Did the Apollo 11 mission result in a Catholic "bishop of the moon"?

Is there a Catholic bishop with jurisdiction over space?

The short answer is yes and no.

There is at least one bishop who claims jurisdiction over the moon and that is in space.

  An obscure law from 1917 places the moon under the purview of the Diocese of Orlando, Florida.

  The Diocese of Orlando, Florida, covers much of the greater central Florida area. It encompasses nine counties, hundreds of cities, nearly 401,000 Catholic residents, and, strangely enough, the moon.
  nearly 401,000 Catholic residents, and, stran
  UCatholic explains the unusual circumstances that led to the moon’s spiritual jurisdiction landing with the diocese that ministers to Disney, Universal, and Cape Canaveral:

    The Apollo 11 space mission began with the launch from Cape Canaveral on July 16, 1969. The mission fulfilled the national goal proposed by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 of “landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth, before this decade is out.” However, when Apollo 11 made its famous flight from Cape Canaveral to ultimately fulfill that goal, they inadvertently made Bishop Borders the first Bishop of the Moon thanks to an obscure rule from the 1917 Code of Canon Law in effect at the time.

  In 1968, William Donald Borders was named the first bishop of Orlando. When Apollo 11 launched, one year later, there was still a law in the books that stated that any newly discovered territory would fall under the bishopric from whence the discovering expedition departed. Since Cape Canaveral was under the purview of the Diocese of Orlando, Bishop Borders was effectively the first bishop of the moon.

  UCatholic notes that, if taken seriously, the Diocese of Orlando would become the largest, at fourteen and half million square miles, although it would be hard to call it the largest diocese in the world.

  Father John Giel, chancellor for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Orlando, commented that being able to boast the moon is ultimately fruitless since it “means nothing if there is no one to have jurisdiction over.” Father Giel did, however, commend Bishop Borders for the gig:

    “Since we have yet to find any life on the moon, the story only emphasizes Bishop Border’s good and humorous nature that allowed him to be such a good first bishop for central Florida.”

  Yes, the moon has its own Catholic bishop


What are the main differences between Anglicanism and Catholicism?

The 39 Articles are the foundational document of Anglicanism (though not all Anglicans accept them now). The major points of difference with Catholicism which are explained in the Articles are:

Anglicanism does not accept the books of the Apocrypha as inspired. (Article 6)
Anglicanism says that our righteousness before God is based only on the merit of Christ, and not on the basis of our works. (Article 11)
Anglicanism rejects the Catholic idea of supererogation, that we can perform works above and beyond what God requires. (Article 14)
Article 20 essentially states that the Church is subservient to scripture, rather than its traditions being of equal authority to scripture.
Article 22 rejects purgatory.
Article 24 says that the liturgy of a church must be in the language of the people. Catholicism has varied about this over the years, but there have been many times when the mass must be performed in Latin.
Anglicans believe in only 2 of the 7 sacraments which Catholicism recognises (though this isn't universal, and Anglo-Catholics recognise all 7.) (Article 25)
Anglicans reject the concept of transubstantiation, that communion is in any way a sacrifice, or that the cup can be denied to the laity. (Articles 28, 30, 31)
Anglican ministers are allowed to be married. (Article 32)
And for what really started the English reformation off, Anglicans say that the Bishop of Rome has no authority in England. (Article 37)

In addition, I would add that

Devotion to Mary is generally uncommon in Anglicanism, at least compared to the extent of Catholocism.
Many dioceses ordain women as deacons, priests and even bishops.
As a result of the distributed authority structures of Anglicanism, there is a much greater diversity of beliefs than in Catholicism. Some dioceses for example endorse homosexuality, while others do not. This is a major issue in the Anglican Communion today, and will most likely result in a broken communion in the next few years.


Who is the best prophet in Christianity? and is he the best human being in the eyes of God?

There is no consensus within Christianity about who is the 'best' prophet.

The Christian belief in the universal sinfulness of human beings (apart from God's grace) tends to mean that such comparisons are not encouraged.

As you intimated, Jesus is an exception to this. The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. If your question had not excluded him he would unquestionably be 'the best prophet' in all senses, and he is also considered the 'best human being'.

Since there isn't a consensus (or doctrine) on this, we can only have the opinions of various Christians, which we cannot discuss on this site.


Correction

  The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament
  existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no
  foundation in history. - Cf. Canon of the New Testament | New
  Advent.

A Primer on the Church's Infallibility

1) The Church's competency is faith [what we believe] and morals [how we are to act/behave in accordance with what we believe].

2) [Cf. Mt 28:20] All the Church was commanded to teach as to faith and morals by Jesus Christ is what is termed as the divinely revealed Sacred 'deposit of faith' (the depositum fidei) [= Holy Tradition + Sacred Scripture].

  [This] Divine  Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and
  His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could
  receive no increment. - Cf. Revelation | New Advent.

3)  [Cf. CCC 2035] Christ's charism of infallibility to his Church extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed. What this simply means is that the Church cannot err in what she teaches as to faith or morals, for she is our infallible guide in both. [Cf. Penny Catechism 100].

4) [Cf. Infallibility | New Advent] The organs of infallibility in the Church are:

a) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;

b) ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and

c) the pope himself separately.

Some facts:

1) In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." This was before:

2) The Vatican Council [1869-1870] which defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

3) By promulgating the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith.

Plain conclusions readily follow from above.

Clearing confusion in the question and answering it

When the Pope speaks ex cathedra according to the dogma of Vatican Council I, he can only do so only on those things that are already in the handed down deposit of divine Revelation which the Church in his generation has received through the ages from the Apostles or on all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

Councils have already determined the Sacred Scripture part of the 'deposit of faith' (the depositum fidei), no future organs of infallibility in the Church, pope included, can undo this.

Endnote

Holy Scripture as the Church has held it and how the Church inteprets it is a matter of faith:

  I also accept the Holy Scripture according to that sense which holy
  mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, and to whom it belongeth
  to judge the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither
  will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the
  unanimous consent of the Fathers. - Professio fidei Tridentina,
  Creed of Pope Pius IV [from the link, one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Catholic Church].


From the account of the spies entering Canaan, Joshua is identified as an Ephraimite (Tribe of Joseph, half-tribe of Ephraim):

  from the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun;   - Numbers 13:8  ESV

and in case of any doubt that Hoshea son of Nun is one and the same as Joshua son of Nun:

  And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes - Numbers 14:6 ESV

-- makes it clear that it's the same guy.


Is there precedent for a carnivorous interpretation of Genesis 1:30?

If you don't mind me referencing Rashi, a French Medieval rabbi, his understanding of Genesis 1:30 makes note that both humans and animals were on the same footing with regard to food.

Nothing is explicitly stated about how both humans and animals before the fall would otherwise acquire their nutrients, i.e., if humans were omnivores and if carnivores were carnivorous. After the flood, God permits humans to eat all living things, which includes meats. (Gen. 9:3)

It's worth noting in Genesis 4 that animal offerings were a thing and after the fall, Adam and Eve were given clothing from animals. In any case, whether or not carnivores were carnivorous is speculative as the text isn't explicit.


What do Christians mean by a "personal relationship" with Jesus?

Christians believe that Jesus is alive, he knows us intimately, and is our best friend above all others. A personal relationship with him is exactly that: a relationship very much akin to  that we have with other close friends and family members. Often people focus on the majesty and "kingliness" side of Jesus, and in doing so are tempted to distance themselves from him by seeing him as some distant, untouchable, unreachable figure on a throne high above us; but to have a personal relationship with him means to accept our own position as co-heirs with him, to share our lives much more openly with him.

As a Brit, when I meet (earthly) royalty I dress up and put on my best manners, and in effect put on a show. I don't need to do that with Jesus - he's seen me naked, in my own home, he shares my ups and downs and secrets that I certainly wouldn't blurt out to the Queen if I met her. So while acknowledging that Jesus is King, I don't treat him in a stand-offish formal way because he's also my best friend. That's what it means to have a personal relationship with him.


Is baptism a form of exorcism, or is that just a Hollywood myth?

The answer to this would really depend on what tradition you come from.  Some traditions teach that it is baptism in water that brings salvation.  Thus, it could be argued that baptism, bringing salvation to an individual, would be the inception of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  This, then, would, in fact, be a sort of protection.

However, for traditions that believe water baptism is a physical representation of a spiritual reality that has already occurred, water baptism is just one of many acts of obedience, and would, therefore, not really provide any additional protection.

However, this is probably mostly Hollywood fantasy, as there are very few people in Hollywood who have ever read the Bible or have any idea what is in it. :)


What does it mean to be "born of water" in John 3:5?

There are two common interpretations of this phrase.  One is that "born of water" refers to baptism.  This view is typically held by those who adhere to baptismal regeneration.
The other view, which I will argue for here, is that it refers to actual physical birth.  In this view, the water might allude to amniotic fluid. This view seems far more likely to me as we view the passage in its context:

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” John 3:3-8 (NIV)

Notice that after Jesus says that we must be born of "water and the Spirit", he immediately contrasts flesh and Spirit.  In the context, Jesus is answering Nicodemus's concern that he must be born "again".  In one sentence, he mentions two births: water and Spirit.  And in the next sentence, he again mentions two births: flesh and Spirit.  The most natural interpretation is that flesh and water are referring to the same birth.
In addition, notice that Jesus says "So it is with everyone born of the Spirit".  If he were intending to say that everyone must be born of flesh, water (baptism), and Spirit, then it seems that he would have said "So it is with everyone born of water and of Spirit".  Water is painted here as the already accomplished (physical) birth.


Were any popes or patriarchs converts to Christianity?

According to Catholic tradition, rarely questioned, the Roman church was led by the apostle Peter, who appointed his successor as bishop of Rome, and that Rome had an unbroken series of bishops down to the present day. At first, the bishops of Rome were not known as 'popes', but even the earliest Roman bishops could now be referred to as popes. According to this  tradition, the earliest popes, at least during the first century,  must have been converts to Christianity.

Francis A. Sullivan SJ says, in From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, page 100, there is general agreement among scholars that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time would have had a group of presbyters sharing leadership, perhaps with a differentiation of roles among them, but with no one bishop in charge. He says (ibid page 15) the broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, is that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over the church. The import of this is that the Church was well established before the first bishop of Rome was appointed or elected. We can no longer assume that history necessitated early popes being Christian converts as adults.

Nevertheless, it is known that at least some popes were pagan converts to Christianity.  Pope Symmachus (498-514) is known to have been born a pagan in Sardinia and baptised after his arrival in Rome.

Patriarchs became part of the Church hierarchy in the fourth century, with the the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE identifying the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem as Metropolitans with regional powers (provision was made later for Constantinople and Carthage). I doubt that any comprehensive list of all Patriarchs and of their former beliefs, if any, now exists.


Can a woman cut her hair and not cover her head?

No, the context does not state any such alternative that if she wishes to keep her hair uncovered then she may do that by keeping them short or shaving completely.  He is not suggesting an alternative between cutting hair or shaving bald; he says that for a woman to cut her hair short, or to shave bald, is very disgraceful.  Having short hair or shaved hair are both disgraceful  among Israelites of that period, although that is less disgraceful than displaying uncovered hair.

Frederick Louis Godet's commentary says

  To impress the revolting character of such a course, the
  apostle supposes it pushed to extremity. There is something of
  indignation in his words: “If this woman has effrontery enough to do
  the first of these acts, well and good, better also do the second!”
  The repulsive character of the one should make that of the other felt.
  The word ξυρασθαι is usually accented, as if it were the present
  infinitive passive of ξυράω (ξυρᾶσθαι). But why should it not be
  regarded as the aorist infinitive middle, like κείρασθαι, of the form
  ξύρω (ξύρασθαι)? See Passow. There is a gradation from the one of
  these verbs to the other: To cut the hair or even to shave the head.
  The word αἰσχρόν, shameful, includes the two notions of physical
  ugliness and moral indecency. (italics added)

Charles Ellicott's commentary says

  (6) Let her also be shorn. —The force of this argument depends on the
  fact that a woman’s head being uncovered would be regarded by others
  as implying the same shame as was indicated by a woman’s hair being
  cut short (i.e., shorn), or altogether removed (i.e., shaven). It is
  as if the Apostle said —If a woman insists on her right to pray and
  speak in an assembly with uncovered head, let her carry out this
  principle to its logical result; let her insist on her right to have
  her hair cut short, so as to show her equality with man —and what would
  be thought of her then! No woman with a spark of shame in her would
  think of doing that. Accordingly you admit that this principle of
  sexual equality does not apply in all such matters; and it is
  illogical to argue in favour of any general principle as if it were of
  universal obligation, when you yourselves admit that it is not
  applicable in some cases.


Where in the Bible does it mention that God mourns with us when we mourn?

I think we must start to be satisfied in the concept that 'God suffers' in some sense when we suffer, from the basic premise that he loves us.  On the other hand, God can't suffer in the sense that it takes away the endless joy and boundless relaxed tranquility of the infinite pleasure he has in his perfect will, without any shadow of turning in his own joy.  In other words, God is always rejoicing with infinite joy, therefore you will not find any scripture speaking about God as suffering within his own divinity. His suffering can only be another kind as an outflow of his love for us which can exists together with eternal infinite joy.

We are grappling with a mystery here so words are not quite good enough for the explanation. However, we must proceed upon something when grappling with the incarnate mystery of God in the flesh and how that has manifested his divine live for humans.  So we will proceed to map it out from a scriptural standpoint without trying to fully understand it. One one hand, we know that God suffers when we suffer because love can't rest when its beloved suffers. It's a fact of god given reason.  It's an essential emotional element of love that must have a spiritual equivalent in the infinite glory of God, otherwise he would not have created love to behave this way.  Furthermore, Christ being the manifestation of tue divinity with his divine love possessing a human soul and body and we see that Christ also suffered when his loved ones suffered.  Christ also proved that he suffers by literally suffering that we might not suffer. This clearly shows that God suffers in human terms, using human words to describe it.  Although the divinity can't cry or walk around moping and mourning, being eternally joyful, we see God's empathy (the ability to suffer when others suffer) when assuming human form, having compassion on us, being 'a man of sorrows' and dying for us. It's an extrapolation of redemption through the incarnation and death of God's only son.

We might not have known that God had the attribute of empathy but as manifested in the God-Man this divine quality became more than just an abstract inference from the basic assumption in the word 'love':

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are —yet he did not sin. (Hebrews 4:15, NIV)

Of course we see the divine empathy everywhere when we read the gospels.  The way Christ speaks to individuals shows that his emotions are filled with empathy, never breaking the bruised reed, or snuffing out a smoldering wick. (Matth12:20).  Even the simple fact that Christ's emotions were tender by the direct unlimited influence of the Spirit, causing his empathetic and generous soul to 'deeply feel' for those about to be judged, indicates his suffering for the suffering of others:

  As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it. (Luke 19:41, NIV)

So although the bible does not say anywhere 'God suffers when we suffer' it must be true in a certain sense for he empathizes with us in our pain and works hard to relieve ours as a result. Even to the point of offering his only Son to greatly suffer by becoming our sin that we might be his righteousness, all to take our pain into himself, for our eternal relief. If this is not divine empathy then I do not know what it is to feel the pain of another person.


What is the definition of 'free will' as explained in the Bible?

In "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" (ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως), Book II, Ch. XXX (§44), John of Damascus wrote,

  Χρὴ γινώσκειν, ὡς πάντα μὲν προγινώσκει ὁ θεός, οὐ πάντα δὲ προορίζει· προγινώσκει γὰρ καὶ τὰ ἐφ' ἡμῖν, οὐ προορίζει δὲ αὐτά· οὐ γὰρ θέλει τὴν κακίαν γενέσθαι οὐδὲ βιάζεται τὴν ἀρετήν. Ὥστε τῆς θείας προγνωστικῆς κελεύσεως ἔργον ἐστὶν ὁ προορισμός. Προορίζει δὲ τὰ οὐκ ἐφ' ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ· ἤδη γὰρ κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ προέκρινε πάντα ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὴν ἀγαθότητα καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ.

which I translated as,

  It is necessary to understand, while God foreknows everything, yet He does not predetermine everything. For He even foreknows those things that are dependent on us, but He does not predetermine them. For He neither wills evil to occur nor forces virtue, so that predetermination is the work of the divine command of foreknowledge. On the other hand, God predetermines those things which are not dependent on us, according to His foreknowledge. For according to His foreknowledge, God has already forejudged all things according to His goodness and righteousness.


What is an overview of interpretations of the concept of "Sabbath-rest" presented in Hebrews 4?

I have really only seen two major divisions in interpreting the "rest" considered in Hebrews 4.  The first is a fragmented or parceled-out rest that can be accepted or received in stages and the second is a completed package.  In the first view, whatever is most difficult to apprehend may be left off for now while that which is "at minimum" may be availed.  In the second view, while the fullness of "rest" may escape us experientially in the present, once entered the whole package has been accessed.  I am unaware of exactly where each Christian denomination falls within these two divisions except to say that Adventists are in the first and most mainline Christian denominations are in the second.  Within the second there are those who hold that the "rest" is ultimately a future heaven and those who hold that the "rest" is both now and future.  The differences between these are tied up in differences in soteriology and not in the nature of the "rest" itself.  Both positions converge in the idea that, from God's perspective, the "rest" is and always has been completed.
Position 1
The magazine "Adventist Today", in an article analyzing Hebrews 4, has little to say regarding once per week Sabbath keeping.  Where Hebrews 4:3 says, "For we who have believed enter that rest" there is reference to the old testament sacrifices and indeed the keeping of the whole covenant of the Law but it is given in the negative:

For one thing, verse three starts by saying, “we who have believed enter that rest.” And as the English translation indicates, the form of the Greek verb “enter” does not imply a future tense in which believers “will enter that rest” but suggests either that they enter rest now or are in the process of entering. Plus, the phrase “have believed” clearly suggests an accomplished action.  In other words, the original readers were in some sense already experiencing rest in the present, at least in part. Verse ten confirms this idea by saying that those who partake of God’s rest have also rested from their own works, a phrase that almost certainly refers to their acceptance of the atonement that Christ had already achieved (1:3; 9:24-26). In that case, the “works” they had laid down would surely include the old testament sacrifices, and possibly the expectation to live out the covenant of law as a whole.

No indication is given here that the Sabbath commandment is either included in or excluded from "the expectation to live out the covenant of law as a whole".  As the article progresses, however, it becomes apparent that the Sabbath rest is seen as something that predates Sinai.  The rest that yet remains for God's people is that Edenic rest which was part of God's original creation and which was forfeited by Adam and Eve.  This rest has always been available for anyone who would "come and claim it":

Finally, the Greek word translated “remain” throughout the chapter, like the related word remnant, conveys the idea of something left over. This facet of the term’s meaning would help explain the unexpected reference to God’s finished work in creation, because it implies that the rest into which the Israelites should have entered is the same rest that Adam and Eve had forfeited in the garden. It points to the original creation rest that God established in the beginning but which had gone unused. That means the promised land was a new installment of Eden. It also means the rest that has been available since the time of Christ is a slice of creation rest too, a reinstatement of the untainted wholeness “left over” from the beginning.
Putting all these hints and allusions together, the author of Hebrews seems to be saying that from the seventh day of creation on, God’s work has been finished. And from the time of Abraham on, the homeland that God had prepared for His people had been finished too. Each of these provisions constituted a kind of rest that was in place the whole time, like a gift prepared for a friend who never arrived to pick it up. The completed rest of God – like that still-wrapped gift – has “remained” there on the shelf, so to speak, ready and waiting for people to come and claim it. Moreover, from a first-century perspective, Jesus had just added another rest, His completed, once-for-all atonement. So, spiritual rest had been provided too, though his readers were on the verge of wasting that gift as well.

This view appears to interpret "rest" in a somewhat layered fashion with the intended "rest" of creation parceled out or manifested in "installments" of physical/temporal rest available through the land promised to Abraham and in the "spiritual rest" provided by Christ.  The summary of the article encourages us that, if all of this is too difficult to accept all at once, we can "at minimum" enjoy relational peace with God now.

To sum up, the mind-blowing, mystical lesson encrypted in the fourth chapter of Hebrews is this: in some sense, everything is already done, complete, and finished; and has been from the beginning. The chapter thus imparts a vision of how to live fruitfully in the present, not in quietism or passive inaction but in the peace and power of the Spirit. It intimates a life of faith that unfolds organically, in which individuals embrace rest as their starting point and perform their work in a mindset of rest, while progressing towards ultimate rest in the kingdom. And should all that be too much to accept, then, at minimum the chapter invites believers to know relational peace with God now, confident that His work of reconciliation is indeed finished and that they too “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (10:10).”

Remarkably, in this Adventist treatment of Hebrews chapter 4, there is no mention of any requirement of weekly Sabbath keeping or any instruction or defense regarding which day of the week the Sabbath should be.
Position 2

For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works. - Hebrews 4:4

Hebrews 4 defines this rest that is being spoken of as that rest wherein God rested from all his works.  Verses 3 and 5 further define that rest as a possession of God:  My rest.  It is that rest with which God has rested.  In the creative act God accomplished all that He intended including those things which, in our temporal economy, appear as yet future.  In this way the coming forth of Israel's ruler (yet future) is said to be "from of old, from ancient days". (Micah 5:2).  In this way also the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).  God has rested and yet His works continue to unfold.

For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest - Hebrews 4:2-3a

Hebrews clearly presents faith/belief in "the message" as the mechanism of entry.  In context it is the people of Israel's entry into the promised land that is treated immediately and "the message" is that God has promised to give them the land and has promised to go before them preparing the way and fighting the battles for them.  In chapter 3 we see the flip side where unbelief is categorically given as the reason some did not enter rest:

And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. - Hebrews 3:18-19

The exodus generation refused to believe "the message" regarding entry into what God had promised and they spun 'round in the wilderness for 40 years and most died there because of unbelief.  The current generation, to whom Hebrews is written, are similarly in danger of falling short of belief in "the message" regarding the Christ of God.  The entire epistle appeals to them to cease going about (through religious activities and works of the Law) to establish their own righteousness and to receive the righteousness of God which is by faith.

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. - Hebrews 3:12-14

It appears as though it were possible to become hardened by sin's deceitfulness into developing an evil, unbelieving heart which may lead one to fall away from the living God.  It is unclear in the text whether this falling away can occur once entry into "rest" has taken place or if developing unbelief hinders entry.  Significantly, this passage links entering God's rest with "sharing in Christ" and also links the belief needed to enter with perseverance in that belief until the end.
Note:  Theological bunny trails may begin here regarding perseverance as an act of human will or a gift of Divine grace, or some mixture of the two but they need not be entertained under this question.

So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. - Hebrews 4:9-10

The content of the Sabbath rest that is available for the people of God to enter is not a list of prohibitions or prescriptions; it is a cessation of works.  Just as God rests in this Sabbath from His works so too, we who enter into this Sabbath rest from our works.
The report from the scouts into the promised land (Numbers 13) described all the ways that the people of Israel could not possibly enter the land and overcome the difficulties they perceived there.  In other words, their faith lay in what works they could accomplish rather than trusting in the promise of the Living God.  They were not resting from their works, they were relying on them.  This is the unbelief which hindered their entry:  Trusting in their works rather than God's.
In like manner we must not entertain all the myriad ways that we cannot possibly enter into eternal life.  We must not allow ourselves an evil, unbelieving heart by which we abandon full trust in the promise of God and we begin to try to work our way into the kingdom or count ourselves as worthy or not by virtue of our works.  God, in Christ, has done all that can be or need be done regarding reconciliation and all who enter by Him will be rested.
For Israel, entrance into the rest of God necessitated trusting in the "work" that God would do on their behalf in the promised land.   In the Gospel age entrance into the Sabbath rest now is entirely a matter of trusting that God will accomplish what He has promised in Christ.  Once entered that person has ceased from his own works.
Resting from our works is not a condition for entry into God's Sabbath, it is a description of that rest.  It is also not a motionless rest:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. - Ephesians 2:10

And we also see Divine activity within this Sabbath rest of God:

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” - John 5:16-17

In the following verses of John 5 Jesus explains how that He only does what He sees the Father doing.  He has just done a work of healing on the legal Sabbath (religious rest), all of which fall within the confines of the Divine Sabbath (God's rest), to demonstrate that He is Lord of the Sabbath and that good works are always permissible because they are not man's works but God's works which, in the Divine economy, are already completed.
Jesus, in doing only God's work, was "resting" from his own works.  Now we, who have believed in His Name and been saved are "in Christ" and have entered into the Sabbath rest of God with Him..  Jesus is the Sabbath rest that we may enter.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”  - Matthew 11:28-30


There is a very detailed examination of this issue by Margaret Mowczko from an egalitarian perspective (answering in the affirmative) posted here:

Was Phoebe a Deacon of the Church in Cenchrea? (Part 1)

and here:

Was Phoebe a Deacon of the Church in Cenchrea? (Part 2)

While the usage of the word διάκονος in scripture is discussed at some length, the strongest arguments in favor are the extra-biblical witnesses that there were women known as deaconesses/ministers in the early Church of which Phoebe was a noteable example:

  Pliny the younger, who was governor of Pontus and Bithynia in 111-113, wrote to Trajan saying that he had tortured two female slaves “who were being called ministers” (quae ministrae dicebantur). (Letters 10.96.8)  Elizabeth McCabe (2009) notes that the Latin word ministra is synonymous with the Latin word diāconus, and that a diāconus can be defined as a minister of the church, that is, a deacon.  Pliny believed that the two tortured women were official ministers, or deacons, of the church.

  Origen lived in the years 185-253, a time when ordained female deacons were active in the church. (Campbell 2009:61)  In around 246 Origen wrote his commentary on Romans (the oldest commentary on Romans that still survives) and it is apparent that he believed Phoebe to have been an official female deacon.  In reference to Romans 16:1-2 he declared that “This passage teaches by apostolic authority that women also were appointed (constitiu) in the ministry of the church (in ministerio ecclesiae), in which office Phoebe was placed at the church at Cenchrea . . . And therefore this passage teaches two things equally and is to be interpreted . . . to mean that women are to be considered ministers (haberi . . . feminas minstras) in the church.

  As well as literary evidence, there is epigraphic evidence which indicates that Phoebe was famous and regarded as an ordained deacon by the Early Church.  A funerary stele from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, and dated to the latter half of the 4th century, or possibly later, reads:  “Here lies the slave and bride of Christ, Sophia the deacon (hē diakonos), the second Phoebe (hē deutera Phoibē), who fell asleep in peace . . .” (Horsely)[11]   To be referred to as “the second Phoebe” was clearly meant as an honour for the deacon Sophia being commemorated on the stele.

A somewhat lengthy but highly pertinent quote addressing 1 Timothy 3*:

  Diakonoi are mentioned in First Timothy, one of the later New Testament letters.[8]  The diakonoi of 1 Timothy 3:8ff were probably official deacons.   What is less clear is who the women mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:11 were.  Whether these women are female deacons or the wives of deacons is debated, but, considering that up until the fourth century there was no separate word for female deacons, it could be that the female deacons were simply called “women” here to distinguish them from the male deacons.

  There are indications in the text which suggest that these women were female deacons and not deacon’s wives.  For instance, there is no mention of the wives of overseers (or bishops); and it doesn’t make sense that the writer of 1 Timothy would regard the moral requirements of deacons’ wives to be worthy of mention, but not those of overseers’ wives.  Also, if deacons’ wives were intended, we would expect a definite article or a genitive pronoun in the Greek of 1 Timothy 3: 11 (which could be translated as “the wives” or “their wives” respectively.)  However, it is the use of the word “likewise” (hōsautōs) which indicates that a distinct but similar group is being addressed in verse 11.  (Giles 1989:61)

  “Likewise” (hōsautōs) is found at the beginning of 1 Timothy 3:8 and 1 Timothy 3:11.  Massey (1989:61) writes that “likewise” is “customarily used to introduce the second and third entities in a series.”  He suggests that the use of hōsautōs “seems to place the three groups [overseers, male deacons, and women] in categories of a similar nature.”  That is, the people belonging to these three groups are involved in somewhat similar ministries and require similar moral qualifications.[10]  Taking the word “likewise” into account we can see that verses 8-10 refer to the male deacons, verse 11 specifically refers to the female deacons, and verses 12-13 probably refer to both the male and female deacons.[11]

  John Chrysostom weighed in on the debate about whether the women in 1 Timothy 3:11 were deacons or not.  In his Homily 11 on 1 Timothy he wrote: “Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject?  He is speaking of those who hold the rank of deaconesses.”  In response to 1 Timothy 3:12 (including the idiomatic phrase “a one woman man”)[12] he added “This must be understood therefore to relate to Deaconesses.  For that order is necessary and useful and honourable in the Church . . .”

*This is a passage where a masculinist bias in a majority of English translations is particularly evident - I personally find it fascinating and illuminating to read a translation that preserves the gender neutrality of the original Greek.


Do Pope Francis' recent comments on atheism represent a change in doctrine?

A change in doctrine, if it is possible at all, can only be expressed with a definitive statement ex cathedra. The Pope wrote in his letter

  Le accolga come la risposta tentativa e provvisoria,
  Please accept this as a tentative and provisional response

so no, it does not express any change in doctrine.

In the English translation, the Holy Father writes

   Each of us is called to accept the view and the choice of love made by Jesus, become a part of his way of being, thinking and acting.

That is a definitive statement of what God expects of mankind.

He goes on,

   First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.  Given that  —  and this is fundamental  —  God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience.  In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil.  The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.

This is saying much the same thing as Benedict XVI did when he spoke about the use of condoms in combatting AIDS. Consideration of one's actions and the reasons for them is the first step on the road to faith.

In explaining that God's mercy has no limits, Pope Francis writes "if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart". That presupposes that the person asking for mercy is asking of a God he believes in [or who is he addressing?] and with sorrow for not having believed in the past. The Pope has not contradicted the tenet that belief in God is necessary; far from it. What he has done, though, in directing people to obey their conscience — their God-given sense of good and evil — is to point them in the direction of God.

Both Popes are encouraging that first step in searching out the truth.

  [Truth is not] variable and subjective ... it is given to us only as a way and a life.  Was it not Jesus himself who said:  "I am the way, the truth, the life"?  In other words, the truth is one with love, it requires humbleness and the willingness to be sought, listened to and expressed.

Seek the truth; find it and repent; and you will enter heaven. This is consistent with the teaching of the Church.


Why is the Vatican against "The Son of God" movie?

There are many inaccuracies and omissions (listed roughly from worst to less worse):

The piercing of the side of Christ didn't show blood and water
spewing out!
Mary Magdalen was constantly a tag-along with the disciples: when
they were in the tempest in the sea and even during the "laying on
of hands" after the Resurrection!
Mother Mary was not in the Upper Room!
Peter denied Christ 3× in the morning, in broad daylight, not before
the cock crow, which we didn't even hear!
Peter's faith was portrayed as though it, not Peter himself, was the
rock upon which the Church is built, as though our faith makes the
Church. This is Protestant ecclesiology. The Church still exists
even when we are unfaithful.
"The gates of hell will not prevail" etc. was omitted in Jesus'
saying Matt. 16:18.
"Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" was omitted
from the Our Father.
The renting of the veil was not explicitly shown.

Jews, Catholics, and Protestants were all consulted in making this film, so your Maronite priest friend is right about it being more Freemasonic, syncretistic, or naturalistic than Christian.

See this for more info.


While there are a few exceptions specifically within the Lutheran Circle - Pastor - is used to show the role as a shepherd however it is an exact replacement/translation depending if used in another language other than English for the word Priest.

It is important however to understand that Lutherans for the most part do believe that each Christian has the authority to preach and teach, read and interpret the Bible, and confess their own sins directly to Jesus. (Universal Priesthood)

Is Universal Priesthood Biblical?

The Bible teaches that all believers have priesthood authority (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

Even in the Old Testament, the nation of Israel was to be a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:5-6).  However, Jesus is the unique High Priest (Heb. 7:23-8:13).

Lutherans hold this to be true - that each believer has the authority to preach the Gospel.  Of course Lutherans still have professional clergy and therefore most often are called Pastors.

If you were to visit http://arc.episcopalchurch.org/ministry/oepp/oepp.html
you would see that the Episcopal church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America see both as the same as they now have agreed to allow "pastors or priests" to exchange (ie borrow from one church to be used in another) between the denominations.


According to reformed theologians, was Barnabas an Apostle?

Reformed theologians understand these verses to be using the word "apostle" in a broader sense than is normally used, because of the similarity of the work of the men in that particular context.  Barnabas and Paul's task at that time was similar, and thus both were working as "apostles," that is, as missionaries and evangelists.  Calvin's analysis of Acts 14:4 is typical:

  When Luke calleth Barnabas an apostle together with Paul, he extendeth the signification of the word farther than unto the chief [primary] order which Christ appointed in his Church; like as Paul maketh Andronicus and Junias excellent among the apostles. But if we should speak properly, they were evangelists and not apostles; unless peradventure because Barnabas was made Paul’s fellow in office, we place them both in like degree of office, so may he be truly called an apostle. (source)

Albert Barnes points out that both were "set apart" for missions in the same manner in Acts 13:

  Barnabas is called an apostle because he was sent forth by the church on a particular message (Acts 13:3; compare Acts 14:26), not because he had been chosen to the special work of the apostleship (source)

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown similarly explain that the word "apostles" is used here to describe Barnabas "not merely as Paul's companion, but in their missionary character."  At that particular time, before Paul's apostolic authority was exercised, the term could be used more generally:

  In no other character had Paul as yet stood forth among his brethren. His distinctively official apostolic authority had as yet no scope for its exercise. And since in the missionary character of his apostleship there was no perceptible, and hardly any real difference—if any at all—between him and Barnabas, why might not our historian, with propriety enough, style them both "apostles," without implying that there was not, and never would be, any difference between the two as apostles? (source)


Did the early church believe there were TWO types of descendant from the Nephalim?

As far as the Bible is concerned about the Nephilim, it seems quite clear that they are annihilated in the Flood, but somehow they survive. The Flood story starts in Genesis six and seems to indicate that the Nephilim were a major reason for sending it.

  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4

As far as I know, the Bible never gives an explanation for how they survived. That they were giants is affirmed in Numbers and other places as well, the story of Goliath being most notable.

  We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them. Numbers 13:33

Whether these survivors are a separate race or the original Nephilim is not mentioned either. It is hinted, perhaps, that the Nephilim after the Flood were divided into plenty of tribes. Among these were Anakites (perhaps the first that brought about the others), Rephaites (Goliath was one of these and they were also called Emites), and Gittites. There's also the mention of some polydactyl Nephilim, having more than five digits on the hands and feet (1 Chronicles 20:6 and 2 Samuel 21:20). This is a major indication that there was something genetically different with the Nephilim.

The Nephilim are indeed mentioned and talked about much more in non-canonical books, but I'm not familiar with one that describes them as two races, one before and one after the Flood. If the early Church believed such a thing it was either speculative or based on other, non-Scriptural sources.

I've written an answer that covers pretty much everything the Bible has to say about the Nephilim, but it stops short of extra-Biblical sources, seeing that as off-topic for this site:

What were the Nephilim, and what role did they play in the Bible beyond just being mentioned?


I know of no doctrine held by any Christian tradition based on this passages that speaks to virginity at the time of marriage in relation to possible divorce. It is simply not the subject matter of the passage and drawing such a conclusion from it would be bad hermeneutics. You would need to find other teachings on previous relationships or extra-marital relationships in order to address that issue in a Biblical fashion.

If you look at other Biblical passages, you will note that basically the only valid grounds for divorce is the case of adultery. Even then it is not prescribed / required, only possible allowed.

If you look into the marriage traditions of the time, you will find that the issue of divorce was as relevant to Betrothal (engagement of sorts) as it was to marriage. A betrothal could not just be broken off for any reason, it was as good as a marriage vow as far as being binding on the parties, but the relationship was not to be consummated until after the wedding.

Mary getting pregnant during the betrothal was (barring the supernatural) obvious proof of adultery. Having committed herself to marry and be faithful to one man and entering a binding contract with him, Joseph would know he hadn't slept with her so she must have slept with another man.

With this understanding, we see that the only thing this passage could teach us about divorce is to reinforce the teaching that says adultery is possible grounds for divorce, but that it is not unlawful to NOT divorce even cases of adultery.


Elijah "The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail" miracle or not?

It is quite explicitly mentioned as a miracle from God. How else can verse 16 be interpreted?

For the jar of flour was not used up and the jug of oil did not run dry, in keeping with the word of the Lord spoken by Elijah.

I've highlighted "the jar" and "the jug", both singular. And it says, in keeping with the word of the Lord. So this was God's promise, not Elijah's occupation.
Furthermore, the passage implies these events happen as Elijah enters the city. Consider verses 8-16:

Then the word of the Lord came to him: ‘Go at once to Zarephath in the region of Sidon and stay there. I have instructed a widow there to supply you with food.’ So he went to Zarephath. When he came to the town gate, a widow was there gathering sticks. He called to her and asked, ‘Would you bring me a little water in a jar so I may have a drink?’ As she was going to get it, he called, ‘And bring me, please, a piece of bread.’
‘As surely as the Lord your God lives,’ she replied, ‘I don’t have any bread – only a handful of flour in a jar and a little olive oil in a jug. I am gathering a few sticks to take home and make a meal for myself and my son, that we may eat it – and die.’
Elijah said to her, ‘Don’t be afraid. Go home and do as you have said. But first make a small loaf of bread for me from what you have and bring it to me, and then make something for yourself and your son. For this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: “The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day the Lord sends rain on the land.”’
She went away and did as Elijah had told her. So there was food every day for Elijah and for the woman and her family. For the jar of flour was not used up and the jug of oil did not run dry, in keeping with the word of the Lord spoken by Elijah.

I've highlighted some words to show the pace of the story. It all happens very fast, as soon as Elijah reaches the city gates. This implies he did not have time to find employment. Finally, he wasn't even from the area, so it is not as if he returned to a previous occupation or had business contacts there.


Does it state ANYWHERE in the Bible that pets can or can not go to heaven?

"...is there any clear, unambiguous, direct statement in Scripture that tells whether or not animals/pets can go to heaven?"

No. The topic isn't addressed in scripture anywhere.


Was there a different method of counting of age at the time of events of Old Testament? (Catholic perspective)

As far as "from a Catholic perspective", I had a similar question when going through school.  It was answered by my professor, a priest of the Basilian Order, in a two-fold manner.  He stated that, when it comes to the Old Testament, the Church is happy to allow its followers to believe it is "historically accurate" or "stories told to tell a moral Truth and lay the groundwork for the coming of Jesus Christ."  In this way, one must decide to take the numbers given as literal, or given as a moral example to their holiness.  The other point made was that in the Hebrew language, characters are both letters and numbers.  In this manner, certain numbers may be equal to certain words and the other way around.  This is something which the Western mind can have trouble grasping. An example being the Hebrew word for "having completed" or "completeness" equaling the number 40. So, when the People of Israel wandered the desert for 40 years, did they truly wander that long, or until they had completed their imposed tasks by God for their actions at Mount Sinai? I find it to be an interesting notion to contemplate! And as far as from a Catholic perspective, both are correct. This could apply to ages as well. So, did they live that long, literally? Does the longer they lived represent their being Holy and in fellowship with God? Or could these ages be numbers akin to a word, descriptive of the person to whom the age is attached, that would have been easily recognized by those using the ancient Hebrew language? Each of these could be "True" in the sense that, no matter which you use, they are morally true in the context of the Books and stories they are found and in laying groundwork for the coming of Jesus Christ. Since then, I have kept this in mind whenever examining such things as age in the Old Testament and I have made sure to put this before the minds and hearts of those I have taught or conversed with concerning this topic.


What is the biblical basis for considering gender to be purely physical/biological?

The only "evidence" I have seen for this is the time when the Pharisees are attempting to trap Jesus by asking who would be the husband in heaven of a woman widowed seven times. His answer is none; we will be like the angels in heaven.

Some people think that this automatically means that there will be no sex or procreation and also no gender.

A few issues:

Jesus only said there will be no marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven; nothing to do with sex or gender.
Assuming He included sex and procreation, too, in that statement, does not mean that we will be without gender, although gender would seem unnecessary.
Like the angels seems to me that we should examine angels and their lives for an answer on this issue. Frankly, there is very little on angels in the Bible, but quite a bit in the Apocrypha.

So, with that I would say only this, assuredly: The angels do not marry and neither will we after our resurrection into the Kingdom of heaven.

If there is more support for this viewpoint, I am unaware of it.


How do we explain Paul's encounters with disciples of Jesus in light of the Great Commission?

Throughout the Gospels, the apostles at times seem absurdly hard-headed and unable to understand what Jesus is telling them. This only continues in Acts, and it seems that the author wants readers to think the apostles slow to understand. But the Holy Spirit had his own ideas for the church, and the apostles were blown along. I don't think the argument about Matthew's ending being added later is valid since Luke's ending is similar: Jesus says, "Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46-47)

Then in Acts 2, the disciples are gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. "Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven residing in Jerusalem." (Acts 2:5) People from all nations are there, but they all happen to be Jews! Can you see why it may not have occurred to the disciples yet that the Gospel is to be preached to Gentiles? But God wasn't done. He brought a Gentile, Cornelius, to Peter in Acts 10. It was puzzling at first, but you can almost see the light-bulb above Peter's head as he describes his acceptance of Cornelius' conversion (Acts 10:34-39,47):

  I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people, but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is right is welcomed before him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, proclaiming the good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)— you know what happened throughout Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John announced: with respect to Jesus from Nazareth, that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him. We are witnesses of all the things he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. ... No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?

It's to this incident that Peter refers in Acts 15:7-9 when he says, "God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith."

Paul reports that the apostles accepted him as one of their rank (Galatians 2:7-10; also reported by Luke in Acts 15:22-27):

  When they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles) and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They requested only that we remember the poor, the very thing I also was eager to do.

So yes, it seems that there weren't large-scale missions to the Gentiles until Paul came along. But there was Philip and the eunuch from Ethiopia, Peter and Cornelius, and so on.

The question that then arises (and is implicit already in your original question) is, why didn't the other apostles start preaching to the Gentiles once they realized it was the mission of the church? There are a few angles to this question.

First of all, Paul never went on his missions alone. In his letters he frequently mentions Apollos, Barnabas (who is also a Jew), Mark, Timothy, Titus, and Silas. Mark, incidentally, is also affectionately mentioned by Peter in one of his epistles. This is definitely not even close to an exhaustive list of his fellow laborers.

Secondly, just because we don't have Biblical evidence of the original 12 apostles' missions to the Gentiles, doesn't mean no such missions happened. But most of them do have extensive traditional biographies (hagiographies) that place them in exotic far-away lands preaching the Gospel. Perhaps most famous is Peter himself (becoming bishop of Rome) and Thomas (carrying the Gospel to India). And traditionally John ended up residing in Ephesus. Of course, John and Peter both have NT epistles attributed to them, written to the whole church. So do James and Jude, Jesus' brothers. And John also wrote Revelation, which is replete with passages about the church being comprised of both Jews and Gentiles and people of all nations, tribes, and tongues. So it seems clear that even if Paul was the one primarily responsible for carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles, others were doing it too.

Thirdly, even if the other apostles' primary work was among their own people, what's wrong with that? Usually when a missionary preaches to a certain people, his chief goal is to raise up leaders who can communicate the Gospel to his own people. Africans most effectively preach to Africans, Polynesians to Polynesians, Americans to Americans. Why wouldn't Jews be the most effective instruments of conversion to Jews? Why shouldn't Jesus' Jewish followers aim to convert their fellow Jews? In the same way, when Paul visited various cities, his main goal was to plant a new church whose leaders were from that city. He also affirmed that the Gentiles were "ingrafted" into Israel (Romans 11), and that the Gospel was to go to "the Jew first, then to the Gentile." (Romans 1:16)

So a few points should now be clear: 1) The apostles were slow to understand the nature of God's mission to the Gentiles. 2) The apostles accepted Paul's mission to the Gentiles. 3) The apostles and other believers participated in that mission once they understood it. 4) It is better (more effective) for individuals to witness to their own culture than to another.


There are 2 types of anointing.
According to Bible Study Tools, anointing, in Holy Scripture, is either material (with oil) or spiritual (with the Holy Ghost), and it doesn't seem to be different between the old and new testaments with material anointing, but there are slight differences with the spiritual anointing.
Material Anointing
In an ordinary sense
Anointing the body or head with oil was a common practice with the Jews, as with other Oriental nations. (Deuteronomy 28:40 ; Ruth 3:3 ; Micah 6:15) Anointing the head with oil or ointment seems also to have been a mark of respect sometimes paid by a host to his guests. (Luke 7:46 and Psalms 23:5)
In an official sense
It was a rite of inauguration into each of the three typical offices of the Jewish commonwealth.

Prophets were occasionally anointed to their office, (1 Kings 19:16) and were called messiahs, or anointed. (1 Chronicles 16:22 ; Psalms 105:15)
Priests, at the first institution of the Levitical priesthood, were all anointed to their offices, (Exodus 40:15 ; Numbers 3:3) but afterwards anointing seems to have been specially reserved for the high priest, (Exodus 29:29 ; Leviticus 16:32) so that "the priest that is anointed," (Leviticus 4:3) is generally thought to mean the high priest.
Anointing was the principal and divinely-appointed ceremony in the inauguration of the Jewish Kings. (1 Samuel 9:16 & 10:1 ; 1 Kings 1:34 & 39 ) The rite was sometimes performed more than once. David was anointed three times.
Inanimate objects also were anointed with oil, in token of their being set apart for religious service. Jacob anointed a pillar at Bethel. (Genesis 31:13 ; Exodus 30:26-28)

In an ecclesiastical sense
Anointing with oil is prescribed by St. James to be used for the recovery of the sick. (James 5:14) Analogous to this is the anointing with oil practiced by the twelve. (Mark 6:13)
Spiritual Anointing
In the Old Testament a Deliverer is promised under the title of Messiah, or Anointed, (Psalms 2:2 ; Daniel 9:25-26 ) and the nature of his anointing is described to be spiritual, with the Holy Ghost. (Isaiah 61:1) In the New Testament Jesus of Nazareth is shown to be the Messiah (Luke 4:18-19), or Christ or Anointed, of the Old Testament, (John 1:41 ; Acts 9:22 ; Acts 17:2-3 ; Acts 18:4 & 28 ) and the historical fact of his being anointed with the Holy Ghost is asserted and recorded. (John 1:32-33 ; Acts 4:27 & 10:38) Christ was anointed as prophet priest and king.
Spiritual anointing with the Holy Ghost is conferred also upon Christians by God. (2 Corinthians 1:21)
"Anointing" expresses the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit upon Christians who are priests and kings to God.


Did Paul/Saul teach Christianity with Jewish traditions to Gentiles like what we see in Messianic Judaism today?

1 Corinthians 9:20-22 (KJV)

  20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to
  them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them
  that are under the law;
  21 to them that are without law, as without
  law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that
  I might gain them that are without law.
  22 To the weak became I as
  weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men,
  that I might by all means save some.

I think scripture is pretty clear on this topic. Paul did not force Torah on those that where not under it. He accommodated the culture, without compromising the truth.

Colossian 2:16-17 (KJV)

  16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect
  of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 which
  are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

This works both ways. I see many "Christians" get angry if someone decides they want to try and follow Torah, celebrate the Feast of the Lord, etc. If someone wants to use the Torah as a guide of life there is no harm in that, as long as they know that they are saved by grace through faith through Jesus Christ. The danger of observing Torah, is that people start to become self righteous, and pride can settle in their hearts. This really depends on the person, and their relationship with the Lord, however going back to the original question. Paul was very adaptive with his culture, but firm in the Truth.


Was there a non-Augustinian response to universalism in the early Church?

Two church fathers who (a) reject Origen's universal salvation and (b)  are not influenced by Augustine are Basil (d. 379) and Chrysostom (d. 407).  Their theological systems, however, are not nearly as well-developed as that of Augustine with respect to the interaction of divine and human will.  More speculatively, Pelagius (d. 420?) may also have assumed anti-universalistic premises in developing his anti-Augustinian theology.
Basil
Brian Edward Daley, The Hope of the Early Church, remarks that Basil was "an admirer of Origen in his younger days" (81) and was closely familiar with his work.  However, in his later years he became "more severe in his own expectations of the future" and found the teaching of judgment valuable for the spiritual development of Christians.
Basil deals with this most clearly in Question 267 of his Shorter Rule, where he calls Matthew 25:46 ("These shall go away into eternal punishment") an "explicit statement" that there is no end of punishment.   The editor of a critical edition, Anna Silvas, comments on the controversy, noting that Basil affirms Origen's "alienation of God" understanding of hell, but rejecting the idea that it has an end (418).  Daley summarizes Basil's comments:

To imagine that the fires of hell will ever go out, he insists, is a deceit of the devil: eternal punishment can no more come to an end than can eternal life. (81)

Thus, we can see Basil rejected universalism. However, he seems to do so on scriptural and prudential grounds, unlike Augustine who developed a theology in defense of an eternal hell.
Chrysostom
Like Basil, Chrysostom saw eschatological themes as a crucial part of his preaching ministry.  And thus he makes repeated reference to them, and explicitly teaches eternal punishment, for example, in his Homilies on Matthew, 43:

But we have a sea of fire, a sea not like that, either in kind or in size, but far greater and fiercer, having its waves of fire, of some strange and horrible fire. A great abyss is there, of most intolerable flame. [...] Concerning that day, hear the prophets, saying, “The day of the Lord is incurable, full of anger and wrath.” For there will be none to stand by, none to rescue, nowhere the face of Christ, so mild and calm. But as those who work in the mines are delivered over to certain cruel men, and see none of their friends, but those only that are set over them; so will it be then also: or rather not so, but even far more grievous. For here it is possible to go unto the king, and entreat, and free the condemned person: but there, no longer; for He permits it not, but they continue in the scorching torment, and in so great anguish, as it is not possible for words to tell.

Chrysostom explains the need for such eternal punishment elsewhere. For example, in his 15th homily on 1 Timothy, he emphasizes the value of fear in constraining sin:

Since the greater part are virtuous from constraint rather than from choice, the principle of fear is of great advantage to them in eradicating their desires. Let us therefore listen to the threatenings of hell fire, that we may be benefited by the wholesome fear of it.

And ultimately, the existence of such punishments is a sign of God's regard for human dignity (in comparison to animals), and of the responsibility men have for their deeds:

For, say, if He did not call us to account, would human life then have endured? Should we not then have fallen into the state of beasts? [...]
In the case of men then, it is a mark of goodness to punish, and of cruelty not to punish, and is it not so in the case of God? So that because He is good, therefore He has prepared a hell.  [...]
The men before the flood, if they had feared the threat, would not have experienced the execution of it. And we, if we fear the threat, shall not expose ourselves to experience the reality. God forbid we should. (Third homily on Philemon)

Daley writes that Chrysostom "often shows a self-consciously anti-Origenist bias" (108) and clearly rejects tenets of that system, like the "the notion that God's punishment is always medicinal" and that "demons have hope of redemption."  He also makes it clear that repentance is not possible after death:

As long as we are here we have good hope, but when we come there, we no longer have it in our power to repent nor to cleanse ourselves from our sins. (Second discourse on Lazarus and the Rich man, 3)

So like Basil, Chrysostom argues against universalism on scriptural and prudential grounds. He sees scripture teaching eternal hell and sees the benefit the doctrine has in scaring sinners away from their sins.
What about Pelagius?
Pelagius, the founder of Pelagianism, was a theologian whose system of thought emphasized the free will of man: he strongly opposed the doctrine of original sin, and claimed that perfection in this life was possible for followers of God.
This system was opposed by the likes of Augustine and Jerome, among others, and many of his beliefs were condemned in AD 418 at the Council of Carthage.  However, none of the condemned views relate specifically to the question of eternal suffering in hell.  And in more recent times, several books have been written on the thought of Pelagius, based on his own writings (not just those of his opponents).
Two such books (both entitled Pelagius), by Robert Evans and John Ferguson, devote significant space to explaining many details of his thought regarding salvation, sin, and grace, but do not cover his views on hell or judgment.
Based on this evidence, it seems likely, but not certain, that Pelagius did hold to the doctrine of eternal torment, or that at least he did not address it.
Thus we might conjecture that Pelagius developed his views on the free will of man while operating on the premise that evildoers would be subjected to eternal suffering in hell.  This seems plausible, as an uncorrupted free will would both allow individual men to avoid hell (if they so choose) and would protect God from the charge of unilaterally sending sinners to hell.  But it is difficult to explicitly demonstrated that this is Pelagius's rationale.
More difficulty arises in that scholarship on Pelagius has tended to show that Pelagius may not have held to what Augustine accused him of. Thus, it is far too difficult to really say if Pelagius actually developed a theological rational for his (probable) belief in an eternal hell.
Summary
So here we see two church fathers, and perhaps a third early church writer, who believed in the eternality of hell, and who did not base their views on those of Augustine.  Basil and Chrysostom see the doctrine of hell as clearly biblical, and reject the spiritual interpretations of Origen that weaken the threat of hell. However, in Basil and Chrysostom there is no systemic, theological explanation for their eschatology as is present in the writings of Augustine and Origen. Therefore, it is likely that if a non-Augustian theology existed in the early Church which explicitly defended the notion of an eternal hell, we can only know of it by speculating.


What is the biblical basis for Open Theism?

“Open theism” is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future.
Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.  Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge.”
For example, in the book of Job it seems that God didn’t know what the outcome would be and so he changes his mind.  Through his prophet, God had told Nineveh He would destroy the city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). However, Nineveh repented of their sin (verses 5–9). In response to the Assyrians’ repentance, God relented:

When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it. (Jonah 3:10).

Prior to the flood, it seems like the wickedness of humanity caught God out and he felt regret.  His disappointment is used to suggest that God was not aware of how things would turn out:

And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Genesis 6:6).

Another instance where it looks like God didn’t know how things would turn out is when Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his only son, Isaac.  God had to test Abraham’s faith:

He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” (Genesis 22:12).

After the Israelites offended God by making an image of a golden calf, God’s anger burned against them to the extent he was going to destroy them.  But God changed his mind:

And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people. (Exodus 32:14).

There may be other Bible verses that the proponents of Open Theism use to support their views but I’ve run out of time for today and must sign off.  You have not asked for a Christian rebuttal so I will simply refer you to a section in the Wikipedia article which criticises open theism and presents a few verses that support the immutability of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism#Criticism


From Scripture, what are the signs of demonic presence?

I don't know if this type of answer is allowed, but my reason for posting is to try to help you. It's what I have seen in real life.

My younger brother's best friend, who lives down the road from us became demon possessed, he comes from a really good family, they are christians, he's a really nice kid, hard working, always helping out his family, didn't really get involved with anything bad.

My brother who hangs out with them often started noticing weird things about him, as did his family. I should note that later we found out from him he became possessed much earlier, but it did not show right away. As soon as he tried to get rid of it, by repenting of everything he could possibly think of, the problems started, and he was arrested and in a mental institution under heavy sedatives within a week.

He seemed to switch personalities randomly while talking, one minute he's his normal self, and the next he says weird things which contradict the bible or what he normally thinks, then he will switch back and continue being himself. My brother said he would start to act like a different personality. This got progressively worse, he started not sleeping and barely ate anything, he was skinny to begin with and lost 15 pounds within a short period of time, he also became violent towards his family members whereas before he was a really gentle kid, for example he threw his younger sister down on the floor and yelled for no reason, they started to be afraid of him. He would also come home and report how something is trying to kill him while he's driving, by making him go really fast and weave across the road... when he visited a church an hour away with our churches youth he stayed after and started fighting someone yelling obscenities (this is so out of character for this guy) and to top it off he called the cops on himself. He also, jumped out of the car and ran away, the cops later found him in just his boxers and nothing else on roaming around and brought him home.  The things he did where basically self destructive and socially embarrassing.

When they prayed together with his family in the evening as normal, he would obey his parents and kneel down, but he would not actually pray himself. He also, didn't want to or couldn't say the word Jesus. His mother was really getting scared and desperate at this point and she knew of a man from her former country that could get rid of demons so she went to another room shut the door and called this guy, but her son not even knowing that she was calling and being with the family in the living room (they have a large house)  started screaming NO! NO! NO!, so the guy on the phone said let me speak to him. The kid took the phone and the man said Do you know who I am? The kid said yes you are a man of God... anyway his mom bought this man a ticket to the states, we live in Washington but the man flew in to california to meet with some local church leaders there to pray together prior to meeting her son... On the way to California, they stopped at a friends house for the night, in the evening he grabbed a huge kitchen knife and tried to stab his father, he was violent towards him when they were at home too,.... basically he threatened to kill everyone I guess he was trying hard to avoid getting to california, so they obviously called 911... the police came but wouldn't enter the house.  So everyone was stuck with a crazy guy inside and a whole squad of armed police outside... they started praying and coaxing and finally were able to get him to put down the knife.... police came in and arrested him and took him to the mental hospital so he didn't make it to california.... I should note that by this time our church was praying and our church leaders were fasting for him and everyone knew about it. At the hospital they ran a lot of tests but could find nothing wrong with him... however he was kept under a large dose of really bad sedatives so mostly he slept the whole time. When he got a chance to go up before the judge to see if he could be let out, he acted normally enough, but when he spoke with the judge he called him a satan so he got sent back to the mental hospital. Finally, the men from california came out and prayed for him for a long time to expel the demon and the demon left him... he was slowly weaned off the sedatives but still required a small amount regularly because he became easily excitable... he would talk a lot and fast and got overly interested in the bible continually annoying everyone and asking a ton of questions... so they took him to a rehab facility for addicts, there where people there who had experience with this type of thing... he lived there for I think a week they shaved his head.... told him to take off a little woven bracelet he had on his wrist which he bought in Mexico and prayed a lot for him, now he's back to normal completely.

How did he become possessed? A demon cannot take possession of just anyone they wish to... you have to have some type of door open for it to be able to do so. In this guy's case he confessed to becoming interested in the illuminati, it started innocently enough with him researching it online, it was later discovered he had collected every single illuminati shirt and had them hidden in his room, and became more and more obsessed with finding more information out about it... finally on a school trip he visited a university here in washington (he was trying to pick where he was going to school), and met someone at the school orientation or at the campus who he called "the doctor", it was really a chiropractor, who he told us, told him he can become rich and powerful really quickly without going through all the trouble of school or with doing very little school? im not sure, he met with this guy privately, and after that he became possessed and would talk about how great this doctor was to anyone who would listen.  He was really infatuated with this guy and even tried to get my brother to go "visit him" when my brother was in Seattle, which happily my brother wasn't able to do because he was busy. Moral of story don't get involved in the illuminati and don't wear any mexican woven bracelets, don't get involved with anything from the occult or horoscopes, and fortune telling, because these will open the door for satanic entities.

The only other thing I've heard of is a man who was demon possessed for 15 years, and he was kept chained to the living room floor, was aggressive to everyone but would allow his wife to bring him food and clean up after him.... I don't know what happened but he was rid of his possession and went back to a normal life after all those years.... the poor wife though stuck by her crazy husband through all that time.

If you want to see examples of demon possessed or dedicated followers you can look at celebrities and world leaders.... some of them will even put things in their music or say things in interviews that they made a contract. One example of someone trying to back out of their contract is Britney Spears, Britney's not crazy, but many people think they can sign a contract get what they want, and then back out whenever they feel like.... and that's not really the case.


What reason did a group of Christians have that the world would end on Oct 7, 2015?

This appears to a revised prediction based on an earlier failed prediction from Harold Camping. Camping predicted that the "rapture" would occur on May 21st 2011, followed by five months of calamitous events before the world would end on October 21st 2011. After this failed to eventuate, He kept a relatively low profile until his death in 2013; however followers of his system (in particular, Chris McCann of the eBible fellowship) modified it slightly, claiming that the end of the world would be 1,600 days after the "beginning of Judment Day" on May 21st 2011, bringing the revised date of the end of the world to October 7th 2015.

One of the bases of the system that Camping employed to come up with his dates was from a particular day-age interpretation of Genesis 7:4 -

  Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made. - Genesis 7:4 NIV (emphasis added)

He interpreted this to have a double fulfillment, meaning that as well as Judgment coming (by the great flood of Noah's time) in seven days, there would also be a final Judgment that would come after 7,000 years (applying a literal interpretation from Psalm 90:4/2 Peter 3:8 that to the Lord, one day is as a thousand years).

His system of fixing both the beginning of the world at 11,013 BC and the date of the flood at 4,990 BC diverged from Ussher's dates (4004 BC / 2349 BC) and was based on a radical reinterpration of the patriarchal genealogies in Genesis 5 & 11, interpreting that the underlying original language implied that (some) of the descendants were not direct (ie sons) but that the lists skip generations, with some of the lifespans starting from the death of the preceding "reference" patriarch rather than much earlier in their lives. I admit that I don't understand his logic at this point myself, a few more details are available at the linked (Wikipedia) article, but if you want more of the story, you would have to either read his book Adam when? or the article(s) linked in the question.

From there, adding 7,000 years gets us to the ballpark (depending on year length chosen and type of calendar used etc.) of the present where Camping identified 1988 as the 13,000th year of human history and an important milestone with regard to calculating the final timeline of human history, being the end of "the Church Age" - it certainly was for him, as this was the year he left the Christian Reformed Church, later declaring:

  that all churches have become apostate and thus must be abandoned. He encourages personal Bible study and listening to his Family Radio broadcasts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

He made his first prediciton for the return of Christ as being on September 6th 1994. After that date came and went, Camping revised it's significance to being the start of the great tribulation and eventually came up with the dates mentioned in the first paragraph.

After admitting to being flabbergasted that things hadn't turned out the way he'd expected, Camping apologized in March 2012 - "We humbly acknowledge we were wrong about the timing." and announced he would no longer make doomsday predictions. However after his death, his family and supporters vowed to continue to promote his teachings.


Is there any historical evidence of the gifts of healing in operation by the second Century?

Yes, The Martyrdom of Polycarp records the following event (occurring circa AD 155):

And as the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was given
to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved that we
might report to others what then took place. For the fire, shaping
itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled
with the wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the
martyr...those wicked men perceived that his body could not be
consumed by the fire (see chapters 15-15 here).

This event was:

Observed by numerous people (public execution of a Christian Bishop)
Recorded by an eyewitness shortly after the event
Related by a group (Christians) that at the time lacked significant political or
economic power (in fact they were a persecuted minority)

It's pretty hard to get away with a fabricated story--let alone publish it all over the empire--when those three things are true.


Why does the Holy Spirit not take the form of a human being just like Jesus did?

According to Trinity theology, there are three persons in God and they are one.

  Father
  The Word or the Son
  Holy Spirit

They are all spirit according to John 4:24.

  God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." (John 4:24, NIV)

Though there are three persons, only one of them took the form of flesh.

  The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the
  Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14, NIV)

The Bible doesn't tell us whether all three of them can become flesh, but there is no reason why they cannot do so, because God is All-powerful. All we know is that only The Word became flesh and is called the Son of God. There is a strong reason why The Word became flesh and it was a necessity. It was all planned by God that His Son should become human and die on the Cross. It was the will of the Father that the Son should born from a woman and die for all mankind. Since it was necessary for the Son to die as human on the cross, the Son/Word became flesh.

  All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names
  have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was
  slain from the creation of the world. (Revelation 13:8, NIV)

  Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has
  blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in
  Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to
  be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for
  adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his
  pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has
  freely given us in the One he loves. (Ephesians 1:3-6, NIV)

The three persons in the Trinity have different roles. The Father plays the role of a father, the Son plays the role of intercession between God and men, the Holy Spirit dwells inside the believers and help them to live a holy life.

  But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
  name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I
  have said to you. (John 14:26, NIV)

  But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away.
  Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I
  will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in
  the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:7-8, NIV)

God can live inside the believers in the form of the Holy Spirit. Though the Father and the Son are in Heaven, the Holy Spirit is in this world to help the believers.

  Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? (1 Corinthians 3:16, ESV)


Does Reformed Baptist Protestantism reject Annihilationism?

The traditional view of Reformed Baptists (and the Reformed view more generally, including of Anglicans) is that of eternal punishment.
Take, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith. This taken from Chapter VI:

Chapter VI.
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.
... VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,(n) doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner;(o) whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,(p) and curse of the law,(q) and so made subject to death,(r) with all miseries spiritual,(s) temporal,(t) and eternal.(u)

This is consonant with other statements of faith, for example the Anglican Book of Homilies, book 1, homily II "On the Misery of Mankind":

Thus we haue heard how euill we be of our selues, how of our selues, and by our selues, we haue no goodnes, helpe nor saluation, but contrariwise, sinne, damnation, and death euerlasting

This has been challenged on a number of occasions, such as Anglican Ian Paul. Various books and articles have also been written defending the traditional view, such as Hell Under Fire, written from within a Reformed tradition.
So I would say there are those within Reformed circles who question eternal punishment and hold to something more like annihilationism. But this is not the traditional, confessional view, and there are many in the tradition who defend the traditional view.


How did the Inquisition impact modern Christianity?

I'm addressing all of the inquisitions, not merely the Spanish Inquisition here.  Several were perpetrated by kings, not the Catholic Church.

I agree with the other answers that state that the Inquisition is a stain and an evil that should never have happened.  None of what I'm posting here should be taken in any way that detracts from @James Black's answer, or @Apocatastasis.  I'm merely listing some impacts not listed in their answers.

Impacts include:

A tendency to view Church authority with skepticism, particularly when we smell an abuse of power

For me, personally, this is why I tend to lean on the words of Scripture, which never changes, as opposed to religious teachings of any one denomination.

A cadre of anti-theists, who object to Christianity, among other reasons, on the basis of the fact that the Inquisition happened. Examples:  1  2
A rise in atheism, anti-theism, antireligion, and other beliefs based on the assumption that since the Inquisition(s) were perpetrated by "Christians" that Christianity supports such atrocities. (see previous references)

It doesn't.  At least not if you believe that Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies as well as our neighbors
I also personally think that  just because these officials were self-described Christians, their actions show that they had no idea what it means to be a Christian.

Christians that are stronger in their views of the importance of God's commandment to love our neighbors (and our enemies) because we have such a stellar (if horrific) example of how not to treat those who disagree with us. examples: 1 2
Christians and non-Christians alike that are better educated and on guard against such abuses, because as long as human nature is what it it, it could happen again if we're not vigilant. example: 1

Unfortunately, this isn't the majority.  Just like all other generations, we think we're so much more enlightened than they were in the past.  We're not.  The Germans refused to believe what the Nazis were doing because they thought it couldn't happen in their society.  If we can't learn the lesson that people are corrupt and it can happen as soon as we let our guard down, it will happen.  Time and time again.

Also, if my understanding of the history and timelines is correct, then at least some of the Inquisitions happened before or during the Protestant Reformation.

Medieval Inquisition - 1184
Spanish Inquisition - 1480
Protestant Reformation - 1517

Since the Reformation was as much about rebelling against abuses by the Church (See several of the points, including but not limited to  #10, 24, 27... here) as it was about differences in doctrine, you might be able to argue that the widespread existence of protestant denominations is at least partially due to the Inquisition.  Certainly, Church-sponsored torture and murder of those who simply believe differently are examples of corruption and abuse of power. If not a direct cause, the Inquisitions certainly would have added fuel to the fire.


Interpretation of the scripture "One Lord, one faith, one baptism?"

The Bible doesn't talk about denominations, nor did Jesus or any of the disciples start any denominations. Denominations came from the disagreement of men on the interpretation of the Word of God. For this reason, I do not believe this passage can refer to denominations, which didn't exist when Paul wrote it.

Paul insisted in various places on the unity of the doctrine. For example in 1 Timothy 6:3, he insisted on the supremacy of the teachings of Jesus:

  If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,

In Galatians 1, he warned against false teachings:

  6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

In 1 Corinthians 1, he warned again about disagreements between teachers and the importance of recognizing yourself as a disciple of Christ rather than as belonging to a specific teacher (or "denomination", as we would call it today):

  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

I think Ephesians 4:5 is then quite clear.

There is one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ;
There is one faith, the faith transmitted by the apostles (that includes Paul);
there is one baptism, the one transmitted by the apostles.

All other teachings are to be rejected.