the Eternal
  Spirit in the glorified Man Christ Jesus, in a substantive henosis
  or union.

I also emailed Stan Hallett of Apostolic-Voice.org. His words serve as a decent summary of Chalfant's:

  In my view He is intercessor or mediator because He is the door (John
  10:9).  No man comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6).

  I do not believe that He needs to go a talk to the Father on our
  behalf as some other person of a Trinitarian Godhead, for all power
  was given to him in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18).

  ...

  God needed to come to redeem man unto himself (Titus 2:13,14). The
  annual shedding the blood of bulls and sheep could not redeem us
  (Hebrews 10:4). Therefore the scripture says that God redeemed us with
  His own blood.

  ...

  God did not send someone else to pay the price for sin, He came
  Himself.

The common view of each of these theologians can be summarized as:

Being a separate person is unnecessary for mediation. The game-changer of the incarnation accomplished enough on its own. I believe each of them would affirm this statement whole-heartedly, with the possible exception of Dulles, who would give it a bit more nuance.


Are LDS church manuals considered to be the words of God?

No, church manuals are not considered 100% church doctrine, if you define doctrine to mean the word of God. They are very inspired teachings and they contain what is being taught in the church, because they are used to teach. They are well considered, but they might not be fully free of personal opinions or even errors.

In October 2012 the LDS apostle Neil L. Andersen gave a definition of what constitutes doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in a talk at General Conference:

  A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

(Emphasis added.) Similarly, apostle M. Russell Ballard explains what the voice of the Lord is in a General Conference talk in October 2014:

  [...] when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak with a united voice, it is the voice of the Lord for that time. The Lord reminds us, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same’ [D&C 1:38].

(Emphasis added.) Therefore, even a talk from the president of the Church does not necessarily constitute doctrine. However, the official canon of scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) and all things that have been given by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are considered doctrine. This includes The Living Christ and The Family: A Proclamation to the World. These things make up doctrine and are unchangeable eternal principles for the Church membership.

The apostles and prophets of the LDS Church are not considered infallible by its members. However, whenever a person speaks the words that are given him through the Holy Ghost, then this can be considered the word of the Lord and scripture according to D&C 68:4:

  And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

This can happen during a general conference talk as well as during a priesthood blessing or just a missionary teaching someone.

Regarding Preach My Gospel: It's a very uplifting and inspiring manual about missionary work. But again, it is not considered scripture, even though it might be very close to it. Just as other Church manuals it is subject to change and improvements.


Was there ever a version of the Apostles creed that had the words "Holy Christian Church" in it?

The only reference I could find to the expression "the holy Christian Church" was this:

  Lutherans following the Lutheran Service Book, like Roman Catholics, use the Apostles' Creed during the Sacrament of Baptism:  Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth?  Do you believe in Jesus Christ, His only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He will come to judge the living and the dead?  Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed#Lutheran_Church

No indication as to when this expression was adopted, only that the Lutheran Church uses it. The earliest known mention of the expression "Apostles' Creed" occurs in a letter of AD 390 from a synod in Milan. This Wiki article also explores the Creed in Latin, Greek and English:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed


What major translations of the Bible are in the Public Domain?

The issue with copyright translations.

One translation that was produced with the specific intention of avoiding copyright entanglements is the World English Bible.  It is modernization of the American Standard Version (ASV) placed into the public domain.  A paragraph from the site's FAQ is worth quoting:

  The copyright laws of most nations and the international treaties that support them are a mixed blessing. By granting authors and translators a legal monopoly (for a limited, but very long, time) on the right of copying and “first sale” of their works, the law makers have made writing and translating very profitable for some people whose works are in great demand. This has, no doubt, been a factor in the creation of many of the good Modern English translations of the Holy Bible that we now enjoy. The problem with this system, with respect to the Holy Bible, is that it has had the effect of limiting distribution of God’s Word in modern languages. For example, I cannot legally post copies of the entire New International Version of the Holy Bible on my web site in a downloadable, searchable, and readily copyable format without the permission of the International Bible Society and Zondervan (copyright owner and publisher). Zondervan won’t grant such permission unless they get a significant royalty (they quoted me $10,000 + $10/copy distributed) and unless I convince them that my Bible search software is “good enough” for them. Needless to say, the Bible search software that I am writing with the intention of distributing as donorware will not come with the NIV.

Further, organizations such as The Gideons International that distribute Bibles must pay copyright holders a fee if they wish to give away a modern translation (such as the New King James Version) rather than the King James with all of it's Elizabethanisms.  The restrictions can also have an impact on smaller scales.  The NASB licence reads (emphasis in the original):

  The text of the New American Standard Bible® may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of The Lockman Foundation, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for more than 50% of the total work in which they are quoted.

These restrictions mean it's (probably) fine to quote a passage or two in an answer on Stack Exchange or in an article or book.  But it's not possible to reprint an entire book of the Bible for the purposes of a "Manuscript Study" (AKA, "Communal Discovery Bible Study Method").  While I doubt the Lockman Foundation will have agents tracking down people who print out Mark for their devotional group to mark up, such a practice violates the intentions of the publisher who fronted the money and commissioned the translation.  As Paul says:

  The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”—1st Timothy 5:17-18 (NASB)

Finally, many translations restrict derivative works (such as the WEB effort and my idea of making a Southern American Version™).  The US laws concerning derivative works is complicated, but creators who don't want to deal with lawyers would be advised to base their work on translations free of copyright restrictions.

But God's Word should be free, man!

The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible are public domain (and a cornerstone of our cultural heritage).  But it turns out that even the critical text is protected by copyright laws.  For the general public, this is no great loss as there are plenty of unrestricted options and the licences for most translations allow for the most common uses of the texts.  But all of this has serious implications for scholars who honor the wishes of the Bible publishers.  It's tempting to get angry with the publishers or to ignore the restrictions.

However, we have a duty to comply with the licences of our translations so that the hard-working folks who produce them can afford to keep laboring.  Most of them are reasonable people who are as interested in seeing God's Word preached as you are.  In fact I'll let the Crossway (publishers of the ESV) blog have the final word:

  We're not going to come after you if you don't cite quotes from the ESV according to these guidelines. But we'd appreciate it if you did. Using the letters “ESV” also helps us track the popularity of the ESV in the blogosphere.


Acts 8:35-36 and Baptism being Part of the Gospel

There is nothing in Luke's account of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch to suggest any 'urgency'. The very wording - "here is water, what doth hinder ?" - suggests practicality, not urgency.
But as to the real inquiry - Is baptism itself an act of regeneration or is baptism an outward confession that regeneration has occurred ? - William Huntington (1745-1813) answers it very concisely :

We are washed in regeneration; clean water is sprinkled upon us and we are clean. We are baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. All 'baptism' short of this is washing the outside of the cup and platter and amounts to no more than carnal washing.
It is not the washing away the filth of the flesh, but purgation from guilt and a testimony by the Spirit to our justification and adoption, that is the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I Peter 3:21, through whom and by whom the Spirit comes.

The Works of William Huntington


Is abortion okay, if the mother's life is at risk, according to Catholicism?

In Catholic morality, abortion is always wrong.  Another principle is that intention is primary: it's about saving lives.  When in saving the mother's life and reasonable care has been done for the unborn baby but the baby still does not survive, it's not called abortion as it is the unintended side effect.
The article A Dangerous Pregnancy and Abortion goes over the decision making process when there is a dangerous pregnancy that can result in the death of the mother, the unborn baby, or both.
I freely quote from the article above:

Once pregnancy takes place, there are 2 essential facts: mother and child.  Everything must be done to keep both healthy.  Neither is more important than the other, although the mother already has other children dependent on her.
Early delivery option can take place even it poses a certain risk to the child, as long as reasonable care is taken.
Example when both are in jeopardy: In the case of tubal pregnancy, the most common of ectopic pregnancy, if the medically necessary intervention to save the mother's life is to remove the portion of the Fallopian tube that is either ruptured or soon to be ruptured, it is permissible even though this will also remove the human embryo.  But this is not called an abortion since this is not the intention, using "the principle of double effect" (meaning one thing is intended and another is not).  See more discussion on the "principle of double effect" here.

Let us not forget of the reverse scenario where the mother remains free to make a morally licit decision to risk her own health to save her baby's life, as Ken Graham's answer shares the story of St. Gianna Beretta Molla who powerfully showed how an unborn baby's life is as precious as the mother's life, and how her testimony of sacrificial love has inspired many in the world today as an excellent imitation of Christ's sacrifice for us.


Why doesn't Paul sign all of his letters like he says?

The answer might be as simple as this:

It is Paul's final salutation, not the caveat we find in 2 Thessalonians 2:17, which Paul wrote in all his letters. If he did not add the 2 Thessalonians caveat, then we can assume he wrote the entire letter, including the final salutation.
In other words, the final salutation in all his letters was in his own hand, whether he or whether an amanuensis wrote the letter.


How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible?

Biblical Christianity has not changed in its definition of morality and will never change, since it is based on the Bible, which, as you pointed out, does not change.

However, there is an  important distinction between Gentile believers and the Old Testament Jewish Law.  The Law was a specific covenant with a specific people for a specific time, but it was a shadow of things to come.

While the New Testament did not usher in a differing morality, the ceremonial law was no longer in effect, and it was never applicable to Gentiles.

According to Biblical Christianity, adultery, theft, lying, deceit, slander, gossip, malice, lust, profanity, pride and homosexuality have always been immoral and will always be immoral.

The passage regarding women, as X-Zero pointed out, has to do with the value that each gender could contribute in an agrarian society.  Having grown up on a farm myself and being 6'4" 250+ lbs., I have no problem stating today that men still are much more suited to hard physical labor and are, consequently, more productive.  In fact, my perspective is that I as a man should perform very laborious tasks (and very dirty task as well), so that women don't have to.  Equality does not mean equivalence.  Man != Woman.  So, this is not an antiquated passage.  The principle still holds today.  If you could hire me or a typical 5'6" 1xx lb. woman to work in your fields, you would likely offer me more money, since my capacity and production in your fields would be much greater.  Yet, if you could hire me or a woman for a job that is not labor-intensive, then you might offer the woman more if she is more qualified, more experienced, or just does a better job.   So, this example is really a moot point.


Why are there differences in events within the Gospels?

In the Luke account of Jesus being anointed, a woman is recorded as being 'a sinner' and she is unnamed. In the Matthew account of Jesus being anointed, a woman is identified as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

Examination of these two accounts shows that it is impossible to prove that they are the same incident. The details are so worded that one cannot say, categorically, that these are not two accounts of different events.

Thus the unnamed 'sinner' cannot be identified. Whoever she is or is not, it cannot be proven.

All we know of this unidentified woman is that she anointed Jesus prior to his sufferings, death and burial.

In so doing, she was successful, anointing Jesus beforehand, for the women who went to the tomb with spices, after his decease, were not able to administer them, for Jesus was risen from the dead by the time they got there.

The four gospels are clearly demonstrating different aspects of Jesus Christ and his ministry on earth. The details supplied in the four aspect-accounts are selected with an overall purpose in mind. Different events, sometimes not in consecutive order of occurrence, are gathered together and presented in juxtaposition in order to convey a particular aspect of the Person and Ministry of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Is dressing oneself in formal attire on Sundays (Sunday hat and dress) solely an American Christian custom?

I am unsure as to most other Christians. Among those that I have studied with and continue to study with they have always dressed formally.

I believe that Christians of any denomination dress nicely when going to worship god. It's part of giving god your best. Here in an article that may explain a bit better and I think it is relevant not only to witness', but all Christendom. Why dress up for meetings

This doesn't mean your clothes had to be expensive. As long as you are clean and presentable then that is acceptable.

It seems as far as history goes Christians not only wore, but where encouraged to wear simple clothing so as to not distract from the meaning of the occasion. This is especially true in the 18 and 19th centuries. Worshipers usually dressed plainly with no ornate jewelry and such. This is not only for the reason stated above, but that your everyday person didn't have the means to come by these things.

Origins /3rd Century changes / Why dress nice?

Based on a little more research it seems dressing up was a social status thing and then later became a part of representing and honoring god.


Why were some words omitted in Luke 18: 24 in Catholic editions of NT?

The phrase is missing from some important Greek manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.

According to its introduction, the NRSV-CE is based on

the most recent edition of the Greek New Testament, prepared by an interconfessional and international committee and published by the United Bible Societies (1966; 3rd ed. corrected, 1983; information concerning changes to be introduced into the critical apparatus of the forthcoming 4th edition was available to the Committee).

The UBS3 text is equivalent to the Nestle-Aland 26th edition "Critical Text".  This Greek text reads, for Luke 18:24:

Ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς [περίλυπον γενόμενον] εἶπεν, Πῶς δυσκόλως οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσπορεύονται·

As you can see, the phrase corresponding to became sorrowful - περίλυπον γενόμενον - is enclosed in square brackets.  Metzger's Textual Commentary explains here:

On the one hand, the excellent attestation for the shorter text (א B L f 1 1241 al) and the variety of positions of περίλυπον γενόμενον suggest that the words were introduced by copyists, perhaps from ver. 23 (περίλυπος ἐγενήθη). On the other hand, since Luke’s penchant of repeating a word or phrase in adjacent passages may have operated here, a majority of the Committee did not feel at liberty to omit the phrase entirely, but enclosed it within square brackets.

It would appear that the NRSV-CE translators and editors opted to exclude the bracketed Greek in this case.
This is not necessarily an innovation.  The phrase was also excluded from the NRSV, RSV, and RSV-CE, which are based on the same Greek text:

NRSV

Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!

RSV, RSV-CE

Jesus looking at him said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!

The Modern English Version is based, as is the King James Version, on the 16th century Textus Receptus Greek text.  This text doesn't have any kind of annotation (e.g. square brackets) to indicate the certainty of the text.  It also has a slightly different word order at the end of the verse, but this is more or less irrelevant to the English translation:

ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς περίλυπον γενόμενον εἶπε, Πῶς δυσκόλως οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.


How do soul sleep adherents make sense of Jesus' acknowledgement of the existence of disembodied spirits and ghosts?

A soul sleep adherent would simply say that in the Matthew 14:26-27 passage, the disciples thought Jesus was a phantasma, a Greek term for spirit appearances or apparitions, based on their understandable superstition related to a disembodied spirit from someone who had drowned and haunted the water.  More likely, they may thought that an evil spirit (non human) tried to deceive them into thinking it was Jesus, since they know that Jesus was still alive.
Note also that Jesus simply said "It is I", without acknowledging that dead people's spirit can roam and haunt.  There is also no place in the Gospels that Jesus implied that human spirits waiting for resurrection are free to roam among the living.  Also, the main point of the passage is to show how Jesus is Lord over all creation.
Similarly, soul sleep adherents would read Luke 24:36-39 as Jesus's assuring the disciples who at that point were still doubtful of the resurrection and who were instead frightened because of the same superstition as in Matt 14:26-27 (a non-human evil spirit trying to deceive them).  The word used was pneuma but at least one commentator said the usage is parallel to phantasma in Matt 14:26-27.  But just because Jesus was using a word that came to the disciples' superstitious mind upon seeing Jesus's glorified body should it be taken as support for waking spirit in the intermediate state?
Christians of all stripes, soul sleep adherents included, interpret the Luke passage to prove Jesus's resurrection as well as as a preview of the bodily nature of the glorified bodies we will also have at our resurrection, especially against the growing Gnostic threat denying the goodness of the body.
Conclusion: Given the main import of both passages, soul sleep adherents would consider both usage of phantasma / pneuma as simply the narrators portraying the disciples' superstition and that they are too fleeting / irrelevant to be used as support against their position.


Why couldn't Adam and Eve keep both commandments?

...some Christian denominations believe the commandments to be paradoxical; one cannot be kept without breaking the other.

The short answer
There is no Biblical support for this.

The long answer
If some Christian denominations believe this, is it extra-biblical, e.g. Mormons, and so explanation will likely vary widely. (Actually, AFAIK, Mormonism is the only denomination that believes this.)
Perhaps you consider this the justification:

Why couldn't they keep both of these commandments, for surely they would have if they could?

But that is not necessarily true. Man was not infallable, and remember: the devil played a hand here too. It's not really temptation unless you can make the wrong choice.

FYI, Greg Bala said:

This question basically boils down to these types of questions:

Why did (how could) God create a creature that could choose poorly?

Did God know what we will fail?

Why didn't God create us without what is necessary to choose well?

While I do not believe these questions are what you are asking, these are the more commonly asked paradoxes/concerns about Adam and Eve.


Why did the Western and Eastern churches react to their respective states so differently?

I think one can easily argue that the difference is based on the division the two churches have over papal supremacy

As the West felt it truly had supremacy over the whole church, it alone was aggressive in asserting power. Historically the fact that the Roman church also rose up in a government that was persecuting it, and eventually overthrew it's pagan religion with its own, would also serve to prop up this spirit of assertiveness or aggression.  The eastern church never had that historical and power-centric theology behind them to start opposing or threatening civil powers.


Can a bishop excommunicate a retired bishop?

Only the Pope can excommunicate bishops because only he has jurisdiction over them.

  Who can excommunicate?

  Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has jurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope alone or a general council for the entire Church; from the provincial council for an ecclesiastical province; from the bishop for his diocese; from the prelate nullius for quasi-diocesan territories; and from regular prelates for religious orders. Moreover, anyone can excommunicate who, by virtue of his office, even when delegated, has contentious jurisdiction in the forum externum; for instance, papal legates, vicars capitular, and vicars-general. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner. The subjects of these various authorities are those who come under their jurisdiction chiefly on account of domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offence committed while on such territory; and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars.

It makes no difference where the retired bishop lives. A retired bishop doesn't suddenly become subject to the diocese's new bishop. He remains subject directly to the Pope. A bishop cannot lose his episcopal consecration.

Also, retired bishops are titular bishops, even if they remain residents of their same diocese:

  1983 Can. 376 Bishops to whom the care of some diocese is entrusted are called diocesan; others are called titular.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law (can. 401) is the first to legislate the novelty of retired bishops. Can. 401 doesn't strictly require resignation at age 75, but asks for voluntary resignation:

  Can. 402 §1. A bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted retains the title of emeritus of his diocese and can retain a place of residence in that diocese if he so desires, unless in certain cases the Apostolic See provides otherwise because of special circumstances.


Why First Epistle to St. John by St. Ignatius of Antioch is considered to be spurious?

Philip Schaff explained why in his preface to the spurious eight epistles (emphasis mine):

We formerly stated that eight out of the fifteen Epistles bearing the name of Ignatius are now universally admitted to be spurious. None of them are quoted or referred to by any ancient writer previous to the sixth century. The style, moreover, in which they are written, so different from that of the other Ignatian letters, and allusions which they contain to heresies and ecclesiastical arrangements of a much later date than that of their professed author, render it perfectly certain that they are not the authentic production of the illustrious bishop of Antioch.
We cannot tell when or by whom these Epistles were fabricated. They have been thought to betray the same hand as the longer and interpolated form of the seven Epistles which are generally regarded as genuine. And some have conceived that the writer who gave forth to the world the Apostolic Constitutions under the name of Clement, was probably the author of these letters falsely ascribed to Ignatius, as well as of the longer recension of the seven Epistles which are mentioned by Eusebius.
It was a considerable time before editors in modern times began to discriminate between the true and the false in the writings attributed to Ignatius. The letters first published under his name were those three which exist only in Latin. These came forth in 1495 at Paris, being appended to a life of Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. Some three years later, eleven Epistles, comprising those mentioned by Eusebius, and four others, were published in Latin, and passed through four or five editions. In 1536, the whole of the professedly Ignatian letters were published at Cologne in a Latin version; and this collection also passed through several editions. It was not till 1557 that the Ignatian Epistles appeared for the first time in Greek at Dillingen. After this date many editions came forth, in which the probably genuine were still mixed up with the certainly spurious, the three Latin letters, only being rejected as destitute of authority. Vedelius of Geneva first made the distinction which is now universally accepted, in an edition of these Epistles which he published in 1623; and he was followed by Archbishop Usher and others, who entered more fully into that critical examination of these writings which has been continued down even to our own day.
The reader will have no difficulty in detecting the internal grounds on which these eight letters are set aside as spurious. The difference of style from the other Ignatian writings will strike him even in perusing the English version which we have given, while it is of course much more marked in the original. And other decisive proofs present themselves in every one of the Epistles. In that to the Tarsians there is found a plain allusion to the Sabellian heresy, which did not arise till after the middle of the third century. In the Epistle to the Antiochians there is an enumeration of various Church officers, who were certainly unknown at the period when Ignatius lived. The Epistle to Hero plainly alludes to Manichæan errors, and could not therefore have been written before the third century. There are equally decisive proofs of spuriousness to be found in the Epistle to the Philippians, such as the references it contains to the Patripassian heresy originated by Praxeas in the latter part of the second century, and the ecclesiastical feasts, etc., of which it makes mention. The letter to Maria Cassobolita is of a very peculiar style, utterly alien from that of the other Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. And it is sufficient simply to glance at the short Epistles to St. John and the Virgin Mary, in order to see that they carry the stamp of imposture on their front; and, indeed, no sooner were they published than by almost universal consent they were rejected.
But though the additional Ignatian letters here given are confessedly spurious, we have thought it not improper to present them to the English reader in an appendix to our first volume. We have done so, because they have been so closely connected with the name of the bishop of Antioch, and also because they are in themselves not destitute of interest. We have, moreover, the satisfaction of thus placing for the first time within the reach of one acquainted only with our language, all the materials that have entered into the protracted agitation of the famous Ignatian controversy.


Is there such a thing as Orthodox Lutheran Christian?

There are several ways in which he could be meaning this.

One, there are indeed churches that identify themselves as Orthodox (big-O) Lutheran. For example: Lutheran Orthodox Church and Orthodox Lutheran Confessional Conference. This would mean he is a member of a specific church/sect that calls themselves these words.

Two, there is a historical era of Lutheranism known as Lutheran orthodoxy, which is mostly historical but has had some resurgence lately.  See: Lutheran orthodoxy. This would mean he probably is theologically educated and can go on at length about the Book of Concord.  This may align closely with #1 above (for example, the OLCC strongly adheres to the Book of Concord).

Three, he may mean an orthodox (practicing, mainline belief) Lutheran. He may mean this as opposed to "those people who call themselves Lutherans but don't go to church or know the first thing about its theology", or he may be referring to some denominational beef - I'd actually put 20 bucks on his meaning is "I'm Missouri Synod and not one of those fruity ELA or ELCA folks," or potentially "I'm ELA instead of one of those fruity ELCA folks."  Those are the three major Lutheran denominations, in decreasing order of cultural conservatism, and like to talk smack about each other in a semi-friendly way.

If you're really curious, ask him "what do you mean exactly by Orthodox?"  In any of these three cases he'll probably be thrilled to hold forth on it for you.


How do we know we aren't worshipping the same God?

The Catholic ought to start with

NOSTRA AETATE DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965. In it Pope Paul VI states

  3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-
  powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,5 who has
  spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His
  inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam
  takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not
  acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also
  honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with
  devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will
  render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the
  dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially
  through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

  5. Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King
  of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)

  4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New
  Covenant to Abraham's stock.

  Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving
  design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already
  among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all
  who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith 6
  -are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen
  people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore,
  cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament
  through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded
  the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance
  from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been
  grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.7 Indeed, the Church
  believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and
  Gentiles. making both one in Himself.8

  The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his
  kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and
  the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and
  from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son
  of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's
  main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who
  proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish
  people.

  6. Cf. Gal. 3:7
  7. Cf. Rom. 11:17-24
  8. Cf. Eph. 2:14-16

The God whom the Church, the new People of God, believes in, they owe it to the revelation of the Old Testament which the Church received from the Jews, God's own chosen people.

The Catholic may then wish to move on to "Muhammad?" and "Judaism?" sections in Crossing the Threshold of Hope by Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].

The Catholic should then conclude that from these papal teachings, the Catholic Church acknowledges that Jews and Muslims worship the same God. (OP: Even though Jews have a incomplete knowledge of him and Muslims have an incomplete and distorted knowledge of him).

The context in which these declarations should be viewed

Worshiping the same God does not imply that the various worshipers are worshiping God as he ought to be worshiped. cf. Jesus and the Woman of Samaria.
Among those who worship God, some worship is acceptable to him and some is not. cf. Cain & Abel and Peter and Cornelius. In the case of Cornelius, even though God accepted him, God via Peter brought him to the fullness of the Faith.
(OP: This declaration is not an endorsement of the Jews' and Muslims' worship, much less of their religion).


This answer is from the perspective of history and the Bible (whether divinely inspired or merely a message that humans wanted us to hear).

There are four specific ages that are significant in Judaism:

Birth
1 week old: male circumcision Brit Milah.  This symbolizes the physical covenant between God and God's People.
12-13 years old: morally responsible for one's actions Bar Mitzvah or Bat
Mitzvah.  Past this age, people are no longer to be treated as children, but as adults.
30 years old: qualified for leadership.  Behaviour and attitudes can change significantly before 30, but are relatively stable after that.  E.g. Priests had to be at least 30 years old (Numbers 4:3), Joseph began running Egypt (Genesis 41:41,46), and David was anointed King of Israel (2Samuel 5:3).

The Gospels explicitly mention Jesus's birth (Luke 2:7), his circumcision (Luke 2:21), his unaccompanied visit to the Temple (Luke 2:46), and the beginning of his ministry.  Jesus was both Priest and King, so 30 years old is a doubly appropriate age.

What happened between those key events was not considered relevant, so there was no need for it to be recorded.  Luke 2:51-52 provides all the details we need to know about his life between 12 and 30:

  Then he went down to Nazareth with [his parents] and was obedient to them. But
  his mother treasured all these things in her heart.  And Jesus grew in
  wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.