The internal evidence of the authorship is found in four passages in the Book of Revelation. It is in these four passages that the author refers to himself as "John".

  Rev 1:1 This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
  Rev 1:4 From John to the seven churches in Asia.......
  Rev 1:9"I, John, both your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."
  Rev 22:8 "Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things."

Also the very title of the Book includes in it the name John. This title "occurs in several MSS, including the Codex Sinaiticus".

Additionally, the fingerprints of John the apostle are all over the apocalypse. For example, Jesus Christ as the Lamb is referred in both these books. Also, John, and John alone, identifies Jesus as the Word, or Logos (John 1:1, 14; Revelation 19:13). Likewise, John alone identifies Jesus as the true witness (John 5:31–47; 8:14–18; Revelation 2:13; 3:14), and it is John who most exploits the Mosaic requirement of two witnesses (John 8:12–30; Revelation 11:1–12).

With mention of this single name as John, with no attempt to clarify any further on it, obviously indicates that he was well-known to his first readers, to whom no further identification was necessary. This conclusion is supported by most ancient historians.

Revelation has long been attributed to the author of John's Gospel, in spite of the differences in style of writing. The reason for this difference in style could possibly be that, the book of revelation was revealed to John the apostle at his old age and was possibly penned with the help of someone who was not good in Greek language. Since Domitian died in A.D. 96, the date attributed to the book of Revelation coincides with this date by which time John would have been quite old (Date of death of John is taken as 100AD at the age of 94). The evidence against John the Apostle being the author is minimal, and largely based on grammatical and writing style differences with the John’s Gospel.

Homer Hailey states concerning this matter:

"Although a few relatively early writers raised the question of authorship, the Apostle John's composition of Revelation was never seriously questioned until modern nineteenth-century liberal criticism."

Early church fathers were unanimous that it was John the apostle. As one examines this segment of history, one needs to be reminded that the further away from the first century one gets the lesser reliable evidence to know about the correctness of any claim on this issue.

Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (LXXXI) says. "There was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by revelation," and then refers to the thousand years, the resurrection and the Judgment of Revelation 20. Again Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.) quotes John the Apostle that Jesus Christ would dwell in Jerusalem one thousand years.

Irenaeus (120-200 A.D.) quoted in every chapter of Revelation. Irenaeus who had heard Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, wrote in his Against Heresies (IV. xx. 11), "John, also the Lord's Disciple ..... says in the Apocalypse," and then quotes profusely from that Book. (11) Having thus identified him as the "Lord's Disciple". Irenaeus says later: "In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, revealed certain things," which the writer proceeds to discuss (V.xxi 1).

Tertullian (155-220 A.D.), sometimes called "the Father of Latin Christianity," a voluminous writer, also quotes from almost every chapter of Revelation and attributes John the Apostle as author. He wrote five books Against Marcion  Hippolytus (170-235 A.D.)  also attributed Revelation to John, he quotes Revelation chapter 17 and 18 a great deal. In book III. xxv, Tertullian writes of the Jerusalem let down from heaven. He quotes Paul, who called it "our mother" (Galatians 4:26), and he says, "the apostle John beheld" it, referring to Revelation 21:2.

Clement of Alexandria ( 150-211 A.D.) and Origen (185-254 A.D.) also attribute John the Apostle as the author of Revelation.  In his treatise, Who is the Rich man that Shall be Saved? (XLII), writes of "the apostle John" who "returned to Ephesus from the Isle of Patmos" after "the tyrant's death." The tyrant is unnamed but is believed to be Domitian.

Ignatius (30-108 A.D.) writes regarding John the Apostle,

Origen (A.D. 185-254), in De Principiis says, "According to John, God is Light" (I. II. 7), unquestionably referring to the Apostle John. Then later he says, "Listen to the manner in which John [the John whom he had quoted above] speaks in the apocalypse". (I. II. 10). Surely Origen knew only one John who wrote Scripture, and that was John the Apostle.

Hippolytus (A.D. 170-236) ; Victorinus (Died in persecution A.D. 303) as well as the Muratorian Fragment, ect. all lend their support to the genuineness of Revelation and that of being from John the Apostle of Christ. It is with great surety that such an array of testimony can lead one to accept John the Apostle as the writer of Revelation.

Eusebius (A.D. 300-340) the father of church history writes in his Ecclesiastical History about the connection between John the Apostle and Domitian.

  It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:  “If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”

Prior to the third century, there was no dispute of apostolic authorship.  The bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius (200-265 A.D.), was the first to raise questions about the apostle John being the author.  He claimed, based on the writing style and the lack of an apostolic claim in the book, John the Elder (Presbyter) was the author not John the apostle.  Dionysius, who studied under Origen, also denied the teaching of a literal Millennium.  The teaching on the Millennium was based on a literal reading of the book of Revelation (Revelation 20:1-7).  The Alexandrian school taught scriptural symbolism and allegorical interpretation, rejecting a literal Millennium interpretation of Revelation.  By questioning John the Apostles authorship of the book, their Amillennial view had greater credibility.

There is valuable information from the writings of Papias as brought out in Catholic Encyclopaedia:
Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by Papias, in the following words: Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him.  In the Papia-I,  Papias describes his way of gathering information. This is preserved through Eusebius (III, xxix):

  "I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with....., but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains."

Here Eusebius has caused a difficulty by pointing out that two Johns are mentioned, one being distinguished by the epithet presbyter from the other who is obviously the Apostle.

Dionysius Misconception of two John:
The historian Eusebius adds that Dionysius of Alexandria said he heard there were two tombs of John at Ephesus. To quote Catholic Encyclopaedia, this view has been adopted by practically all liberal critics and by such conservatives as Lightfoot and Westcott. But Zahn and most Catholic writers agree that Dionysius was mistaken about the tomb, and that Eusebius's interpretation of Papias's words is incorrect. For he says that Papias frequently cited John the Presbyter; yet it is certain that Irenaeus, who had a great veneration for the work of Papias, took him to mean John the Apostle; and Irenaeus had personal knowledge of Asiatic tradition and could not have been ignorant of the existence of John the presbyter, if there ever was such a person in Asia. Again, Irenaeus tells us that the Apostle lived at Ephesus until the time of Trajan, that he wrote the Apocalypse in the last days of Domitian.

Irenaeus had heard Polycarp relate his reminiscences of the Apostle. Justin, who was at Ephesus about 130-5, asserts that the Apostle was the author of the Apocalypse (and therefore the head of the Asiatic Churches). But if the Apostle lived at Ephesus at so late a date, (and it cannot be doubted with any show of reason), he would naturally be the most important of Papias's witnesses. Yet if Eusebius is right, it would seem that John the Presbyter was his chief informant, and that he had no sayings of the Apostle to relate. Again, "The Presbyter" who wrote I and II Johnhas the name of John in all manuscripts, and is identified with the Apostle by Irenaeus and Clement, and is certainly (by internal evidence) the writer of the fourth Gospel, which is attributed to the Apostle by Irenaeus and all tradition. Again, Polycrates of Ephesus, in recounting the men who were the glories of Asia, has no mention of John the presbyter, but of "John, who lay upon the Lord's breast", undoubtedly meaning the Apostle. The second John at Ephesus is an unlucky conjecture of Eusebius.

Some more readings here, and here


Is money the root of 'all' evil or 'some' evil?

The quote is from 1 Tim 6:10 (which would have been written in Greek, not Hebrew). The Greek reads:

ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία

Here are some translations:

KJV: For the love of money is the root of all evil
ASV, NRSV, TNIV: For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil
NET: For the love of money is the root of all evils.

The NET gives two translator's notes:

This could be taken to mean “a root,” but the phrase “of all evils” clearly makes it definite. This seems to be not entirely true to life (some evils are unrelated to love of money), but it should be read as a case of hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point more strongly).
Many translations render this “of all kinds of evil,” especially to allow for the translation “a root” along with it. But there is no parallel for taking a construction like this to mean “all kinds of” or “every kind of.” The normal sense is “all evils.”


Why is the Holy Spirit often referred as "Ghost"?

Basically, language changes over time.  The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Holy Ghost in earlier English translations, such as the KJV and the Douay-Rheims.  At that time, the word "ghost" seems to have had the same connotations as "spirit" does today.

So, it was a great translation then, but today the word "ghost" is too closely associated with the ghosts depicted on Halloween and such.

The original languages certainly did not intend to associate the Third Person of the Trinity with such images, so "spirit" is a better word in our language today.


From my own reading of Luther, Calvin, etc., papist is a derogatory term referring to any Roman Catholic who accepts the Pope  as a legitimate authority from God during the time of the reformation. The reformers might not have spoken as harshly against Catholics in previous generations.  After all at some point in time even Luther would have regarded the Catholic church as having legitamate authority before turning away from the gospel of grace, to works:

Here is a sample quote from Luther clearly including all Roman Catholics under the term 'papist':

  First, nobody can deny that we, as well as the papists, have received holy baptism and because of that are called Christians. (Luther's Works  41.194)


What are the different uses of "heaven" in scripture?

5 Biblical/Theological Understandings of Heaven

The Sky: "God called the expanse heaven And there was evening and there was morning, a second day" (Genesis 1:8).
The Abode of God: God's existence outside of space and time.
The intermediate state for the righteous between death and bodily resurrection: "Today you shall be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). See, What is the difference between Heaven/Paradise/Sheol?
The kingdom or reign of God here on earth: "From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matthew 4:17).
The Eschatological Heaven: This is the final heaven. "Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.  I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband" (Revelation 21:1-2) (also see 2 Peter 3:13).


According to Catholicism, were animals created in the image of anything?

The short answer is that all creatures, even the humblest, bear a certain resemblance to their Creator. However, of all the creatures we are familiar with on earth, only man can be said to be “in God’s own image” (to paraphrase Gen. 1:27).
I will now explain in greater detail.
All creatures bear a resemblance to their Creator
The first thing to keep in mind is that all creatures bear a certain similarity to their Creator. This occurs, because, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, causes always produce effects that are similar to themselves. For example, when the stove causes the water to boil, the stove communicates its own heat to the water. When a mother and father beget a child, they communicate their human nature to that child.*
In a similar way, when God creates any creature whatsoever, even something humble like a stone, at the very least He communicates His being to that creature. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 301.) Because they receive their being from there Creator, all creatures all have a share in the properties of the Creator’s own being: for example, goodness, truth (i.e., intelligibility), and beauty.
(These ideas are probably best expressed in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theologiae [S.Th.]. See, for instance, Ia. q. 44, especially article 1. Regarding the similarity of the effect to the cause, see Summa contra gentiles [SCG], Book 2, Ch. 36, No. 5. Regarding goodness and the properties of being, see Ia. q. 5, especially article 1.)
Animals (nephesh) have sensitive life in common with us
Different creatures, however, participate in the perfections of their Creator in differing degrees. The humblest creatures, such as stones, participate merely in God’s being.
Living creatures participate not only in His being, but also in His life. Animals in particular enjoy a a degree of participation in God’s life that allows them to acquire sensitive knowledge (the kind of knowledge that only requires material senses) and sensitive appetite (the natural attraction that animals feel to things that benefit them). (For a fuller overview of what “life” is, and its different levels, see S.Th. q. 18, a. 3.)
The Bible calls creatures with this kind of life as nephesh (sometimes translated “soul” but better rendered as “living being”). For example, the animals referred to in Genesis 2:19 are nephesh:

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature (nephesh), that was its name (ESV).

Being nephesh is something that man has in common with the other animals:

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature (lenephesh) (Gen 2:7).

Possessing animal (sensitive) life is clearly a more perfect participation in the life of God than that found in plants or nonliving creatures. Genesis does not, however, say that animals are created “in God’s own image;” that privilige is reserved to man alone, as it requires an even more perfect participation in that life.
What it means to be “in God’s own image”: having rational life (ruach)
Man, in addition to animal life (to being nephesh), possesses rational life. As a consequence, he is capable of truly rational knowledge and true acts of love.
Genesis shows the uniqueness of this kind of life through the image of breath or wind (neshamah or ruach):

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath [the word used derives from neshamah] of life, and the man became a living creature. (Gen. 2:7).

Breath and wind are, however, also images for spirit (that is, for beings that are by nature not dependent on matter for their existence, like men, angels, and God):

And the Spirit [the word is ruach, which can mean “spirit” or “wind”] of God was hovering over the face of the waters (Gen 1:2).

It is only the creatures with rational (that is, spiritual) life that can be said to be “in God’s own image.” That is why Gen. 1:26 only attributes this privilege to man:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Likewise, in the following verse:

So God created man [understood in the inclusive sense of “mankind”] in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27).

(As a side note, since men and women participate equally in rational life, it follows that we are both equally in the image of God.)
It should be noted that it is not exactly the human intellect alone that causes man to be in the image of God. Rather, we are in His image because we possess rational life and everything that such a life entails. Creatures that possess rational life also possess animal and vegetative life, as well as being. Having rational life simply means that we participate in God’s Divine Life to a much greater degree than sub-human creatures.
As the Catechism puts it,

Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul, the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.” From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude (No. 1703; the quotations are from Gaudium et spes 14 § 2 and 24 § 3.).

Man is said to be in God’s “image,” because he is capable of actions that make him strikingly similar to his Creator: he can know things as they really are (thanks to his intellect), and he can freely love things (thanks to his will). No sub-human animal, not even an anthropoid ape, has any ability that comes close to this.

* It should be specified that, because human beings are spiritual creatures, it is beyond the capacity of human parents to produce a new human being. The best that they can do is prepare the necessary “matter” that can receive a human soul; it is God, however, Who directly creates each human being as such.


Are incenses burned inside LDS temples like the ancient Jerusalem Temple? Why or Why not?

No, incense is not burned in LDS temples.

In the temple at Jerusalem, and in some traditional Christian liturgy (such as the Catholic mass), burning incense is used as a symbol for prayer, which ascends to heaven and is pleasing to God. It is also a symbol of the Savior Jesus Christ.

As part of the LDS temple ceremony, participants gather around a table representing an altar to pray. A temple worker kneels to lead the prayer, just as the priest offered prayer in the temple at Jerusalem. Prayer is offered on behalf of those attending, as well as friends and family members with specific needs.

The symbolism and ritual used to teach in temples shares ancient roots with Jewish and Catholic ritual, but has been adapted to meet the needs of people today.


Is rape condoned in the Bible? If so, why?

God does not condone rape in the Bible.  This is a commonly raised objection to Christianity that's been answered ad-nauseum on apologetics websites, such as this one:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html

Quote from the linked post:
Weren't the virgin women raped?

  There are two parts to this objection: did God instruct or permit the
  soldiers to rape the women, and did the soldiers actually rape them?

  It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women,
  but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the
  Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt
  22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin
  women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their
  captives (31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have
  violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). In the rest of the chapter, the
  women are usually referred to as people (using the masculine adam),
  not women or virgins, underscoring the notion that they were seen as
  captives rather than sexual objects.1

  It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women,
  but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would
  have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the
  instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen
  God punish such violations with death during their travels in the
  desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions
  resulting from their relations with Midianite women (25:1-9), as Moses
  reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with
  the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers
  would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women
  given this context.

  So what did happen to the women (and children)? God gave the
  Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were
  to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to
  mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt
  21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but
  there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt
  23:15-16). See the article on slavery laws for more on the treatment
  of female slaves.

As with most commonly cited objections to Christianity, the idea that God condones rape is based on a mis-reading of scripture (intentional or unintentional), and taking verses out of context.

Edited to address the changes to the question since I originally answered.

The verses that are there now are not condoning rape, they are warning that this is what is to come.

If I were to say "If you spend more than you earn you're going to go into debt and will suffer financially" I'm not condoning going into debt, I'm warning you.

You'd have to be intentionally mis-reading the verses posted to interpret them as "condoning" rape.


Did any other early church fathers besides Origen teach the pre-existence of souls?

It's at least true that others in the early church taught doctrines that resembled Origen's.  However, not all who did would normally be considered "church fathers," and even among those who unambiguously are, there's debate over how similar their teachings actually were to Origen's.
Of course, proponents of the doctrine will naturally find more similarities than others, as will be seen shortly.  However, even a "mainstream" treatment (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church) mentions others as holding views similar to Origen:

Even Gregory of Nyssa, although, like Nemesius and Cyril of Alexandria, he supposed the soul to be created before the body, compares Origen's theory to the heathen myths and fables. (Vol. III., page 831)

Schaff also mentions on the same page that Augustine spoke at least relatively favorably of the doctrine in De libero arbitrio, though he later emphatically rejected it.
Louis Berkhof, no friend of the doctrine, says that it was limited to the Alexandrian school and that Origen was its chief representative—but not its only adherent (Systematic Theology, 2.1.2.B).
Turning now to proponents of the doctrine, whose objectivity some might call into question, we find many claims of support from the church fathers.  First, Henry More (1614–1687) wrote a number of works on the subject, and tracks the history of the doctrine in the preface to his Collection of Several Philosophical Writings.  Starting on page xx, he cites Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Books I and III, and a letter to Julius Cassianus), Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Synesius, Arnobius, Prudentius, and Augustine (though he cites only De libero arbitrio, and not Augustine's later works).  Unfortunately, most of More's specific examples are in Latin or Greek, making it difficult for non-scholars to judge the original intent of the quoted authors.  Those who want to examine the quality of his interpretations can review them in the linked work.
A second proponent, I. M. Oderberg, presents several examples in his essay, Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians (also on WebCite), but does not always clearly source them:

After the original generations of Christians, we find the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr (AD 100–l65), St. Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–220), and Origen (AD 185–254) teaching the pre-existence of souls, taking up reincarnation or one or another aspect of reimbodiment. Examples are scattered through Origen's works, especially Contra Celsum (1, xxxii), where he asks: "Is it not rational that souls should be introduced into bodies, in accordance with their merits and previous deeds . . . ?" And in De Principiis he says that "the soul has neither beginning nor end." St. Jerome (AD 340–420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the Vulgate, in his Letter to Demetrias (a Roman matron), states that some Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few "as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged."
Synesius (AD 370–480), Bishop of Ptolemais, also taught the concept, and in a prayer that has survived, he says: "Father, grant that my soul may merge into the light, and be no more thrust back into the illusion of earth." Others of his Hymns, such as number III, contain lines clearly stating his views, and also pleas that he may be so purified that rebirth on earth will no longer be necessary. In a thesis on dreams, Synesius writes: "It is possible by labor and time, and a transition into other lives, for the imaginative soul to emerge from this dark abode." This passage reminds us of verses in the Revelation of John (3:12), with its symbolic, initiatory language leading into: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."


Why did God instruct the Israelites to perform so many different types of sacrificial offerings?

Short answer: Yes

Long(er) answer: Yes, there are symbols in each of them. Some of them we may not understand anymore today, some we maybe understand better than the people at the time. Note how most of the symbols are not explicitely explained. It is left to the participant to find spiritual meaning with the help of personal revelation (And so are we, for the most part).

One reason to have multiple rituals is that each represents different things. Without analyzing every ritual, which I am neither capable of, nor have the time to do, here are a few things that I see in different rituals:

Sacrifice to show God devotion, and thankfulness, to give back, etc.
Sacrifice meant to cleanse from sin, symbolizing many things, the repentance of the sinner, God's mercy, the atonement (to name a few)
Sacrifice shows that in reality, everything belongs to God (related to 1)

As you see, there are many meanings, some of which are not even meant to be understood with the intellect, but are to be felt with the heart. Some of the meanings we can decipher (and I hope a different answer will do that), but to think we "got it all" would be to diminuish the temple service in a way that keeps us from a lot of its intended meaning. It is intentional that the meaning is not explained in full depth.

(Sorry if that is not really an answer as you sought)


Can you find scholarly support that Behemoth is an example of humble submission?

You are quite correct, that very few writers try to explain Behemoth, dealing instead with Leviathan. I also note a heavy tendency to try to say what animals they might have been, whereas the book of Job is dealing with massive, eternal issues of suffering, pain, and God’s justice. Surely we should see God’s comments about Behemoth and Leviathan as His answer to those issues?

Yet some years ago I read this comment by a Christian (using a pseudonym), on a Website where a Q had been asked about this. He dealt with a literal interpretation of Behemoth, what kind of a creature it could have been:

  The description of Behemoth matches that of a sauropod. In the Congo,
  when indigenous tribes are shown pictures of bears, moose and other
  animals not native to the region, they understandably do not recognize
  the creatures; however, when shown a picture of a sauropod, they
  excitedly recognize the creature, claiming it's about the size of an
  elephant and lives in the water, but is rarely seen. So there is the
  possibility that it may exist. … Alexander the Great, Marco Polo and
  others claim in their writings to have encountered dragons during
  their expeditions. "Dragons" were what large reptiles were called back
  then. (Leviathan appears to have been some aquatic species of
  dragon/dinosaur.) When partially fossilized dinosaur bones are found
  containing soft tissue, that could be evidence for them.”

However, a scientist has written about this in his book (below) viewing the biblical account of Job as an early pointer for us to understand the natural world but without any need to delve into taxonomy.  He uses the Bible book of Job to urge us to ask different questions, to put science and faith together, to get a better understanding that will give us biblical wisdom. Tom McLeish says in Faith & Wisdom in Science,

  “Chapters 40 and 41 of Job sing "in exquisitely detailed praise the
  power of two monstrous creatures, the Behemoth and Leviathan
  (sometimes interpreted as the hippopotamus and the crocodile, but
  textually more splendid and terrible)… this is a 'decentralising' text
  that places humans at the periphery of the world, looking on in wonder
  at its centerpieces... Although the book of Job is the least
  anthropocentric of ancient cosmologies, passing by humans to exalt the
  great Leviathan as the pinnacle of creation, still mankind retains a
  special place in regard to the potential possession of wisdom. Our
  examinations of the Lord's answer to Job has identified the same
  unreasonable optimism that the great wisdom questions of nature can
  one day be answered... The double Hebraic encouragement to search for
  'wisdom and understanding' (the practical and cognitive aspects of
  knowing) that we have met in Job and elsewhere resonates strongly with
  the dual methodology of experiment and theory, and with the
  deeply-lying longing for wisdom that their meeting can release."

This scientist author, who is also a Christian, then considers Behemoth as the climax of God’s response to Job’s human questioning about pain. In one sense Job was asking the wrong question, yet Job’s thread of God’s justice in managing His creation is woven into Job’s disputation. A surprising new picture enters the tapestry – Behemoth. The author says:

  “With trepidation, and against the weight of opinion, I am therefore
  suggesting that the Lord’s answer is an answer to Job’s complaint –
  possibly the only adequate answer. There are five lines of argument
  that point this way.”

(1) Creation is not out of control. The way Job and his friends viewed ‘control’ was wrong.

(2) The experience of pain cannot be divorced from the confrontation of human hope and a universe of freedom, and this perspective is foundational to the acquisition of wisdom that deals with matters in extreme tension with each other.

(3) God invites a new relationship with the physical world that leaves behind the irresponsibly polarised positions of Job and his friends.

(4) God’s physical structures are not a sideshow; the failure to acquire wisdom in working with nature hurts both the world and ourselves; there is a biblical ‘creation covenant’.

(5) God’s answer is eschatological. Science affirms that nature matters; knowledge has an ancient history and we need to participate in learning and understanding more. There is to be reconciliation between the human and the non-human, a theme of the New Testament. (Tom McLeish, "Faith & Wisdom in Science", pp110 & 145-6 (Oxford University Press 2014)

I cannot do justice to the author with my brief selection of points but I refer to him for his use of those two creatures to advocate combining science and faith to grasp God’s answers to our oft-misguided questions that can show ignorance on our part which a deeper knowledge of God’s created order could rectify.


What is the biblical basis in the Old Testament for the belief that the Messiah must be God?

In the Old Testament there are two general strains of prophecy commonly read by Christians as being about the Messiah who was to come:

Prophecies of a king in the line of David
Prophecies of God himself coming to his people

Judaism generally accepts the first class of prophecy as being about the prophesied Messiah, but not the second. And a strict reading of the Old Testament for passages mentioning an "anointed one" (Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ mashiyach) and a king in the line of David generally does support this interpretation—though there are some passages that can be read as fitting into both classes of prophecy at once.

Christians commonly accept the second class of prophecies as also being about the Messiah to come, even when they are not specifically linked to a coming anointed king in the line of David.

Here are some examples prophecies that fall into this second class, or span both classes:

In the Psalms:

Lift up your heads, you gates;
    be lifted up, you ancient doors,
    that the King of glory may come in.
Who is this King of glory?
    The Lord strong and mighty,
    the Lord mighty in battle.
Lift up your heads, you gates;
    lift them up, you ancient doors,
    that the King of glory may come in.
Who is he, this King of glory?
    The Lord Almighty—
    he is the King of glory.
                        (Psalm 24:7–10)

In Isaiah:

The people who walked in darkness
    have seen a great light;
those who lived in a land of deep darkness—
    on them light has shined.
You have multiplied the nation,
    you have increased its joy;
they rejoice before you
    as with joy at the harvest,
    as people exult when dividing plunder.
For the yoke of their burden,
    and the bar across their shoulders,
    the rod of their oppressor,
    you have broken as on the day of Midian.
For all the boots of the tramping warriors
    and all the garments rolled in blood
    shall be burned as fuel for the fire.
For a child has been born for us,
    a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
    and he is named
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
His authority shall grow continually,
    and there shall be endless peace
for the throne of David and his kingdom.
    He will establish and uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
    from this time onward and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.
                              (Isaiah 9:2–7)

And another in Isaiah:

The Lord saw it, and it displeased him
    that there was no justice.
He saw that there was no one,
    and was appalled that there was no one to intervene;
so his own arm brought him victory,
    and his righteousness upheld him.
He put on righteousness like a breastplate,
    and a helmet of salvation on his head;
he put on garments of vengeance for clothing,
    and wrapped himself in fury as in a mantle.
According to their deeds, so will he repay;
    wrath to his adversaries, requital to his enemies;
    to the coastlands he will render requital.
So those in the west shall fear the name of the Lord,
    and those in the east, his glory;
for he will come like a pent-up stream
    that the wind of the Lord drives on.
And he will come to Zion as Redeemer,
    to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the Lord.
                                                (Isaiah 59:15–20)

And yet another in Isaiah:

"Who is this that comes from Edom,
    from Bozrah in garments stained crimson?
Who is this so splendidly robed,
    marching in his great might?"
"It is I, announcing vindication,
    mighty to save."
"Why are your robes red,
    and your garments like theirs who tread the wine press?"
"I have trodden the wine press alone,
    and from the peoples no one was with me;
I trod them in my anger
    and trampled them in my wrath;
their juice spattered on my garments,
    and stained all my robes.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
    and the year for my redeeming work had come.
I looked, but there was no helper;
    I stared, but there was no one to sustain me;
so my own arm brought me victory,
    and my wrath sustained me.
I trampled down peoples in my anger,
    I crushed them in my wrath,
    and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth."

I will recount the gracious deeds of the Lord,
    the praiseworthy acts of the Lord,
because of all that the Lord has done for us,
    and the great favor to the house of Israel
that he has shown them according to his mercy,
    according to the abundance of his steadfast love.
For he said, "Surely they are my people,
    children who will not deal falsely";
and he became their savior
    in all their distress.
It was no messenger or angel
    but his presence that saved them;
in his love and in his pity he redeemed them;
    he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
                                            (Isaiah 63:1–9)

In Jeremiah:

"The days are coming," declares the Lord,
    "when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
    and do what is just and right in the land.
In his days Judah will be saved
    and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
    The Lord Our Righteous Savior."
                                      (Jeremiah 23:5–6)

In Malachi:

  See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. (Malachi 3:1)

These are just a few of many passages in the Old Testament that are read by Christians as applying to the prophesied Messiah, and as saying that the Messiah will not be a mere human being, but will be God himself.


What writings are held as "biblical canon" by Swedenborgians?

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) listed the books that he considers to be the Word of God ("divinely inspired Biblical canon," in the words of the question) in three places: Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven") #10325, The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine #266, and The White Horse #16.

Here is the listing from Arcana Coelestia #10325:

  The books of the Word are all those which have the internal sense; books which do not have it are not the Word. The books of the Word in the Old Testament are: The five Books of Moses; the Book of Joshua; the Book of Judges; the two Books of Samuel; the two Books of Kings; the Psalms of David; and the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. And in the New Testament they are: The four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; and the Book of Revelation.

The other two listings are copied from this listing in Arcana Coelestia, with only minor variations in wording. The books listed are the same in all three places.

Here are the books in list form:

Old Testament:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Psalms
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

New Testament:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Revelation

In the Old Testament, the books included are all those in the Jewish Law (Torah) and Prophets (Nevi'im), as mentioned by Jesus in the Gospels, with the addition of Psalms, Lamentations, and Daniel from the Jewish Ketuvim, or "Writings." (Re: Jesus' reference to the Scriptures that testify of him, see Luke 24:27, 44.)

In the New Testament, the books included are those in which the life and teachings of Jesus Christ himself are given (the four Gospels) and "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (see Revelation 1:1).

Swedenborg did not reject the rest of the books of the Protestant Bible. He considered them "good books of the church" (see link below). However, he saw them as historical, instructional, and doctrinal writings rather than as divinely inspired books of the Word of God. For his view of the Acts and Epistles specifically, see "Third Letter of Emanuel Swedenborg to Dr. Beyer," reproduced in Documents Concerning Swedenborg, R.L. Tafel, Ed. London: Swedenborg Society, 1877, Volume II, Part I page 240.


Why is the Bishop of Jerusalem still Greek?

As you further explained your question in various comments, you seem to be asking why the Bishop (Patriarch) of Jerusalem is Greek, rather than "someone who is ethnically Jewish, and practices Judaism along with their Christianity."

I am not sure there is a clearer answer to why "someone who is ethnically Jewish" is not the Patriarch of Jerusalem, than  the vast majority of Orthodox Christians living within the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem are ethnically Arab (generally Palestinian) and not Jewish.  Perhaps there are Jewish converts from time to time, but they seem to be very, very few.  As you probably know, Judaism was virtually wiped out from the Roman Province of Judea by the Emperor Hadrian after the Bar Kokhba revolt in the early second century.  The Jewish population of Palestine waxed and waned for centuries, but by the time the Ottoman Empire was dismembered after World War I there were no more than 10,000 Jews in the area.1  In the mid-19th century there were about 60,000 Arab Christians in Palestine, and about half that number of Jews.2  Today the percentages have more than inverted, with only about 2% of Israel being Christian, 14% Muslim, and 81% Jewish. Today only a single majority Christian village (Taybeh) is left in the territory of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.

The above doesn't explain why the Patriarch is ethnically Greek instead of Arab (as is the case with the Patriarchate of Antioch), but it does help explain why he is not ethnically Jewish.

As far as why the Patriarch of Jerusalem is not someone who "practices Judaism along with their Christianity" the answer is much clearer:  because it has been expressly forbidden by the canons of the Church dating back at least 1,600 years.  For example:

Canon LXIV of the Apostolic Canons (dating to sometime prior to the 4th or 5th centuries) reads: "If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated."
Canon VII of the 3rd Ecumenical Council at Ephesus (431) reads "those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized."
Canon XI of the Quinisext Council at Trullo (692) reads: "Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off."
Canon VII of the 7th Ecumenical Council at Nicaea (787) reads: "Since certain, erring in the superstitions of the Hebrews, have thought to mock at Christ our God, and feigning to be converted to the religion of Christ do deny him, and in private and secretly keep the Sabbath and observe other Jewish customs, we decree that such persons be not received to communion, nor to prayers, nor into the Church."

1. see, e.g., F. Peters, The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, Volume II: The Words and Will of God, p.287
2. C. Rubenberg, Israel and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination, p.26


When, in recent Church history, do we see results from 'ministering to the Lord'?

I found an interesting comment in my NIV Study Bible with regard to Acts 13:2 which says that the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch were worshipping the Lord and fasting prior to being led by the Holy Spirit.  The NIV notes that the missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas “did not result from a planning session but from the Spirit’s instruction”.
With regard to the Welsh Revival, the following extracts (which come from a seemingly reliable document) suggest that after prolonged study, worship and prayer, Evan Roberts was led by the Holy Spirit to evangelise to the people in his native land.  No mention is made of fasting, however.
The article begins by acknowledging that revival is a work of the Holy Spirit, not a work of man, something that God does to a believer in Jesus Christ.  Revival starts when God does a work in people to bring glory to God by growing his church through saving unbelievers.  Mention is made, in passing, of the Methodist revival in England which started when George Whitfield, John Wesley and others began preaching in the late 1730’s.  Here is a partial quote about the young Evan Roberts and how he was influenced:

Having been convinced of the call to preach, he set about preparing himself for ministry by reading spiritual books and seeking to be baptised with the Holy Spirit. This baptism happened in the spring of 1904, an experience that brought him into close communion with God. “I was taken up into divine fellowship for about four hours” [Evans, p.66]. This continued nightly for three months. He was a revived Christian.

In September Roberts went away to ministry school at Newcastle Emlyn in Carmarthenshire. He was still putting aside at least half an hour every day for communion with God; the spiritual result of his “baptism” continuing in him. He very quickly realised that a revival was taking place nearby in Cardiganshire, and that many young people had received spiritual experiences similar to his own. However, they also had a passion to share the experience with others. This had a powerful effect on him: “We have come into contact with the young men and women of New Quay and the fire has taken hold of us.” [Evans, p.73]

Influenced by these revived Christians, Roberts again experienced the baptism of the Spirit, especially receiving the assurance of sins forgiven. He now came to believe that he and the others in this Cardiganshire revival were to take this message to the whole of Wales, and, following some visions, was convinced that God had promised 100,000 converts as a result. He was now an “enthusiast”, on fire and in the position to influence others.

The article goes on to describe the start of the revival in West Wales in 1903.  Two Cardiganshire Calvinistic Methodist ministers, Joseph Jenkins and John Thickens became burdened for the spiritual life of their churches.  Who influenced them?

At that time in Wales the teaching of the Keswick convention was beginning to have an influence due to a number of ministers sensing the lack of power in their ministry. Jenkins and Thickens came under the influence of such men, notably RB Jones and WW Lewis. Both Jones and Lewis were used as enthusiasts in the Welsh revival quite apart from Evan Roberts. It took more than one initial enthusiast to spread the revival! In turn the “Keswick” ministers, who became enthusiasts, were influenced by a Welsh minister, WS Jones, who received the baptism with the Spirit, while serving a congregation in Scranton Pennsylvania. He brought the fire back when he returned to minister in Carmarthen late in the 1890’s.

WS Jones received this baptism at the hands of people influenced by DL Moody. Likewise the British minister FB Meyer, also influenced by Moody, was active in urging people to seek the deeper life, and he was instrumental in the work of Keswick. Thus the Welsh revival can trace its line back to the work of Moody. Indeed no beginning can be found as each person was made an enthusiast through another enthusiast. Despite all these lines of influence, it will be shown that what took place after 31st October 1904 was on a completely different scale from the events in Cardiganshire described here. The effectiveness of the enthusiasts increased dramatically. As such this date is the best starting date for the national revival that has become so well known throughout the world.
Source: How Did The Welsh Revival of 1904-5 Start? John Hayward.  https://www.churchmodel.org.uk/Back04.pdf

Another source of information I found starts with a message from Evan Roberts who declares that the power behind the revival in South Wales was not of men, but entirely of God who “has been close to us and has shown us the way.”

I have been asked concerning my methods. I have none. I never prepare the words I shall speak.  I leave all that to Him.  I am not the source of this revival.  I am only one agent in what is growing to be a multitude.  I am not moving men’s hearts and changing men’s lives; not I, but “God worketh in me.”  I have found what is, in my belief, the highest kind of Christianity.  I desire to give my life, which is all I have to give, to helping others to find it also.  Many have already found it, thank God, and many more are finding it through them.

This is my work as He has pointed it out to me.  His Spirit came to me one night, when upon my knees I asked Him for guidance, and five months later I was baptised with the Spirit.  He has led me as He will lead all those who, conscious of their human weakness, lean upon Him as children upon a father.  I know that the work which has been done through me is not due to any human ability that I possess.  It is His work and to His Glory.

There follows ‘The Story of the Welsh Revival’ by Arthur Goodrich, but because it is copyright protected all I can do is leave you the link for you to read.  http://www.revival-library.org/index.php/catalogues-menu/1904/the-story-of-the-welsh-revival
Another article ‘The Legacy of the Welsh Revival 1904-1905by Patrick Slattery’ contains this interesting quote:

David Lloyd George in one of his speeches before 1904 said: 'The material conditions of this country will not improve until there comes a spiritual awakening, and I charge you ministers with the responsibility of promoting and fostering such a revival'.

The article concludes thus:

Perhaps one of the most important lessons we need to learn from the 1904 Revival is that, good as we are at arranging new strategies and structures for our churches, we cannot arrange a revival. We can and should be prepared for it, and when God sees the time is right we must respond by ensuring that it reaches out into society and is not confined to church buildings.  Source: https://www.methodistevangelicals.org.uk/Articles/523541/The_Legacy_of.aspx


Why did G.K. Chesterton convert to Catholicism?

Chesterton probably wrote more than anyone ever so I'm sure he can tell you in his own words why he converted from Atheism to Anglicanism and from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

See: Catholic Church and Conversion and Why I am A Catholic and The God With the Golden Key

As an avid reader of Chesterton, I'm often perplexed at how much love he gives to Catholics even before he became one himself.  He converted to Catholicism in 1922 and only spent 14 years on earth as a Catholic. But starting in 1908 with The Man who was Thursday the heroes of his books and stories have been predominantly Catholics (Father Brown, Gabriel Syme, Ian Maclan).

When reading Orthodoxy, he makes an incredible defense of Catholicism; he defends priests and Catholic doctrine.

  the view that priests darken and embitter the world. I look at the world and simply discover that they don't. Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground.

If he wasn't talking about the same Catholic Church which he would convert to eighteen years later at the time, I sure as heck couldn't pick up on it.

Books to read with religion in it:

Everlasting Man

About Jesus, I read it a while ago, don't remember much
Orthodoxy

Chesterton's account of discovering that the religion he set out to found was in fact orthodoxy
The Ball and the Cross

A novel with an atheist and a catholic looking for a place to kill each other.


How would different Protestant denominations reconcile Matthew 5:19 with the notion of being saved by grace?

The Reformed tradition would say that we are still required to keep the law, even though we are not saved by our works. God still wants us to do what He has commanded us to do, even though we are never justified on the basis of our works. Our motivation is different than those who are not saved, because rather than doing works as an attempt to save ourselves, instead, we do good works out of gratitude to God and a desire to love and serve Him. As Christ says in John 14:15, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 24

We believe that this true faith, produced in us by the hearing of
God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates us and
makes us new creatures, causing us to live a new life and freeing
us from the slavery of sin. Therefore, far from making people cold
toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to
the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never
do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and
fear of being condemned. So then, it is impossible for this holy faith
to be unfruitful in a human being, seeing that we do not speak of an
empty faith but of what Scripture calls “faith working through
love,” which moves people to do by themselves the works that God has
commanded in the Word. These works, proceeding from the good root of
faith, are good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified
by God’s grace. Yet they do not count toward our justification— for by
faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do good works.
Otherwise they could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree
could be good if the tree is not good in the first place. So then, we
do good works, but not for merit— for what would we merit? Rather, we
are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not God to us, since
God “is at work in [us], enabling [us] both to will and to work for
his good pleasure” — thus keeping in mind what is written: “When you
have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless
slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done.’“ Yet we do
not wish to deny that God rewards good works— but it is by grace that
God crowns these gifts. Moreover, although we do good works we do not
base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not
defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we
could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject
that work. So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth
without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented
constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and
death of our Savior.

Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 86 and 87

Q. Since we have been delivered from our misery by grace through
Christ without any merit of our own, why then should we do good works?
A. Because Christ, having redeemed us by his blood, is also restoring
us by his Spirit into his image, so that with our whole lives we may
show that we are thankful to God for his benefits, so that he may be
praised through us, so that we may be assured of our faith by its
fruits, and so that by our godly living our neighbors may be won over
to Christ.
Q. Can those be saved who do not turn to God from their ungrateful and
unrepentant ways?
A. By no means. Scripture tells us that no unchaste
person, no idolater, adulterer, thief, no covetous person, no
drunkard, slanderer, robber, or the like will inherit the kingdom of
God.

Canons of Dort, Article 13

In their awareness and assurance of this election, God’s children
daily find greater cause to humble themselves before God, to adore the
fathomless depth of God’s mercies, to cleanse themselves, and to give
fervent love in return to the One who first so greatly loved them.
This is far from saying that this teaching concerning election, and
reflection upon it, make God’s children lax in observing his
commandments or carnally self-assured. By God’s just judgment this
does usually happen to those who casually take for granted the grace
of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are
unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen.

Presbyterians hold to this same position:

I. Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word,
and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out
of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.
II. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the
fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them
believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their
assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the
Gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God,
whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[
that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal
life.
III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but
wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled
thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is
required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them
to will, and to do, of His good pleasure: yet are they not
hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any
duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be
diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.
IV. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which
is possibly in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate,
and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much
which in duty they are bound to do.
V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at
the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between
them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between
us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the
debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have
done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as
they are good, they proceed from His Spirit, and as they are
wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and
imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's
judgment.
VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through
Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though
they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God's
sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to
accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with
many weaknesses and imperfections.
VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them
they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to
themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart
purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to
the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are
therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive
grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and
displeasing unto God.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 16

The Reformed Baptists hold to this same position:

Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word, and not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of
blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intentions.

These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers
manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their
brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the
adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in
Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may
have the end eternal life.

Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ; and that they may be enabled
thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is
necessary an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them
to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet they are not hereupon to
grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty, unless
upon a special motion of the Spirit, but they ought to be diligent in
stirring up the grace of God that is in them.

They who in their obedience attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and
to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in
duty they are bound to do.

We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between
them and the glory to come, and the infinite distance that is between
us and God, whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfy for the
debt of our former sins; but when we have done all we can, we have
done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants; and because as they
are good they proceed from his Spirit, and as they are wrought by us
they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection,
that they cannot endure the severity of God's punishment.

Yet notwithstanding the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him; not as though they
were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God's sight,
but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and
reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many
weaknesses and imperfections.

Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to
themselves and others; yet because they proceed not from a heart
purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner according to the
word, nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful,
and cannot please God, nor make a man meet to receive grace from God,
and yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God.

London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, Chapter 16

Anglicans hold to this same position:

Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and
Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought
of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding,
no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the
Commandments which are called Moral.

39 Articles, Section 7

and:

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow
after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity
of God's judgement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in
Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith;
insomuch that by them a lively, Faith may be as evidently known as a
tree discerned by the fruit.

39 Articles, Section 12

General Baptists don't really have a common confession to examine, and also have a variety of viewpoints on the issue.
The United Methodist Church holds to this same position:

We believe good works are the necessary fruits of faith and follow
regeneration but they do not have the virtue to remove our sins or to
avert divine judgment. We believe good works, pleasing and acceptable
to God in Christ, spring from a true and living faith, for through and
by them faith is made evident.

United Methodist Confession of Faith, Article 10

The Lutheran Church holds to this same position:

Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good
fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God,
because of God's will, but that we should not rely on those works to
merit justification before God. For remission of sins and
justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ
attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are
unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by the
Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes
in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works,
by faith alone.

Augsburg Confession, Article 6

and also:

Our teachers are falsely accused of forbidding Good Works. For
their published writings on the Ten Commandments, and others of like
import, bear witness that they have taught to good purpose concerning
all estates and duties of life, as to what estates of life and what
works in every calling be pleasing to God. Concerning these things
preachers heretofore taught but little, and urged only childish and
needless works, as particular holy-days, particular fasts,
brotherhoods, pilgrimages, services in honor of saints, the use of
rosaries, monasticism, and such like. Since our adversaries have
been admonished of these things, they are now unlearning them, and do
not preach these unprofitable works as heretofore. Besides, they
begin to mention faith, of which there was heretofore marvelous
silence. They teach that we are justified not by works only, but
they conjoin faith and works, and say that we are justified by faith
and works. This doctrine is more tolerable than the former one, and
can afford more consolation than their old doctrine.
Forasmuch, therefore, as the doctrine concerning faith, which ought
to be the chief one in the Church, has lain so long unknown, as all
must needs grant that there was the deepest silence in their sermons
concerning the righteousness of faith, while only the doctrine of
works was treated in the churches, our teachers have instructed the
churches concerning faith as follows:—
First, that our works cannot reconcile God or merit forgiveness of
sins, grace, and justification, but that we obtain this only by faith
when we believe that we are received into favor for Christ's sake, who
alone has been set forth the Mediator and Propitiation, 1 Tim. 2:5, in
order that the Father may be reconciled through Him. Whoever,
therefore, trusts that by works he merits grace, despises the merit
and grace of Christ, and seeks a way to God without Christ, by human
strength, although Christ has said of Himself: I am the Way, the
Truth, and the Life. John 14:6.
This doctrine concerning faith is everywhere treated by Paul, Eph.
2:8: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of your selves;
it is the gift of God, not of works, etc.
And lest any one should craftily say that a new interpretation of
Paul has been devised by us, this entire matter is supported by the
testimonies of the Fathers. For Augustine, in many volumes,
defends grace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits
of works. And Ambrose, in his De Vocatione Gentium, and elsewhere,
teaches to like effect. For in his De Vocatione Gentium he says as
follows: Redemption by the blood of Christ would become of little
value, neither would the preeminence of man's works be superseded by
the mercy of God, if justification, which is wrought through grace,
were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not the free gift of
a donor, but the reward due to the laborer.
But, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced,
nevertheless God-fearing and anxious consciences find by experience
that it brings the greatest consolation, because consciences cannot be
set at rest through any works, but only by faith, when they take the
sure ground that for Christ's sake they have a reconciled God. As Paul
teaches Rom. 5:1:Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.
This whole doctrine is to be referred to that conflict of the
terrified conscience, neither can it be understood apart from that
conflict. Therefore inexperienced and profane men judge ill
concerning this matter, who dream that Christian righteousness is
nothing but civil and philosophical righteousness.
Heretofore consciences were plagued with the doctrine of works,
they did not hear the consolation from the Gospel. Some persons
were driven by conscience into the desert, into monasteries hoping
there to merit grace by a monastic life. Some also devised other
works whereby to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins. Hence
there was very great need to treat of, and renew, this doctrine of
faith in Christ, to the end that anxious consciences should not be
without consolation but that they might know that grace and
forgiveness of sins and justification are apprehended by faith in
Christ.
Men are also admonished that here the term "faith" does not
signify merely the knowledge of the history, such as is in the ungodly
and in the devil, but signifies a faith which believes, not merely the
history, but also the effect of the history—namely, this article: the
forgiveness of sins, to wit, that we have grace, righteousness, and
forgiveness of sins through Christ.
Now he that knows that he has a Father gracious to him through
Christ, truly knows God; he knows also that God cares for him, and
calls upon God; in a word, he is not without God, as the heathen.
For devils and the ungodly are not able to believe this article: the
forgiveness of sins. Hence, they hate God as an enemy, call not upon
Him, and expect no good from Him. Augustine also admonishes his
readers concerning the word "faith," and teaches that the term "faith"
is accepted in the Scriptures not for knowledge such as is in the
ungodly but for confidence which consoles and encourages the terrified
mind.
Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do
good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but
because it is the will of God.  It is only by faith that
forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing.  And
because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed
and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good
works.  For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and
right doing.  For man's powers without the Holy Ghost are full of
ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in
God's sight.  Besides, they are in the power of the devil who
impels men to divers sins,  to ungodly opinions, to open crimes.
This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to
live an honest life could not succeed,  but were defiled with many
open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith
and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human
strength.
Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be
charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be
commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works.
For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the
First or of the Second Commandment.  Without faith it does not call
upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks,
and trusts in, man's help.  And thus, when there is no faith and
trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart.
Wherefore Christ said, John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing;
and the Church sings:
Lacking Thy divine favor,
There is nothing found in man,
Naught in him is harmless.

Augsburg Confession, Article 20


Are gluten free diets in violation of the word of wisdom?

There is no doctrinal condemnation for gluten free diets.  The Lord expects us to make judgement calls based on what we are given in many instances.  Someone living glueten free will not be kept from the temple.

In Doctrine and Covenants 58, verse 26 the Lord said:

  For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

A lot of things are not black and white.

In Preach My Gospel, Chapter 4, the missionary handbook, this is the "black and white" of the Word of Wisdom

  Remember that our bodies are sacred. We should treat them with respect and reverence. The Word of Wisdom teaches that we are to eat healthy foods. It teaches very specifically that we are to avoid harmful substances, including alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee. We must also avoid harmful drugs in any form.

I believe the answer to this question is personal and between the individual and God.


What is the biblical basis for women being created in the image of God?

Genesis 1:27:

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים אֶתהָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֣א אֹתָֽם׃
καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς
et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum masculum et feminam creavit eos
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The word used in the original Hebrew (the first line) is transliterated ha-adam, men (as opposed to animals). Though it is grammatically masculine, it refers to the whole race, "male and female" ("zakar uneqebah"), as the verse explains.
You can see the translations to Greek, Latin and English (KJV), which all translate הָֽאָדָם֙ to words which mean "human" as opposed to "man": ἄνθρωπον and hominem. If a specifically male man were meant, the Sacred Authors would have used אּישׁ instead (as they do a few verses thence) and the translators would have used ἄνδρα and virum, respectively.
Regarding the ordination of women, the Holy Father St. John Paul II said that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." The reason given is that "the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." The Orthodox hold to the same position for essentially the same reasons; Protestants who do exclude women from ordination would typically hold the same position, though they might quote a few NT verses to give it foundation: usually I Cor 14:33–35, I Tim 2:11–12, I Cor 11:13 and Eph 5:22–23.
In any event, it has nothing to do with whether woman was created in God's image or not, but rather Christ's example which has been followed from the Apostolic age.


Some Protestant Christians take Jesus' words in Luke 16:19-31 about the rich man and Lazarus to show that after the body dies, the soul exists in a conscious realm while awaiting the resurrection.  The rich man didn’t ask for his brothers to pray for his release from some purgatorial middle ground, thereby expediting his journey to heaven. He knew he was in hell, and he knew why. That’s why his requests were merely to be comforted and to have a warning sent to his brothers. He knew there was no escape. He was eternally separated from God, and Abraham made it clear to him that there was no hope of ever mitigating his pain, suffering, or sorrow:

  Abraham replied... between us [Abraham and Lazarus] and you [the rich man] a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us. (Luke 16:25-26)

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, U.K. Baptist preacher, had this to say about the Catholic view of Purgatory being an “intermediate state” where souls are purified before being allowed into heaven:

  Sermon # 384 by Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Full Assurance - April 28, 1861: “Purgatory is an impossibility, if full assurance be possible. If a man knows himself to be saved, then he is not to be troubled with a silly fear about waiting in the intermediate state, to be purified with fire, before he can enter into heaven...   I speak then, to the whole of you who never knew that you were saved; and first I say to you how foolish you are! O sirs! you are to die soon, and you are to go to heaven or to hell,—to splendours and glories, or to glooms and horrors, and yet you do not know which is to be your portion...  Sure to die, and yet not sure whether you are saved! Sure to appear before the bar of God, and yet not know whether you shall be acquitted or condemned?  O miserable men, uncertain as to your future state...  O my hearers, if you are not sure of being saved, what if you are sure of being damned! And you are either—mark this—not to your own apprehension perhaps but in fact; you are sure of one or the other. Which is it? Which must it be?  Source: https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/full-assurance#flipbook/

One Protestant view is that the transition to our eternal state takes place the moment we die (2 Corinthians 5:8; Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23).  When believers die, they are immediately in the conscious fellowship and joys of heaven.  When unbelievers die, they are just as immediately in the conscious pain, suffering, and torment of hell.   These Bible verses speak of what happens after death and before the resurrection.  First, for believers who die, their expectation is to be with the Lord:

  Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord... For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due to him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:6-10)

Second, those believers who had been killed because of their faith are under God’s altar in heaven and are described as “souls.”  If there is a biblical answer for the intermediate state, it would seem that believers in heaven are in spiritual/non-corporeal form until the resurrection:

  When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.  They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”  Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer... (Revelation 6:9-11)

The concluding paragraph in an article about the “intermediate state” says this:

  The heaven that ultimately awaits believers is the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21-22). Heaven will indeed be a physical place. Our physical bodies will be resurrected and glorified, made perfectly fit for eternity on the New Earth. Currently, heaven is a spiritual realm. It would seem, then, that there would be no need for temporary physical bodies if believers are in a spiritual heaven. Whatever the intermediate state is, we can rest assured that believers in heaven are perfectly content, enjoying the glories of heaven and worshiping the majesty of the Lord.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/intermediate-state.html

The article in the link below explains, briefly, how there are many different views about what happens after death.  It draws this conclusion in the final paragraph:

  After death, a person resides in a “temporary” heaven or hell. After this temporary realm, at the final resurrection, a person’s eternal destiny will not change. The precise “location” of that eternal destiny is what changes. Believers will ultimately be granted entrance into the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1). Unbelievers will ultimately be sent to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). These are the final, eternal destinations of all people—based entirely on whether or not they had trusted Jesus Christ alone for salvation (Matthew 25:46; John 3:36). Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/what-happens-death.html

Please be aware that this is only one Protestant view of what happens after the body dies.  You must draw your own conclusions, but please allow the Bible to inform you.


What does it mean that "many parts which are plain have been taken away"?

+1 for the great question! To begin as Members of the LDS Church "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (Article of Faith 8)

Throughout my response I will be referencing Plain and Precious Truths Restored, an article written in October of 2006.

There are multiple doctrines restored with The Book of Mormon. Just to list a few:

Premortal Existence
Adam’s Fall and Human Suffering
Agency
The Atonement
First Principles and Ordinances
Church Organization
Importance of Personal Revelation
Satan’s Identity and Methods

One example of a Joseph Smith Translation is Matthew 18:11

KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
JST of KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost, and to call sinners to
     repentance; but these little ones have no need of repentance, and I will save them.

So in answer to your question, yes. We believe there have been doctrines which have been physically removed from The Bible either by an honest mistake in translation, or a deliberate omission.

-- I am out of time right now to go into more depth, but I would encourage you to read the article I referenced above.


No, God does not.
In hebrew the word there is נָסָה the KJV translates it as "tempt", but strong's translates it as "to test". In fact if you check out other translations you'll find thats how they translate it as well.
So what was God doing in Genesis 22? Was he tempting Abraham or testing him? Reading on in the chapter God makes it clear.

2 “Take your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and
go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on
one of the mountains, which I will show you.”
...
12 “Don’t lay a hand on
the boy!” the angel said. “Do not hurt him in any way, for now I know
that you truly fear God. You have not withheld from me even your son,
your only son.”

God was testing Abraham to see if he feared Him. And because of Abraham's obedience and faith he was blessed and so were we.


Why is blasphemy against the Son or Father forgiven but blasphemy against the Spirit isn't forgiven?

Fr. Cornelius à Lapide commentates on this verse:

Lastly, theologians—and from them, catechists—out of various expositions of S. Augustine, collect six sins against the Holy Ghost; namely, presumption, despair, striving against known truth, envy of fraternal charity, impenitence, and obstinacy. They say that these are called sins against the Holy Ghost, because they are committed through undoubted wickedness against the goodness of God, which is an attribute of the Holy Ghost. Thus, likewise, sins which are committed through infirmity are said to be done against God the Father, because power is one of His especial attributes. And sins which are done through ignorance, are said to be done against the Son, because of His attribute of wisdom.
Note, therefore, that Christ is here speaking not of every sin against the Holy Ghost, but only of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which may take place by words; and the same reasoning will apply to thoughts and actions, as when anyone reviles works manifestly divine and miraculous, which God works for the salvation of men, by which He confirms faith and truth. Such a work is the casting out of devils; and because such works proceed from the goodness and holiness of God, they are attributed to the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son by procession and inspiration, as Love, Goodness, and Holiness. When, therefore, anyone calumniates such things, and knowingly out of malice ascribes them to an unclean spirit (as these Pharisees did), such an one is said to commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; for such an one directly fights against God and takes from Him His holiness and purity. The whole argument is expressed in the following syllogism:—
The author of the miracles which Christ performs is, according to you, O ye Scribes, Beelzebub:
But God the Holy Ghost is, in truth, the Author of these miracles:
Therefore, according to you, God and the Holy Ghost are Beelzebub.
What more horrible can possibly be said? What greater blasphemy can be imagined? S. Basil adds that there are such persons even now, who ascribe the fruits and actions of the Holy Ghost to the opposing unclean spirit. We many of us do this, when we call earnestness ambition, and impute the calumny of anger to one who is only moved by zeal and righteous indignation. Moreover, Christ opposes this blasphemy against God and the Holy Ghost to that blasphemy against the Son of Man by which some who were offended at Christ’s human conversation, calumniated what He did as man, as when they called Him a wine bibber, and a friend of Publicans and sinners. This was something more excusable, and less unworthy of forgiveness, because it had respect to Christ as Man rather than as God.
Shall not be forgiven: Arab. Shall not be relaxed, i.e., shall with difficulty, and seldom be forgiven. For this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is most horrible, inexcusable, and altogether unworthy of pardon, and, considered simply in itself, takes away and excludes all medicine, and means of obtaining forgiveness. For such a blasphemer places himself in diametrical opposition to the Holy Ghost, and drives Him from him, yea blasphemes Him: the Holy Ghost, I say, by whom alone he could be absolved, healed, and sanctified. Similarly, we call an incurable disease one, which does not admit of medicine, and rejects every kind of food. Nevertheless a blasphemer does not shut up the hand of God, so that God cannot have mercy upon him, although unworthy; and convert him, as He converted S. Paul, who confesses that he had been a blasphemer against God (1 Tim. 1:3).


Does God Abet Sinful Behaviour if it Brings About His Justice?

Your question seems to be different than what your references convey.

In Isaiah chapter 13  and most of chapter 14 Isaiah is warning Babylon not of God striking the Nation, but of the coming overthrow by the Medes and the Persians. He is telling them that unless they change their ways God will not interfere on their behalf.

Isaiah 13:17  KJV

  Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

And in chapter 14 he is telling them that they are as detestable to him as is Satan, and describes how Satan also became so despicable.

Isaiah chapter  14    KJV

  10  All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

  12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

  13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

  14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

  15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

And in Zechariah chapter 14 It appears to be a prediction of that war in which Jerusalem was finally destroyed, and the Jews scattered all over the face of the earth.

Zechariah chapter 14  KJV

  8  And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

  10  All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

  11  And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

The Nation of Israel was scattered around the World as predicted in Zechariah chapter 14 and their land was inhabited by others, up until 1949 when Israel was once again brought together as a nation.


Was Barnabas' land ownership as a Levite against Mosaic Law?

I am not sure you are interpreting the law about Levites owning land correctly.

Joshua 10 describes the division of the land between the tribes, but does not assign it to individuals. Verse 14 gives no portion of the land to Levi:

  Only to the tribe of Levi he had given no inheritance; the sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel made by fire are their inheritance, as He said to them.

It is not that individual Levites had no inheritance. The tribe did not have a region of the promised land set aside for them. Instead, they were distributed amongst the cities in other tribes' land.

Consider Numbers 35:1-2:

  In the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Command the Israelites to give, from the inheritance that they possess, towns for the Levites to live in; you shall also give to the Levites pasture lands surrounding the towns.

Along with these cities, the Levites were given fields around those cities.

And in Deuteronomy 18:6-8, we see that not only could individual Levites have an inheritance, they could sell it:

  So if a Levite comes from any of your gates, from where he dwells among all Israel, and comes with all the desire of his mind to the place which the Lord chooses, then he may serve in the name of the Lord his God as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the Lord.  They shall have equal portions to eat, besides what comes from the sale of his inheritance

And Nehemiah 13:10:

  I also realized that the portions for the Levites had not been given them; for each of the Levites and the singers who did the work had gone back to his field.

It seems that as least in the time of Nehemiah, Levites could own fields as part of the support offered to them.


How do Trinitarians explain the Father granting life to the Son (John 5:26)?

The "begetting" here is understood in an eternal sense, and is not a matter of being made or created. The creeds phrase it as eternally begetting (fathering), or pretemporal begetting, or an eternal proceeding from. And they are explicit in that it is not a matter of being made or created.

From the Athanasian Creed,

  The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.

And,

  So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.

And from the Nicene Creed,

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made.

The Son proceeds from The Father and is therefore of the same eternal substance. This differs from created entities, which are different in "substance" from their creator. The Father is the eternal cause of the Son; but the Son is not created or a distinct substance from the Father. The Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit, are one in being.


Do Evangelical Christians interpret James 1:2 and Romans 5:3 to mean that we should enjoy our problems?

Evangelical theologians teach that these two passages do not instruct us to "enjoy" trials in the sense of getting pleasure out of them.  Rather, we are to have joy despite the trials, because we recognize them to be profitable.
On James 1:2, Thomas Constable writes that the trials themselves are not the source of joy, but rather what they produce:

James counseled his readers to view the "various" kinds of "trials" and tribulations they were encountering in their lives as opportunities for growth. He did not urge them to rejoice that they were undergoing trials. He did not advocate a masochistic attitude that unnaturally rejoices in painful experiences. Rather, he commanded them to view their trials as profitable—even if unpleasant.1

James Burton Coffman similarly writes that James is not suggesting that Christians "pretend that they get joy out of things which are disagreeable" but rather that they view the trial as "an opportunity to gain new strength through overcoming."2
Regarding Romans 5:3, Constable writes that we have joy in difficulties for a reason, and Tim Keller makes this explicit, focusing on the word "in":

Christians, however, rejoice in suffering.  That means there is no joy in the actual troubles themselves.  God hates the pain and troubles of this life and so should we.  Rather, a Christian knows that suffering will have beneficial results.  A Christian is not a stoic, who faces suffering by just gritting their teeth.  Christians "look through" the suffering to their certainties.3

Constable's Notes on James 1
Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible, James 1
Keller, Romans 1–7 For You, p112


The study you cite is an early attempt at wordprint analysis of the Book of Mormon. If you are interested in looking at attempts to identify authorship of portions of the Book of Mormon using this technique, you could look through the sources cited in this Wikipedia section. There have been a number of attempts at this type of analysis, and some of the authors of these studies may provide replication data that would allow you to look at authorship at the verse level. However, even if replication data is available, it may still not provide you with the verse-by-verse breakdown you want. Depending on the statistical model used, a verse-level classification may not be produced by the model. And even if a verse-level classification is produced by the model, it would be a probabilistic estimate. Because of this, a chart showing the model's "best guess" for each verse without taking into account the margin of error for that guess would be misleading.

If, instead, you are interested in a resource breaking down Book of Mormon authorship using authorship statements within the Book of Mormon itself, there is this chart available through BYU Studies. It does not identify authorship at the verse level, but it does provide a diagram showing which authors were quoted in which books, according to the text itself. There are also a couple of other authorship charts available in section 2 of this page.


Is the Catholic Church the oldest church?

It looks like you're a bit muddled up with your history! Here's a quick explanation of some of the branches you mentioned, but you should also read through the Wikipedia article on Christian denominations or get a church history book if you want to know more.

So the real first church must of course be the church of Jerusalem, which began on the day Jesus was resurrected (or a few weeks later at Pentecost, depending how you want to think about it.) Christianity spread widely, and within a couple of decades there were churches all around the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The first church in Rome would probably have been started between 40-50 AD.

In the early church the bishops of each church/city were to a large extent autonomous, though the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome were the most prominent; these five were later called Patriarchs. There is debate over this of course, but in this period the Roman pope was at most a first-among-equals. The authority lay in the collective authority of general councils like Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon. There were times when the other bishops overruled the bishop of Rome, and some were even declared heretics.

The diagram shows how the branches formed. When Nestorianism was rejected at the Council of Ephesus, the Assyrian Church of the East broke ties with the rest of Christendom. Similarly at the Council of Chalcedon, the non-Chalcedonian Miaphysites broke communion with the Chalcedonian churches, and we now call them the Oriental Orthodox. The Armenian church is one of these Oriental Orthodox churches.

What we now think of as the Roman Catholic Church developed over the almost two millennia since it started. While its character and doctrines have been developed, it is indisputably very old, but as with all the other old churches, no claims for founding dates can be verified (except Jerusalem of course.)