Why do those who take Matthew 23:9 literally not emphasize 23:8 and 23:10 similarly?

Mat 23:8  But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

    G4461
    ῥαββί
    rhabbi
    hrab-bee'

    Of Hebrew origin [H7227] with pronominal suffix; my master, that is, Rabbi, as an official title of honor: - Master, Rabbi.

  Mat 23:9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

  Mat 23:10  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

    G2519
    καθηγητής
    kathēgētēs
    kath-ayg-ay-tace'

    From a compound of G2596 and G2233; a guide, that is, (figuratively) a teacher: - master.

  1Co 4:15  For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
  16  Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

  Eph 4:11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
  12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

    G1320
    διδάσκαλος
    didaskalos
    did-as'-kal-os

    From G1321; an instructor (generally or specifically): - doctor, master, teacher.

  1Co 1:1  Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

  Mat 23:5  But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
  6  And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
  7  And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

  1Th 5:12  And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;

As you requested this is from an evangelical perspective. Though my specific group of Word of Faith is split on this issue I will explain it from the side which I take.

In Christianity we have spiritual fathers in Christ. People who taught us the gospel. We can acknowledge their contribution to our spiritual development but we should not refer to them as "father" because Jesus said not to. It's apparently ok to say I birth you in Christ but it is not ok to say You are my spiritual father (this would be ignoring the work of Father through Christ). In Christianity we likewise do not have rabbis, spiritual guides or masters. We have the Holy Spirit instead. We do have a different set of gifts given by Christ Himself to help us work in the ministry: apostles; prophets; and evangelists; and pastors and teachers. These gifts are expressions of the Holy Spirit in our lives. It's ok to say I'm called to be an apostle or any other ministry gift. It's also ok to use that as a title however it's not ok to use that title to gain reverence or some special honor. Ministry gifts should be honored but they should not be revered. If you become annoyed when someone does not acknowledge you as a ministry gift it's a good time to stop using the title.


In which US states are Catholic dioceses being investigated for Sexual Abuse?

With this announcement, Wisconsin will join at least 22 other states that have launched investigations into sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and others in position of leadership.

Here are the states which I have been able to narrow down as to date (officially investigations only):

California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington, DC
West Virginia

This list was compiled with the following articles:

22 State AGs Investigating Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church
Even more states have launched investigations into clerical abuse since the Pennsylvania report
Trail of Abuse Leads to Seminary
Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles
Legislature Considers Sex Abuse Investigation Of Catholic Church


How do Wesleyan theologians define omnibenevolence?

As I understand it, this needs to be taken in the context of Arminian/Calvinist debate. Calvin held that God's primary attribute was his sovereignty. All other attributes of God, including his love, must be understood in light of his sovereignty. From this idea springs the entire TULIP paradigm.

Arminius (and Wesley following him) disagreed and held that God's primary attribute was his goodness. All other attributes of God, including his sovereignty, must be understood in light of his goodness. Because God is perfectly good, he can never sin or cause anyone to sin.

This led Arminius and Wesley to reject the "U" ("Unconditional election") of TULIP on the grounds that it implies God is the author of sin. That, in turn, caused them to reject the "I" ("Irresistible grace") because if God doesn't foreordain people to hell, there must be a way for people to reject God's grace and separate themselves from God.

In short, to the extend that Arminian/Wesleyan theology differs from Calvinist teaching, it is due to being grounded in the belief that God's primary attribute is his goodness rather than his sovereignty.


How did Thomas Aquinas view grace as opposed to the church fathers?

First, I must state that I am, by no means, authoritatively/formally trained on the subjects of Thomistic theology, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, nature and grace, or any combination of each.  I only hope that this might be somewhat of a starting point for much more expansion.  This is such a massive subject and could easily fill the pages of many books. I am being as brief as possible with the hope that someone more qualified will (and should) supplement or replace this answer.

Many Church Fathers taught about the relationship between nature and grace, and to compare St. Thomas to individual teachers of the early Church would take a tremendous amount of labor. There are, however, 2 “Champions of Grace” that rise up above the rest in the eyes of both secular and Christian scholars – St. Gregory of Nyssa in the East, and St. Augustine of Hippo in the West.  These 2 Fathers seem to epitomize their own eastern and western schools of thought. St. Gregory was influenced by Origen and St. John Chrysostom, whereas St. Augustine studied under St. Ambrose.

SS. Gregory, Augustine, and Thomas all viewed nature through the “lens” of Aristotle’s “categories.”  However, there are apparently 2 closely related characteristics between SS. Thomas and Augustine that drastically differ from St. Gregory in the East.

Both view Grace and Nature as intertwined due to necessitated contingency.
Both view Nature as corrupt from the fall of Man, and therefore must be redeemed by God’s Grace.

  Gregory, like Aristotle, distinguished between the category of
  substance and the other categories–relation, quality, quantity, place,
  time, action, passion (Categories 1 – 9). In themselves, qualities are
  ideas in the mind of God. But they can also be projected out from God;
  and when that happens, they become visible. Now Gregory observes that
  although we ordinarily speak of these immanent qualities as inhering
  in substances, all we really perceive are the qualities of things, not
  their substances. It is but a short step to the conclusion that a
  physical object is nothing more than the convergence of its qualities.
  Thus matter as such doesn’t really exist; bodies are really just
  “holograms” formed by this convergence of qualities. Consequently
  there is no problem of how an immaterial God could have created a
  material world, for the world isn’t material at all. (1)

St. Gregory explicitly uses the term “energies” to cover those qualities that are immanent in the physical world. Energies are the “powers” and “movements” by which substances are “manifested”; the energy of each thing is its “distinguishing property” (idioma).  Gregory goes so far as to assert that apart from its energies a nature not only cannot be known, but does not even exist.

  Even the inquiry as to that thing in the flesh itself which assumes
  all the corporeal qualities has not been pursued to any definite
  result. For if anyone has made a mental analysis of that which is seen
  into its component parts, and, having stripped the object of its
  qualities, has attempted to consider it by itself, I fail to see what
  will have been left for investigation. For when you take from a body
  its color, its shape, its hardness, its weight, its quantity, its
  position, its forces active or passive, its relation to other objects,
  what remains that can still be called a body, we can neither see of
  ourselves nor are taught by Scripture. . . . Wherefore also, of the
  elements of this world we know only so much by our senses as to enable
  us to receive what they severally supply for our living. But we
  possess no knowledge of their substance . . . . (2)

St. Gregory diverged from SS. Augustine and Thomas by viewing nature as nothing more than “qualities” emanating from the mind of God.  SS. Augustine and Thomas believed that God purposely creates material elements, such as wine, bread and water, to convey supernatural grace.

St. Augustine’s view of Grace was heavily influenced by his correspondence with Pelegius .  Pelegius taught that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, in contrast to 1 Corinthians 15:19-22 (especially verse 22), Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to original sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins.

St. Augustine fought against the Pelegian heresy by developing the doctrine of grace and free will, therefore earning the title, “Doctor of Grace.”  Contrary to what was taught by Pelegius, St. Augustine said that Man’s nature was “at first faultless and without sin,” but through the sin of Adam, became corrupt so that nature was “darkened and weakened.”

  Man's nature, indeed, was created at first faultless and without any
  sin; but that nature of man in which everyone is born from Adam, now
  wants the Physician, because it is not sound. All good qualities, no
  doubt, which it still possesses in its make, life, senses, intellect,
  it has of the Most High God, its Creator and Maker. But the flaw,
  which darkens and weakens all those natural goods, so that it has need
  of illumination and healing, it has not contracted from its blameless
  Creator— but from that original sin, which it committed by free will.
  Accordingly, criminal nature has its part in most righteous
  punishment. For, if we are now newly created in Christ, 2 Corinthians
  5:17 we were, for all that, children of wrath, even as others,
  Ephesians 2:3 but God, who is rich in mercy, for His greatlove
  wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened
  us together with Christ, by whose grace we were saved. Ephesians 2:4-5
  (3)

St. Augustine’s development of grace and nature foreshadowed that of St. Thomas’ in the sense that Man’s nature had to be redeemed.

  This grace, however, of Christ, without which neither infants nor
  adults can be saved, is not rendered for any merits, but is given
  gratis, on account of which it is also called grace. Being justified,
  says the apostle, freely through His blood (Romans 3:24). Whence they,
  who are not liberated through grace, either because they are not yet
  able to hear, or because they are unwilling to obey; or again because
  they did not receive, at the time when they were unable on account of
  youth to hear, that bath of regeneration, which they might have
  received and through which they might have been saved, are indeed
  justly condemned; because they are not without sin, either that which
  they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from
  their own misconduct. For all have sinned— whether in Adam or in
  themselves— and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) (4)

Here, St. Thomas seems to be echoing the Doctor of Grace:

  It is befitting Holy Scripture to put forward divine and spiritual
  truths by means of comparisons with material things.  For God provides
  for everything according to the capacity of its nature.  Now it is
  natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible
  things, because all our knowledge originates from sense. (5)

For a more in-depth exposition on St. Thomas' emphasis on the necessary perfection of nature by grace click here.

Augustine upheld the early Christian understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, saying that Christ's statement, "This is my body" referred to the bread he carried in his hands, and that Christians must have faith that the bread and wine are in fact the body and blood of Christ, despite what they see with their eyes. St. Thomas’ doctrine of Transubstantiation only builds upon and clarifies the importance of the roles of nature and grace propounded by the Western fathers.

In my mind, if there was ever a divergence by St. Thomas from any of the Fathers, it would be due to the trickled down differences of the Eastern and Western Fathers on the subject of substance and matter.  Perhaps if we could look back into the history of the early Church with the Summa Theologica as our guidebook, we would be pointed more in the direction of the West than of the East.

Frank Sheed summarizes the similarities of SS. Thomas and Augustine in his great work Theology and Sanity:

  Religion is the act of man — the whole man, soul and body. It is not
  the act of the soul only, for man is not only soul . . . The
  supernatural does not ignore the natural or substitute something else
  for it. It is built upon or built into the natural. Sanctifying grace
  does not provide us with a new soul; it enters into the soul we
  already have. Nor does it give the soul new faculties but elevates the
  faculties that are already there, giving intellect and will new powers
  of operation. God-as-Sanctifier does not destroy or bypass the work of
  God-as-Creator. What God has created, God sanctifies. (7)

I am, by no means, in a position to make conclusions about the differences and similarities of St. Thomas and the Church Fathers.  However, it appears to me that St. Thomas didn’t fall too far from the Western tree.  He does, in certain passages, seem to echo what St. Augustine taught. Like Augustine and Ambrose before him, St. Thomas further develops the idea that grace does not destroy nature, but efficaciously redeems it.  Both SS. Augustine and Thomas emphasized the necessity of the sacraments, which by definition are natural channels of supernatural Grace.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/
Against Eunomius II [949]
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm.
Hyman, Arthur, and Walsh, James J.  Philosophy in the Middle Ages : The Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Traditions.  Indianapolis:  Hackett Publishing Co., 1973.  Second Edition.
Theology and Sanity, 300-301


How diverse or united is Christian history on the imagery of “Father” and “Son”?

It seems as early as Deuteronomy 32:6 that God is addressed as Father: Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?
Historically, it appears that (at least for people who claimed Christ) that it was gnostics that primarily held a view that God was the Father, the Spirit was the "Mother", and Jesus was the Son. For some background on this an article written by a feminist to support her view of God as "mother" - http://www.womenpriests.org/body/pagels.asp.
Don't know percentages but it appears that Todays NIV and NRSV are the main versions that go the gender neutral route. - http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html
Unfortunately modern liberal protestants in general go this route (of course there are others). I've seen this in the Lutheran Church as well as the Methodist church. They go to great lengths to remove any reference to God as Father. They have changed the Trinity from Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to The Creator, The Redeemer, and the Sustainer. They have changed popular hymns to remove any reference to gender.

Fortunately Scripture is clear on this matter. First we know Jesus was male, secondly Jesus who is the Son, calls God the Father, and calls the Holy Spirit "He". This wasn't just men calling God the Father, but it was Jesus the Son of God and God Himself. We don't have freedom to try to change God's Word, especially when God calls Himself that.

  John 16 5“But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks
  Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6“But because I have said these things to
  you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7“But I tell you the truth, it is
  to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper
  will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8“And He,
  when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness
  and judgment; 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
  10and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no
  longer see Me; 11and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this
  world has been judged.

A good article for reference - http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html


According to the LDS faith, if our spirits lived with God before this life, why is spiritual birth during life on earth required?

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what death is. Death is separation, not ceasing to exist. Spiritual birth is required because of spiritual death.

spiritual death- separation from God (the first source is the Fall and the second is our own disobedience)
physical death- separation of the spirit from the body

Both deaths came because of the Fall, and both are overcome through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. See also

Helaman 14:16 - the Fall brought about both kinds of death
1 Corinthians 15:20-22 - the Fall brought death, through Christ we are made alive

Romans 8:6-7 on spiritual death

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Being carnally minded leads to sin, or to disobey God. See also

Mosiah 3:19 - natural man is enemy to God

Being righteous means we are born of God.

1 John 2:29

  If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

On being spiritually reborn, see also

John 3:3-6 - baptism is part of spiritual rebirth
2 Corinthians 5:17 - new person in Christ
1 John 3:9 - born of God when don't commit sin

In your first paragraph, you mention lots of thoughts or beliefs that you seem unsure of, there are many scriptures that let us know that we lived with God before we were here on earth and that we are his children. Also know that the Doctrine & Covenants, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price all contain principles of the gospel that are restored truths (and so are not completely or at all in just the Bible, that's why all are considered scripture).

Pre-earth life

Moses 3:5 - God created us in heaven
Romans 11:2 - he foreknew man
Doc&Cov 138:56 - received lesson before coming to earth

Children of God

Acts 17:29 - offspring of God
Romans 8:14-17 - children of God (read the next few verses, and verse 14 is about being heirs of God)


Which Christian traditions value the Gospels more than the Epistles?

The various "New Church" denominations that follow the teachings and Bible interpretations written by Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) give much greater weight to the Gospels (and the book of Revelation) than to the Acts and the Epistles.

As explained in my answer to the question, "What writings are held as 'biblical canon' by Swedenborgians?," in the New Testament, Swedenborg viewed only the four Gospels and the book of Revelation as part of the inspired Word of God. The remaining books in the New Testament he said were "good books of the church," but inspired more in the way that the Holy Spirit inspires a preacher when preaching based on the Word of God.

Because of this belief, Swedenborg based his Christian theology primarily on the Gospels and the book of Revelation (in the New Testament), and only secondarily on the Acts and the Epistles. Swedenborgians have generally followed suit.

Having said that, both Swedenborg himself and various Swedenborgian theologians do also quote from the Acts and the Epistles in supporting and explaining their theology. Swedenborg stated that these books, when rightly understood, also support his theology.


The Mark 16:15 Command as Practiced by the Apostles

This is what we can ascertain from histories, letters and other documents:

JUDAS - Committed suicide a few hours before the death of Jesus

JAMES (son of Zebbadee) - Killed in AD44 by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-2)

SIMON ZEOLTES - May have preached from Egypt to Libya but this information is only available through tradition

PETER - There is not much certainty in what happened to Peter. Much of what is "known" comes from church tradition. We do know that he escaped from prison in Judea (Acts 12:17), and went to Antioch where he was confronted by Paul (Gal 2:11). After that, he may have gone to Corinth (1 Cor 1:12). After that, second Century writers such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria say Peter went to Rome where he was crucified (in AD64, according to church tradition)

ANDREW (brother of Peter) - Eusebius quotes Origen (Church History 3.1) that Andrew taught in Scythia (Southern Russia and the "Stan" states into northern Iran). Nestor says Andrew preached into Kiev (Ukraine). Hippolytus says Andrew also preached in Thrace (modern day Bulgaria, eastern Greece) and founded the church in Byzantium. Andrew is the patron saint to Ukraine, Romania, and Russia.

MATTHEW - Irenaeus and Clement both record that he preached in Judea "and then went to other countries" but no mention of what specific other countries.

THOMAS - Eusebius states Thomas traveled to Parthia (northeastern Iran). Fourth century writings say Thomas sailed to India and spread Christianity there until his death.

Of the others, no definitive information is available.


Where and/or when did the tradition that Methuselah died seven days before the Flood (for a period of mourning) originate?

Not all extant versions of the Book of Genesis say that Methuselah died the year of the Flood. Wikipedia gives the following:

In the Masoretic text, he died at 969, in the year of the Flood
Septuagint (Alexandrinus), he died at 969, six years before the Flood
Septuagint (Vaticanus), he died at 969, fourteen years after the Flood
Samaritan text, he died at 720 years, in the year of the Flood

Of these, only the Masoretic text and the Samaritan text have Methuselah die in the year of the Flood. I believe the Samaritan text is not original, because neither his age when his son was born (67 years) nor his age at death is divisible by the 'magic' number 17, whereas in the Masoretic they are.

The Septuagint (Vaticanus) can be ruled out because there is no mention of Methuselah on the ark, and he could not have survived otherwise. This seems a pious attempt to avoid the appearance that a righteous man died in the Flood. The Septuagint (Alexandrinus) is technically possible, but is more likely another pious attempt to avoid the appearance that a righteous man died in the Flood. So, the Masoretic text is probably original.

Wilfred Shuchat explains in The Creation According to the Midrash Rabbah, page 124, that according to this midrash, the Flood was delayed by seven days to allow a period of mourning for Methuselah. Midrashim are a Jewish method of interpreting biblical stories, and were written down in the early centuries CE.


What is the Biblical Basis for a Good person going to hell simply for not believing?

Romans 3:23 (NIV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
  God

No one is righteous. Better is not enough. God demands 100% holiness. No one can achieve that. Therefore, we need the Blood of Jesus Christ. Only in Jesus, can we have salvation.

  Romans 5:12 (NIV) Therefore, just as sin
  entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this
  way death came to all people, because all sinned—

We are all doomed to go to Hell whether we like it or not, whether we are better than others or not. Jesus died for us so that by believing in his death and resurrection, we may be saved.

For this reason Christians are given the command to preach the Gospel to the whole world.

  Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV)
  19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and
  teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am
  with you always, to the very end of the age.”


Does the Catholic church today require for you to pay taxes?

What a great question. The answer depends very much on what church we are talking about, where you are in the world, and what we mean by 'require'.

Let's consider the slightly different question: "Can churches legally enforce the collection of taxes for themselves". The answer is strictly no. There is nowhere in the world where churches can collect taxes. However, in some parts of the world the government will collect taxes on behalf of the church. The rate is set by the government and not the church, and is usually quite low. Germany, Italy and Sweden are among the countries that do that. Wikipedia has a page on the subject if you want more details.

As well as that there are some churches that require their members to pay some fixed contribution towards the church. The Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) is an example. They cannot legally enforce this, but they can, and do, remove some membership privileges from anyone who does not pay 10% of their income.

Those examples aside, most churches get their income from voluntary donations, mostly from their members. Some strongly encourage their members to give a fixed percentage of income (usually 10%) but most allow people to give whatever they feel is right. There is good biblical justification for this approach.


According to proponents of transubstantiation, in what sense is Jesus present "where two or three are gathered"?

Although you are directing your question specifically towards Roman Catholics, I would point out that Eastern Orthodox also believe in transubstantiation as you define it, although different terms are sometimes used.  So I will also comment on your question from an Eastern Orthodox perspective (to the best of my ability, God being my helper).

In answer to your title question, "According to proponents of transubstantiation, in what sense is Jesus present 'where two or three are gathered'?", I would say that this verse (Matthew 18:20) is not related to transubstantiation, so that the answer to the actual question, "In what sense is Jesus present 'where two or three are gathered'?", does not depend on any doctrine concerning transubstantiation.

It is important to realize that Matthew 18:20 is part of a broader set of instructions that the Lord gives specifically to the Apostles.  These begin with His instruction that if a brother who has sinned against one will not accept admonishment from the one he sinned against, with witnesses if necessary, then he is to be taken to the Church (Matthew 18:15-17), where whatever the Apostles declare regarding the matter shall also be bound in heaven (Matthew 18:18).  Verses 19 and 20 are a continuation of verse 18:

  Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.For where two or
  three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Many contemporary Christians in the Protestant tradition argue that there is no need for any formal "Church", because of what the Lord says Matthew 18:20.  I have heard it said, for example, "I had coffee with another Christian.  We just had Church."  This ignores, however, the context that the Lord set, as witnessed in the previous five verses.

The misinterpretation of this passage is not new.  In the 3rd century, Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

  Nor let any deceive themselves by a futile interpretation, in respect
  of the Lord having said, “Wheresoever two or three are gathered
  together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Corrupters and
  false interpreters of the Gospel quote the last words, and lay aside
  the former ones, remembering part, and craftily suppressing part: as
  they themselves are separated from the Church, so they cut off the
  substance of one section. For the Lord, when He would urge unanimity
  and peace upon His disciples, said, “I say unto you, That if two of
  you shall agree on earth touching anything that ye shall ask, it shall
  be given you by my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or
  three are gathered together in my name, I am with them;” showing that
  most is given, not to the multitude, but to the unanimity of those
  that pray. “If,” He says, “two of you shall agree on earth:” He placed
  agreement first; He has made the concord of peace a prerequisite; He
  taught that we should agree firmly and faithfully. But how can he
  agree with any one who does not agree with the body of the Church
  itself, and with the universal brotherhood? How can two or three be
  assembled together in Christ’s name, who, it is evident, are separated
  from Christ and from His Gospel? For we have not withdrawn from them,
  but they from us; and since heresies and schisms have risen
  subsequently, from their establishment for themselves of diverse
  places of worship, they have forsaken the Head and Source of the
  truth. But the Lord speaks concerning His Church, and to those also
  who are in the Church He speaks, that if they are in agreement, if
  according to what He commanded and admonished, although only two or
  three gathered together with unanimity should pray—though they be only
  two or three—they may obtain from the majesty of God what they ask.
  “Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I,” says
  He, “am with them;” that is, with the simple and peaceable—with those
  who fear God and keep God’s commandments. With these, although only
  two or three, He said that He was, in the same manner as He was with
  the three youths in the fiery furnace; and because they abode towards
  God in simplicity, and in unanimity among themselves, He animated
  them, in the midst of the surrounding flames, with the breath of dew:
  in the way in which, with the two apostles shut up in prison, because
  they were simple-minded and of one mind, He Himself was present; He
  Himself, having loosed the bolts of the dungeon, placed them again in
  the market-place, that they might declare to the multitude the word
  which they faithfully preached. When, therefore, in His commandments
  He lays it down, and says, “Where two or three are gathered together
  in my name, I am with them,” He does not divide men from the Church,
  seeing that He Himself ordained and made the Church; but rebuking the
  faithless for their discord, and commending peace by His word to the
  faithful, He shows that He is rather with two or three who pray with
  one mind, than with a great many who differ, and that more can be
  obtained by the concordant prayer of a few, than by the discordant
  supplication of many.

In answer to the summary question, "in what way is Christ present where two or three are gathered – physically or through his Spirit?", I think that would depend on whether the Eucharist was being celebrated or not as well as, most importantly, the will of God.  God being God, He could make Himself physically present at will, and has in the past, as Cyprian recounts in the story of the three holy children (although He was not recognized at the time).  But in the context of the "transubstantiation", I would say that we only expect the Lord to be physically present in the form of His Body and Blood at the Eucharist.  In other words, it is not the two or three gathering together in His name that effects His physical presence, but rather the epiclesis during the Divine Liturgy - the point at which the priest (or hierarch) prays the same words used by the Orthodox Church since at least the fourth century: "Make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ; and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit" (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom).


If God were going to send another Biblical flood, would He warn us?

The question seems to assume the Genesis account is literal, so I'll answer from the YEC view, which assumes it's literal.

The usual disclaimer - not all denominations assume the Genesis account is actual history, I'm just answering as if it is, since the question seems to be looking for that viewpoint.

From Genesis 9 (KJV)

  And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And
  I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after
  you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl,
  of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that
  go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will
  establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any
  more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood
  to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the
  covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature
  that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in
  the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and
  the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over
  the earth, that the  bow shall be seen in the cloud:

In the above passage, God promised to never send another flood.  Therefore, if God cannot lie, there is no chance of Him flooding the earth, so it would be futile to ponder whether He would tell us ahead of time.

However.. God HAS promised that He will judge the earth in the future.

From Revelation 21 (KJV)

  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the
  first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John
  saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven,
  prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great
  voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men,
  and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God
  himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away
  all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither
  sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the
  former things are passed away.

2 Peter 3:10 even says how it will happen. It will be with great heat, not water. (Again, KJV)

  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
  which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
  shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are
  therein shall be burned up.

So, we can say that if God were to destroy the earth, He would warn us - because He already has.


Source for this alleged quote from Martin Luther?

I've seen the meme's on the Googles, but I think with a little extra foo (a partial search) I found the source:

In the Apostolic Creed we confess: "I believe in the holy Christian* Church." That means, I believe that there is no sin, no curse, no evil in the Church of God. Faith says: "I believe that." But if you want to believe your eyes you will find many shortcomings and offenses in the members of the holy Church. You see them succumb to temptation, you see them weak in faith, you see them giving way to anger, envy, and other evil dispositions. "How can the Church be holy?" you ask. It is with the Christian Church as it is with the individual Christian. If I examine myself I find enough unholiness to shock me. But when I look at Christ in me I find that I am altogether holy. And so it is with the Church.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians - 1535

That's a commentary on Galatians 3: verse 13. Which Luther quotes in the same text as:

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.

* is there a creed that says "holy Christian church"?


Is reference to "God" as a rock unique to Judeo-Christian usage?

I'm unsure of other religions, but regarding Christianity today, the Bible tells us

  "Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and
  declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed
  there is no other Rock; I know not one. (Isaiah 44:8)

So when Jesus says

  "on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not
  prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

The gates of Hades did not prevail against Jesus, He is the Rock, sinless and risen! Many Christian denominations today still consider Jesus the rock.  Popular hymns written long ago such as "Rock of Ages" also show that individuals many years ago saw this as true.


Is Deism in Christianity possible? If so, what does it look like?

The answer is no, Deism cannot be reconciled with Christianity; they are 2 very different theological philosophies.

Deism is a metaphysical philosophy which acknowledges the existence of a single God who has served and continues to serve as the indispensable foundation for existence or perhaps as the Origin of Existence.  The Deistic God is outside the realm of physical and specifically, human activity and is therefore impersonal, as well as lacking the characteristics of personification.  (Even referring to the Deistic God, as "He", is actually incorrect and instead, the use of the word, "It", is more consistent with its true definition and meaning).  I would argue that Deism probably has a much closer intellectual connection with Aristotle's, "Metaphysics" than with the Christian God-(or Theism in general).

(Note: I am a member of the History Stack Exchange).


Do any Christian denominations consider it not sinful to commit suicide in order to donate organs? If so, why?

I'm adressing the following question :

If you commit suicide but at the same time donate your organs to save others, is that sinful or not?

For the Catholic Church, this is very sinful. Below are some exerpts of the Cathechism on the moralty of human acts :

A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

"An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

This teaching is in accordance with saint Paul's writtings :

And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just. (Romans 3:8)


How do I verbalize "Lesson: 1 John 4:7-21"?

The most commonly accepted short form of verbalizing the references for numbered books of the Bible is:

  Today's Bible reading is from first/second/third [book name], chapter 2, verses 1 through 5.

Also common, but frowned upon and even laughed at by some, is:

  Today's Bible reading is from one/two/three [book name], chapter 2, verses 1 through 5.

If it's a numbered Epistle, I prefer to be a little more descriptive for listeners who are not so familiar with the Bible and its books.

For Epistles named for their author (1 & 2 Peter; 1, 2, & 3 John):

  Today's Bible reading is from the first/second/third epistle/letter of [epistle name], chapter 2, verses 1 through 5.

For Epistles named for their recipients:

If the recipient is an individual (1 & 2 Timothy):

  Today's Bible reading is from the first/second epistle/letter to [epistle name], chapter 2, verses 1 through 5.

If the recipient is a group (1 & 2 Corinthians; 1 & 2 Thessalonians):

  Today's Bible reading is from the first/second epistle/letter to the [epistle name], chapter 2, verses 1 through 5.


Acts 11:26 regarding the word Christian?

Strictly speaking, the reference in Acts is to "disciples" (μαθητὰς) and not "believers" (πιστεύοντες), though the latter word seems to be used elsewhere synonymously in Acts (e.g. 5:14).

The Greek literally says (in different word order) "the disciples were called first Christians" (χρηματισαι τε πρωτον ... τους μαθητας χριστιανους).  Perhaps it may be true that the Christians called themselves Christians, but the Greek text does not supply the reflexive (i.e. "the disciples called themselves Christians").

It seems that even after the disciples/believers were called "Christians", it was still more common to refer to them as those who were of "the Way" (e.g. 19:9, 19:23, 24:14, 24:22).  This is also found in The Didache (English translation here), where the essentials of a Christian life are described as "The Way of life".  The word "Christian" (Χριστιανός) only appears three times in the entire New Testament (including the passage cited; the other two are Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16).  It is even rare in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, where it only appears 5 times (once in Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians, once in the Epistle concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, and 3 times in the Epistle to Diognetus).


What is or are the mechanism(s) behind the naming conventions for a church building or organization?

Catholic Parishes are faith communities named after a Catholic Saint; a combination of Saijts whose names appear together in the Liturgy of the Mass; a title of Our Lady;  or a title of the Holy Trinity.

Examples:

St. Augustine Parish
Sts. Pepetua and Felicity Parish
Holy Mother of Consolation Parish
Divine Mercy Parish


Where is it documented that some people didn't want Gospel of John to be included as canonical?

The pushback against the Gospel of John has been in force nearly from the beginnings of Christianity.  It began with Marcion’s total rejection of the Book as too “Jewish”.  Tertullian and others prevailed that it was part of the Christian Canon.  Yet there remained that underlying feeling.  Some focused on a key discrepancy between John and Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  This dilemma surfaced in 155 between Asia Minor and Rome, at Nicea, and then at the Great Schism.  It finally erupted again forcefully in the 19th century out from the Tubingen School of Theology.

This primary problem that led from outright rejection to included suspicion was the so-called “contradiction” between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) over the day and date of the death of Christ.  The Synoptics say Christ ate the Passover before His crucifixion (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:15), while John states Passover is after His crucifixion (John 18:28).

CONTRADICTION

Marcion taught about the year 144 CE in Rome.  He emphatically tried to separate the old Jewish ideas from the new Christians ideas as he interpreted Pauline theology and the Passover.  He rejected all of the Hebrew Bible and most of what we consider to be the 27 books of the New Testament writings.  He excluded the Gospel of John as too “Jewish” for example.  In his much abbreviated canon, he included some of Luke’s Gospel and 10 of the 13 Pauline epistles.

From about the same time, there arose a dispute in the Church over the “contradiction”.  Asia Minor was following John’s chronology, while Rome was following the Synoptic timeline.  This Passover argument surfaced first between Polycarp and Anicetus of Rome and then with Polycrates and Victor of Rome.  Although they finally settled on the days and dates (Friday the 15th of Nisan) as the day of death at Nicaea, the issue, not being actually solved, bubbled along under the surface.  They had succeeded in enforcing a view, but were not able to solve the riddle of the contradiction.  It was the contributing cause to the schism in 1054.

While Marcion’s heresy and canon came and went in its season, the Tubingen teaching has been more pernicious, pervasive, and problematic.  After all, by this time, we had found out that the emperor had no clothes on.  Everyone can read and interpret the Gospels, note the contradictions, and come to so-called solutions.  Eventually this one book challenge morphed into the modern era of questioning the veracity and inerrancy of the Bible as a whole.

We could have seen it coming.  How can truth contradict itself?  The founding professor of the Tubingen School was F.C. Baur a German Protestant.  His two primary pupils were Adolf Hilgenfeld and Albert Schwegler.  They too were perplexed about the contradiction so-called about the historic Passover events.  Did Christ use leavened or unleavened bread?  Unable to reconcile the problem, their solution was to question the authenticity of the Gospel of John.

To be clear, unlike Marcion at the beginning, the Tubingen argument did not form around whether the Gospel of John should or should not be in the Canon, but it was directed rather at its author; that is, they taught that the Gospel of John was not and could not have been written by John the Apostle of Christ.  It was a later, idealized tome written by someone unknown.

SOLUTIONS

How does one reconcile this foundational, yet persistently divisive teaching?  For those at Nicea, it was to use Constantine as the enforcer of one’s view.  Doesn’t matter what John the Apostle taught.  At the Great Schism, mutual anathemas were pronounced.  Doesn’t matter what the other taught.  For the Tubingen School, it was to explain that the Gospel of John was not written by the eyewitness Apostle John, but rather later by an unknown someone in order to spiritualize the meanings of Passover as fulfilled in Christ.

Suffice to say that no solution, including ridding our Canon of John or undermining the Biblical eyewitness accounts, has been satisfactorily presented, but this is not to say one does not yet exist.

CONCLUSION

The problem of the Gospel of John lies in its supposed contradictions from the Synoptic Gospels over precisely when Christ observed the Passover and died and was thus resurrected.  To the OP, yes some have tried to exclude the book.  Others essentially “exclude” the parts beyond their understanding.  Others dismiss it as a later interpolation to explain spiritual matters, rather than view it as a recording of historical actual events.

For some others, we view the author as an historic eyewitness to the Last Supper (aka Passover).

REFERENCES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.i.html

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/tubingen.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur

https://archive.org/stream/churchhistoryoff01baur#page/174/mode/2up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Bernhard_Christoph_Hilgenfeld

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schwegler

https://www.amazon.com/Tubingen-School-Historical-Theological-Investigation/dp/0801043441


What is the significance of Matthew starting with the names of the ancestors of Jesus?

There are several lessons to be drawn from this genealogy.  One of my personal favorites is the four women mentioned: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Mary.  Each of these women's stories is mentioned in Scripture, and each has a less than stellar reputation.

To wit:

Tamar played the part of a prostitute, and got her father-in-law to impregnante her, although she was justified in doing so.
Rahab was a prostitute, and says as much.
Ruth was at very least very, very forward with Boaz.  When she "uncovers his feet," there is at least the possibility of reading the euphemistic idea of feet as saying that Ruth seduced Boaz by sleeping with him.
Mary was pure, but to the outside world, she looked like an unwed mother.

Even beyond the women, Jesus takes the good and the bad. Yes, David was good and Solomon was wise - but Manesseh's evil was equally on display. Being God, it is not just "an accident of nature." God chose each and every one of these - good and bad alike - to be his forefathers and foremothers. He came to seek and save everyone. He came to seek and save the lost.

Here's the idea - these were not all the pure Queens and noble Kings that the world looks upon.  Prompted by the Holy Spirit, Matthew included some awfully shady seeming characters.  Why? Because the God who became Man came for precisely this kind of person!  Jesus was a King - he was descended from David. But he was not aloof. He came to seek and save even people like this!


Under Catholic dogma can someone publicly rebuke the Pope like Paul rebuked Peter?

This question, and the evidence of the Galatians passage, was hotly contested by mediaeval  theologians and canonists, especially during the Western Schism (when there were up to three simultaneous papal claimants). It certainly seems to show that dissent is possible, and that an individual Pope might not always practice what he preaches.
Beyond ordinary criticism of a particular Pope, the passage was read in the context of an ongoing debate about papal fallibility and power. A rebuke might imply the ability to censure or even remove a Pope. It was generally accepted that there was no regular authority which could judge the Pope - any such tribunal would be ipso facto superior to him if it could command his obedience. Some believed that a general council could do it in an emergency, as a special exception; the council might possess some kind of legitimacy as a representative assembly of the church, even if it was not convened by the Pope himself. The college of cardinals was another possibility, for the same reason, and because of its direct institutional association with the Holy See.
The scope of this emergency power was probably imagined as being limited to two cases:

Heresy
Manifest grave crimes (including acts destructive of the constitution of the Church, the classic hypothetical being a Pope who tried to depose all bishops in order to cut off the apostolic succession)

For the first, the point is that heretics are automatically excommunicated, and also forfeit any church office they might have held. The influential canon lawyer Huguccio of Pisa argued that cases of papal heresy should be treated differently, depending on whether the Pope has fallen into an old heresy (already anathematized by a general council, etc.) or a new one (in which case the Pope could not be automatically removed). The other case distinguishes manifest crimes from clandestine ones. Legally, the idea is that if the crime is public knowledge, then the question of a trial does not arise, obviating the need for a Pope to be judged by another authority at all. In such cases, there may be some "declaratory" action by the college of cardinals (say) which amounts to recognizing that the Pope has forfeited his office, rather than them actually ordering his removal.
Contemporary canon law does not allow a general council to be constituted except by papal authority (CIC 338 §1), and does not give any express power to anyone to declare that a Pope has forfeited the papacy. It has recently been demonstrated that a Pope can resign of his own accord. Automatic excommunication for heresy is still applicable to the Pope, according to some commentators - although this is very much a hypothetical. The argument is that although the Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, and the final interpreter of its law - therefore potentially able to exempt himself from the juridical consequences of heresy - he only has authority to legislate or interpret according to divine law. God's law (in this interpretation) does not permit a heretic to be in charge of the Church.
The Galatians case touches the "heresy" idea. Early commentators questioned the extent to which the disagreement here might be counted as heresy, and its relation to the Petrine office. It was agreed that the Pope did not teach with his supreme authority in all circumstances, and in particular, he could have legitimate scholarly or theological disagreements without any question of heresy arising for either party. (Good news for the theologians!) This is obviously an attractive option in reading the interaction between Peter and Paul, because neither of them are doing wrong. Jerome even suggested that the disagreement might have been staged (Commentarium in Epistolam Beati Pauli ad Galatas; in Migne's Patrologia Latina vol. 26). In any case, this kind of rebuke does not necessarily amount to bringing down the full force of anathema on an errant Pope.
For the Church today, the relevant law is Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

This should obviously be read in combination with an understanding of what the Church teaches about its own Magisterium, including the differentiated roles of the Pope, the bishops, etc. See especially canons 747-755 on the obligation to respect the authentic doctrine that the Church expounds. But the basic tenor is that people are bound to follow the teaching of the Church and respect its discipline, but can still make their opinions known if they are doing it in an orderly way. This does not amount to license to contradict the established doctrine of the Church. Publicly denouncing the Pope on the steps of St Peter's with a megaphone - no. Polite conversation, writing scholarly articles, and so on - yes.
As Paul Clayton mentions in comments below, the Pope also has a regular confessor, who has a specific duty in the examination of his conscience. This creates a situation where he could be rebuked for sinful behaviour, though obviously in private. His advisors, especially the cardinals, could also raise concerns in a discreet way (as opposed to calling him out in public).

References and further reading
The Church, the Councils and Reform: The Legacy of the Fifteenth Century. Gerald Christianson, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Christopher M. Bellitto (eds.). Catholic University of America Press, 2008.
Fallibility instead of infallibility? A brief history of the interpretation of Galatians 2:11-14. Karlfried Froehlich. In: Teaching Authority and Infallibility of the Church, ed. Paul C. Empie, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess. Augsburg Fortress, 1980.
The Bible in Medieval Tradition: The Letter to the Galatians. Ian Christopher Levy. Wm. Eerdmans, 2011.
St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. J. B. Lightfoot. Warren F. Draper, 1870.
Foundations of the Conciliar Theory. Brian Tierney. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350. Brian Tierney. Brill, 1972.


Is there a customary way to go around rosary beads?

Either direction is acceptable

This might be semi-authoritative since it comes straight from the only approved Marian apparition site in the United States. Up near Green Bay, Wisconsin there is an outdoor rosary walk with the mysteries visible for people who traverse in a right-hand or left-hand direction.

For instance, when you walk around clockwise, you see 1st glorious mystery, 1st luminous. Etc... On a big banner, but if you look at the backside of the banner, its got 5th glorious, 5th luminous, etc... So no matter whether you walk around clockwise or counter-clockwise, you will see the mysteries in their proper order. Which I remarked to my wife, "that's mighty clever, those Catholics are always thinking..."


From an LDS perspective, what is an Unclean Spirit?

Unclean spirits are those spirit children of God who kept not their first estate, which refers to the life before earth life. All men and women lived with God as his spirit children before coming to the earth as mortal beings. Those who kept their first estate were rewarded with a chance to live on Earth, receive a mortal body, be resurrected, and obtain salvation. Those who keep their second estate (on Earth) shall be exalted. Unclean Spirits, or Evil spirits, are those who did not keep their first estate, and will never receive a mortal body.

The Book of Abraham gives us the most detailed information about our life before the creation of the Earth:

  22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that
  were organized before the world was; and among all these there were
  many of the noble and great ones;

  23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the
  midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood
  among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he
  said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before
  thou wast born.

  24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said
  unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space
  there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth
  whereon these may dwell;

  25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things
  whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

  26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they
  who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same
  kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep
  their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever
  and ever.

  27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto
  the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said:
  Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

  28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at
  that day, many followed after him.

That second angel, who was angry, and kept not is first estate, was Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, and those who followed after him; that third part who of the host of heaven who will never have a body of their own, and shall be cast our into outer darkness.

  3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red
  dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his
  heads.

  4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did
  cast them to the earth: (Revelations 12:3-4)

  ...for, behold, the devil [...] rebelled against me, saying, Give me
  thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of
  heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; And they were
  thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels; (Doctrine and
  Covenants 29:36-37)

  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their
  own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness
  unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6)


How many mortal sins did/does Satan do? Did Satan commit just one mortal sin?

Satan lost sanctifying grace by committing the sin of pride alone (not envy,  disobedience, or any other sin; cf. Hugon, O.P., Tractatus Dogmatici vol. 1 p. 693, PDF p. 353).
Suárez's De angelis lib. 7 cap. 15 (pp. 897-910) goes into much depth regarding the question of "Whether, besides pride, Lucifer committed other sins in via" and whether these were "by diverse acts or by diverse ill-wills of the same [act]."

Does the number of mortal sins increase as he tempts people to commit sin?

cf. Summa Theologica I q. 63 a. 2 "Whether only the sin of pride and envy can exist in an angel?" co.:

omnia peccata in Dæmonibus esse contingit, quia dum homines ad omnia peccata inducunt, omnium peccatorum reatum incurrunt.
all sins are in the demons; since by leading men to sin they incur the guilt of all sins.


On the topic of marriage in heaven, how does the LDS church reconcile Matthew 22:23-33?

It's important to understand who 'they' refer to. From verse 23 we know the Lord is talking directly to the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection. They were asking a question to bait/trap the Lord in contradicting Moses, the lawgiver (see Deut 25:5-10). Remember this question is about what happens in the resurrection when the Sadducees don't even believe in the resurrection (see vs 23). The Savior effectively dismissed their question on marriage by stating that in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven(vs 30). Jesus is trying to turn to the important issue of the Sadducee's unbelief in the resurrection (see vs 31-32).

So here are some important points on the Lord's statement:

First, we see that it was made in response to an attempt by the Sadducees to trap the Lord. Consequently, it would not have been the Lord’s final word on the subject. Why should the Lord scatter pearls before them that they would only trample underfoot?
Second, the Lord did not say there would be no people in the married state in the resurrection, but that there would be no marriages made in the resurrection.
Third, we must be clear about the “they” who are neither marrying nor being given in marriage. The context of the scriptures just cited suggests a generic rather than a specific meaning. Simply put, that means no marriages are made in the resurrection. The Lord was warning the Sadducees. They were Jews of the day who had rejected him and therefore had no access to the higher ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood. How could these men, whom Jesus had called a “generation of vipers” (Matt. 3:7), qualify for the highest blessings of the celestial kingdom?
The Lord has previously, and we believe has again in this day, given the power to bind on earth and in heaven (Matt. 16:19, Doc&Cov 132:19)

Joseph Smith has said:

  “A man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife in this world, or he will have no claim on her in the next.
  “No man can obtain an eternal blessing unless the contract or covenant be made in view of eternity. All contracts in view of this life only terminate with this life. [Such is the] case of the woman and seven husbands. Those who keep no eternal law in this life or make no eternal contract are single and alone in the eternal world and are only made angels to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation, never becoming sons of God, having never kept the law of God, that is, eternal law.” (emphasis added, in this answer referencing Sadducees who did not live the new law that Jesus taught)

Similarly, Joseph Fielding Smith said:

  “So here we have the true understanding of the Savior’s answer to the Sadducees. If by any chance, any who believed as they believed, and therefore were married for time only, proved worthy to obtain that world, that is the kingdom of God, they would have to enter there separate and singly to become servants-angels-to wait on those who were worthy of the exaltation. These Sadducees who might be worthy of a place in that kingdom would be in exactly the same condition that members of the Church of Jesus Christ will find themselves, if they likewise, have been content with a civil union only.” (emphasis added)

On marrying, James E Talmage sums up the answer by saying:

  “In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.”

References/See also

Ensign 1986- 2nd article (heavily referenced)
Matt 19:4-7- Jesus taught Pharisee, who believe in resurrection, about marriage
Doesn't Matthew contradict Eternal Marriage- answer to a similar question
Joseph Smith's Commentary on the Bible, pg 125
Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 5, pg 118
Jesus the Christ chapter 31

--EDIT--

Specifically, on the topic of eternal marriage, the LDS believe that when a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever. The article you mention says:

  Mormons assert that for a celestial marriage to occur, several key steps must be followed. First, the man and woman must be sealed, or bound, by one holding the authority of God to perform such sealings, which can only take place in Mormon temples. Second, the couple must seek, with all their hearts, to individually and jointly follow Jesus Christ. Third, the sealing must be confirmed by God through His Spirit.

Biblical basis of sealing/binding power is seen in Matt 16:19 where Jesus Christ gives Simon the power to bind on earth and in heaven. The LDS believe that that authority was lost during the apostasy and has been restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. (see also Eccl 3:14, Mark 10:9, Matt 28:18)

Eternal marriage is another doctrine that central to God's plan. Matt 19:4-7 says, What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. When a man and woman are sealed together in the temple the LDS believe they are sealed eternally, that their marriage isn't til death but will last forever. (See also 1 Cor 11:11, Ephesians 5:31)


Is this distinction of biblical "love" terminology compatible with scripture?

The commonly held understanding is partially correct, but overstated.  In reality, the semantic range of the words is broader.

Agape

It is true that the words ἀγαπάω (agapaó) and ἀγάπη (agapé) came to mean something like "the highest form of love," but this was primarily due later Christian usage of the term.  At the time of the New Testament's writing, the word had a broad semantic range, not all that different than the modern English word love.  A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG), lists the following meanings (italics are suggested glosses; definitions [numbers] are direct quotes; usages [letters] are summaries):

  ἀγαπάω (verb)

  to have warm regard for and interest in another, cherish, have affection for, love

  a. by humans - toward other humans (in a variety of fashions) or toward God/Jesus as an act of special devotion

  b. by transcendent beings - toward ordinary humans or toward other transcendent beings
  to have high esteem for or satisfaction with something, take pleasure in
  to practice/express love, prove one's love

  ἀγάπη (noun)

  the quality of warm regard for and interest in another, esteem, affection, regard, love

  a. of human love - without an object (i.e. an abstract trait), toward an impersonal object, toward human beings, toward God/Jesus

  b. of God/Jesus - toward humans, referring to the relationship between God and Christ
  a common meal eat by early Christians in connection with their worship, for the purpose of fostering and expressing mutual affection and concern, fellowship meal, a love-feast

From these definitions, it should be clear that it is not a technical term reserved exclusively for "Christian love."  This can also be seen plainly by its use in Luke 6:32:

  If you love (ἀγαπᾶτε) those who love (ἀγαπῶντας) you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love (ἀγαπῶσιν) those who love (ἀγαπῶντας) them. (ESV)

If "sinners" are capable of this love, it cannot be something reserved to true believers.

Additionally, BDAG lists various non-Biblical usages of the verb to describe, for instance, love for fellow humans.  The noun form is rare outside of the Bible, although sufficient examples exist to show it did not generally have a special religious significance.  The reason it is rare is that it had a "colloquial flavor," which written works generally seek to avoid.

Philos

The words φιλέω (phileó) and φίλος (philos) have a similar semantic range.  Indeed, φιλέω was the normal verb for many kinds of love in ancient times, but gradually lost ground to ἀγαπάω in most contexts.  It does not, however, normally refer to romantic love. BDAG lists the following meanings:

  φιλέω (verb)

  to have a special interest in someone or something, frequently with focus on close association, have affection for, like, consider someone a friend

  a. in regards to people - usually literal relatives extra-Biblically; to describe the relationship between believers in the Bible; occasionally, God's relationship to believers

  b. in regards to things

  c. informally to mean "like/love to do something"
  to kiss as a special indication of affection, kiss

φίλος (noun)

  pertaining to having a special interest in someone, beloved, dear, and actively loving, kindly disposed, devoted
  substantively, one who is on intimate terms or in close association with another,

  a. friend - literally or "in a special sense" (for example, fulfilling a specific role - see John 3:29)

  b. woman friend (similar to the way a contemporary woman might use "girlfriends")

Eros and Storge

Ancient Greek has two other word sets sometimes associated the word English word love: ἐράω (eraō) / ἔρως (érōs) and στέργω (stérgō) / στοργή (storgḗ).  Neither occurs in the New Testament, so the BDAG entries are short.  (The words do appear in the Septuagint, however.) The entries in A Greek-English Lexicon (LSJ) list the following meanings:

  ἐράω (verb)

  love, property of the sexual passion; to be in love with
  without sexual reference, love warmly
  love or desire passionately

  ἔρως (noun)

  a. love, mostly of the sexual passion; love for one; generally, love of a thing; desires

  b. object of love or desire

  c. passionate joy
  the god of love
  at Nicaea, a funeral wreath
  name of the κλῆρος Ἀφροδίτης

  στέργω (verb)

  a. love, feel affection, freq. of the mutual love of parents and children; also used in similar authority-subject relationships such as ruler-people or master-dog

  b. less freq. of the love of husband and wife; also other near equal relationships such as siblings or friends

  c. seldom of sexual love
  generally, to be fond of, show affection for
  to be content or satisfied, acquiesce
  desire, entreat

  στοργή (noun)

  love, affection, esp. of parents and children
  rarely sexual love

As the above entries show, these words too have broad semantic ranges.

Summary

Typically the four words are described in Christian popular literature something along the lines of:

agape = Christian love
philia = brotherly love or friendship
eros = romantic or sexual love
storage = family love

These definitions are not incorrect per se, but greatly oversimplify the semantic range of all four words.  Essentially, they equate a word with its most common meaning (in Christian literature), which is not proper - neither English or Greek words can be so narrowly defined.  For example, agape does indeed typically refer to Christ-like love in the New Testament.  However, it does so not because of the lexical specificity of the word, but rather only because the New Testament authors typically use it that way.

To directly address the heart of the question - no, one cannot draw exegetical conclusions from word choice alone.  It provides a clue, of course, but context is far word important in determining what the author meant in a specific Bible verse than word choice.  The dictionary definition of use of ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη and φιλέω/φίλος have considerable overlap.

The Greeks did not have four words to describe four different kinds of love.  They had four words for one set of complex human emotion with different connotations, just like English has many (overlapping) words that describe aspects of "love".


Was the virgin conception of Jesus known to the people at the time?

If Mary withheld this mystery from Joseph her spouse, it is more than reasonable to believe that those who knew of it [Joseph, Elizabeth, Mary's parents] left it to God to reveal it at his appointed time.

To the General Public, no! as the following passages reveal:

  Mt 13:55
  (RSVCE)
  55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And
  are not his brethren[a] James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

  Lk 4:22
  (RSVCE)
  22 And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which
  proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?”

  Jn 1:45
  (RSVCE)
  45 Philip found Nathan′a-el, and said to him, “We have found him of
  whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth,
  the son of Joseph.”

It required divine revelation for Elizabeth and Joseph to know.

Why wasn't it scandalous for Mary to be pregnant while betrothed to Joseph?

This is answered by the two-stage process in marriage among the Jews. The betrothed were considered husband and wife and could have marital relations [cf. Tb 7:9 (RSVCE) - Tb 8 and Mt 1:20 (RSVCE): Before God, Mary is considered Joseph's wife].

This is another example of the interplay in human [salvation] history between God's will and free human actions.


Know any Bible verses on 'faith,' 'knowledge' or what it means to 'believe'?

Hebrews 11: 1 says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

This is probably one of the most fundamental verses you can quote when asked about faith. It is the most obvious and clear definition of what it means to believe something especially God.

Knowledge is pretty much the same as faith. We all know the color of the shirt we are wearing today; and we know it is either red, or blue because we believe it is. You might say, we do not just believe it, because we actually 'see' it, but have you considered asking: What if red isn't really red? or color isn't really color? We 'know' things because we 'believe' they are.

We are certain of something, like a God or a supreme being because we 'believe' there is a God, we  perceive God, through nature, through His works, through the emotions we feel about Him, and that collection of perception becomes the very foundation of 'knowledge' of God.

PS: Faith is like eating in a fast-food restaurant, you'll never know how it was made, but you believe it's safe, and you eat it anyway.


The Jehovah’s Witnesses state that Jesus was God's first creation? How do they reconcile that with Genesis 1:26, Genesis 2:15-18?

The JW publication “Insight on the Scriptures” Vol. I has a section headed “Creation” from pp 526 with four and a half pages of text. Looking through it, I noted only one occurrence of Genesis 1:26 on p 527, but no mention or even a reference to Genesis 2:15-18. This is what is stated about Genesis 1:26 -

  “In view of the close association of Jehovah and his only-begotten Son
  in creative activity and because that Son is “the image of the
  invisible God” (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4), it was evidently to his
  only-begotten Son and master worker that Jehovah spoke in saying, “Let
  us make man in our image.” -Ge 1:26. After creating his only-begotten
  Son, Jehovah used him in bringing the heavenly angels into existence.
  This preceded the founding of the earth, as Jehovah revealed when
  questioning Job … (Job 38:4-7)  It was after the creation of these
  heavenly spirit creatures that the material heavens and earth and all
  elements were made, or brought into existence. And, since Jehovah is
  the one primarily responsible for all this creative work, it is
  ascribed to him – Ne 9:6; Ps 136:1, 5-9. The Scriptures, in stating,
  “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”  (Ge 1:1)
  leave matters indefinite as to time.”

I note that the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not include the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1:26 but only believe that Jehovah was addressing the Son, and none other. I also note their sentence, “And, since Jehovah is the one primarily responsible for all this creative work, it is ascribed to him” as the likely explanation they might give for Genesis 2:15-18 where God (not the Son) is said to make Eve. Also, their claim that the phrase ‘in the beginning’  “leaves matters indefinite as to time” could be employed by them to deal with John 1:1, which you also ask about.

However, it remains for Jehovah’s Witnesses to offer any explanation as to why the Holy Spirit-inspired Genesis account makes no mention of the Son actually being the first created ‘thing’ Jehovah made and/or that this Son was utterly involved in all creation (apart from himself which, as you enquire about, does not appear to harmonize with John 1:3). The Holy Spirit, after all, IS credited with a crucial role in Genesis 1: 2. Hopefully, some Jehovah’s Witnesses will respond to outstanding issues, as what I have quoted from one of their books is by no means exhaustive. There will be other quotations that could be proffered, no doubt.  I hope this partial answer encourages them to respond further.


Why is there no archaeological evidence that Christians existed for 200 years after 70 AD?

Here are some standard evidences of the early existence of Christianity:

Many extant Bible MSS date from before 350 AD such as p1 (3rd), p4 (3rd), p5 (3rd), p9 (3rd), p15 (3rd), p20 (3rd), p52 (about 125), p90  (2nd), p98 (2nd), p104 (2nd), and many more). There are also many important archaeological artifacts.  (See a more complete list of MSS in UBS4, UBS5 NA27, NA28.)
The voluminous writings of all the ante-Nicaean Fathers (e.g., Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen), starting at about 110 AD.  (My sets consist of The Apostolic Fathers by Holmes [Baker Academic] and Ante-Nicene Fathers [T&T Clark Edinburgh, Eerdmans Publishing])
The writings of Josephus (about 90 AD) refer to Christians, Christian practice, Christian belief, and even Jesus.
Chapel of Saint Ananias, Damascus, Syria, dates from the first century.
A fragment of an inscription bearing the name of Pliny, Basilica of Sant'Ambrogio, Milan.  Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus (northern modern Turkey), wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians. The letter (Epistulae X.96) details an account of how Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations, and in the letter he asks for the Emperor's guidance on how the the Christians should be treated.
Tacitus (a Roman senator) wrote in his book (circa 116 AD) about Jesus and His execution under Pilate, and the existence of Christians in Rome ("Annals" book 15, chapter 44).
The Roman historian Suetonius (c. 69 – after 122 CE) made references to early Christians and their leader in his work Lives of the Twelve Caesars (ca. 121 CE). The references appear in Claudius 25 and Nero 16, and they describe the lives of Roman Emperors Claudius and Nero.
Documents excavated at Oxyrhynchus show many writings about Christianity dating from the first- and early second century.
ΙΧΘΥΣ (Ichthys--fish inscriptions dating from the second century.
Numerous Christian graves in the Catacombs of Rome dating from the second century.

There is much more, and all of it well known.

We should not be surprised we have as much as we do to document early Christianity.  Up until Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration from Milan in 313, which legalized Christianity, Christianity was illegal and suffered numerous purges and persecutions, culminating with Diocletian's attempt to annihilate Christians. However, much evidence has survived, as I've documented above.

See also A History of Christianity Regions 2 & 4 (DVD) for more general information about early Christianity.


Are there published testimonies from ex cessationists who became continuationists after personally witnessing or experiencing a sign gift?

Jack Deere has at least two books which relate to your question.  He was a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, which is a cessationist seminary.
Some of his books which deal with the question are Why I am Still Surprised by the Power of the Spirit:Discovering How God Speaks and Heals Today and Surprised by the Voice of God:How God Speaks Today Through Prophecies, Dreams and Visions.  He wrote multiple other books on related topics.
He includes Biblical support and his own experience of conversion to speaking in tongues.
He includes personal experiences of reasons for his conversion to continuationist.  One example from the first edition is ongoing challenges with a specific student.  God prompts Jack to ask about pornography.  Normally, in that seminary, at the time this would be considered an extremely inappropriate question, even risking censure from the seminary.  However, the student confesses looking at pornography and that this was contributing to academic problems.  This was the beginning of the student getting free of sin with pornography.
https://wellspringdfw.libsyn.com/speaking-in-tongues-part-2-jack-deere  His sermon here speaks to the topic in general.
Also, Dennis Bennett, an Episcopal priest describes his journey from cessationist to continuationist in his book, Nine O'Clock in the Morning.  Although it was written in the 1970's, he describes many experiences of congregants converting from cessationist to speaking in tongues.  Many of them based their decisions or desire on seeing the joy, freedom or healing in friends who spoke in tongues.  He mentions other evidences which meet the biblical criteria, "You will know them by their fruits" from  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A15-20&version=NKJV
https://www.amazon.com/Nine-OClock-Morning-Episcopal-Discovers-ebook/dp/B08HKGFNSH
Bennett's book focuses more on the topic of baptism in the spirit, but clearly addresses the cessationist question.
Both of these books were instrumental in my personal conversion from from cessationist to speaking in tongues.


What pronoun do Catholics typically use to refer to the Eucharist?

I have never heard [of] a pronoun used for the Eucharist.

This section II. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED? in the Catechism of the Catholic Church lists the different names given to the Eucharist:

1) Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God.

2) The Lord's Supper.

3) The Breaking of Bread.

4) The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

5) The Holy Sacrifice.

6) Most Blessed Sacrament.

7) Holy Communion.

8) The holy things (ta hagia; sancta).

9) The bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality, viaticum ...

Expressions

He (the LORD) is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar

or

He is truly present under the appearances of bread and wine

Cf. Eucharist Hymn: Adoro Te Devote by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):

  Hidden God, devoutly I adore Thee,
  Truly present underneath these veils:
  All my heart subdues itself before Thee,
  Since it all before Thee faints and fails.

  [...]


Why is incorruptibility of saints' relics used as proof of their sanctity?

The short answer is no.

Not every saint is expected to have an incorruptible corpse. Although incorruptibility is recognized as supernatural, it is no longer counted as a miracle in the recognition of a saint (The Incorruptibles).

Embalmed bodies were not recognized as incorruptibles. For example, although the body of Pope John XXIII remained in a remarkably intact state after its exhumation, Church officials remarked that the body had been embalmed (Christianity Today) and additionally there was a lack of oxygen in his sealed triple coffin.

Incorruptibility is seen as distinct from the good preservation of a body, or from mummification. Incorruptible bodies are often said to have the odour of sanctity, exuding a sweet or floral, pleasant aroma.

Incorruptibility is not reserved to the Catholic Church alone. There are a number of Orthodox Saints who have incorrupt bodies.

Nowadays the Catholic Church is striving to better understand why some Saints are preserved from corruption, thus seeing if the preservation is indeed miraculous or not. "These saints are in a class by themselves. Even though incorruptibility does not automatically confer sainthood upon the subject, it is still properly appreciated by the Church as a supernatural occurrences. The Church thus seeks the help of scientists and other professional to understand this question in a more modern light!

The lack of formal explanations on this subject seems to stem from the fact that this is an area of expertise for the scientific (professional) community and not the Church to investigate.

  "Over the last 15 years, however, a new view of the Incorruptibles has begun to emerge. At the Vatican's request, Italian pathologists, chemists, and radiologists have been poring over the bodies of the ancient men and women interred in church reliquaries. Charged with gleaning new information about the lives of the saints and assisting in the conservation of sacred remains, they have also brought science to the altars of Europe's cathedrals. Already, they have examined more than two dozen saints and beati, shedding light on the mystery of their preservation. While some saints were clearly mummified by their devout followers, others were protected from decay by environmental conditions, raising new questions about incorruptibility. "What is a miracle?" asks Ezio Fulcheri, a pathologist at the University of Genoa and one of the leading researchers on the Incorruptibles. "It's something unexplainable, a special event that may occur in different ways." The causes may seem mysterious "but don't exclude [rare] natural processes that are different from the normal course of things." - The Incorruptible.

Nota Bene: This is my answer to this question.


The understanding of inspiration understood by Baptists (and many others) is that God allowed the authors to use their own literary style, but still write the exact meaning He wanted them to convey. This makes sense, because each book, each author clearly does have their own style.

This view is known as Plenary verbal inspiration. It is not the only view, but but is the one that allows for the author's literary style to show through.

From http://www.theopedia.com/Inspiration_of_the_Bible

  Plenary verbal inspiration (emphasis mine.)

  The word plenary means "full" or "complete". Therefore, plenary verbal
  inspiration asserts that God inspired the complete text(s) of the
  Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including both historical and
  doctrinal details. The word verbal affirms the idea that inspiration
  extends to the very words the writers chose. For example, in Acts 1:16
  the Apostle Peter says "the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake"
  (KJV). Paul calls all scripture "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16
  (referring to the Old Testament). Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the
  writers along (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21) while allowing their own
  personalities and freedom to produce the Bible we have today. This
  view recognizes and asserts both the human and divine element within
  Scripture. This understanding has sometimes been compared and
  contrasted to the understanding of the two natures of Jesus.

Opposing understandings include:

Neo-orthodox
Dictation
Limited inspiration

All are covered on the page I linked to.


According to LDS teaching could Adam and Eve have children before the fall?

In Doctrines of Salvation, 1:108, Joseph Fielding Smith stated:

  Things were not changing as we find them changing in this mortal existence, for mortality had not come.  Today we are living in a world of change because we are living under a very different condition from those which prevailed in the beginning and before the Fall of man.

Sometimes we focus too much on a single word, such as would vs. could.  I presume what you're asking is, was there anything physiologically stopping Adam and Eve from conceiving children?

Taking Pres. Smith at his word, the answer is "yes."  The time of the Garden of Eden was static.  Nothing grew, nothing died, nothing changed.  The moment you allow (e.g.) a child to be born you have something changing and that change must somehow stop when they become, what, 20 years old?  30 years old?  But, worse than that, you need to start dealing with the concept of (e.g.) dead skin flaking away from a growing child's body.  (Not to mention the changes to a woman's body when conception occurs, or the change of conception itself.)

Except nothing changed.

Therefore, no, Adam and Eve could not have physiologically conceived children in the Garden.  The physiological change that occured to them as a consequence of the Fall was necessary for conception.


What is the process for starting a new Christian denomination?

Not to be flip, but it sort of goes like this:

Find some theological point on which you find your existing denomination to be so heretical as to be in grave danger of going to hell.  Assume this point is not aidaphora.
Find a bunch of other people who agree, and start meeting together.
Possibly, ordain yourself (as in the case of Joseph Smith - the founder of the LDS denomination, or Joseph Smythe - traditionally considered the founder of the Baptists) or if you already have been ordained (e.g. Richard Allen, founder of the AME Church after being nearly beaten senseless in his home church or the Episcopalian Church in general after the American Revolution) convince a court that you are not, in fact part of your former denomination.
Start forming more than one church, so that you actually are a group of churches, rather than just a splinter one.

Ultimately, the only two entities that you will probably care about are:

Your home denomination - you don't want them claiming you, right?  Just send them a letter saying you are no longer part of them.  If you publicly repudiate them, so much the better!  The point is simple enough - your adherence to a given church is completely voluntary.  Any way in which you no longer volunteer will suffice.
The IRS.  Here's what most groups in the US care about - the tax exemption.  Truth is, it doesn't actually matter to the IRS either. If you want to call yourself "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster," you just need to convince the IRS you are church.  If you affiliate with anyone else, it helps, but ultimately, they don't really decide.

Like nations, each denomination is simply a sovereign entity unto itself.  If you try to call yourself "the Roman Catholic Church," there is an entity and an institution that will say, "No you are not."  But if you want to start your own, there is no one to stop you.

In the end, denominations - even highly organized ones - are voluntary associations of like-minded individuals.  There is no authority - in fact, there isn't even an agreed on definition of denominations.  Scholars simply use the label to distinguish like-minded groups from one another.


What are the origins and history of the practice of holding massive healing crusades in large stadiums or arenas?

If spiritual healing, being translated from death to life, is acceptable within the scope of OP's question parameter regarding healing crusades then I would say that Peter's first sermon in Acts 2, in which 3,000 were saved, should qualify as the earliest example of an open air evangelism campaign:

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. - Acts 2:5-6

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. - Acts 2:36-41

Missing from this, I suppose, is the element of pre-planning and coordination necessary to both rent and advertise an arena style crusade but this is really just from a human standpoint.  If the Argentinian crusaders mentioned in the question, as well as Billy Graham and others pointed to in various answers, were asked they probably would indicate that they were led to plan and prepare by the Holy Spirit.
Peter's sermon appears impromptu from a human standpoint but, as he was filled with the Holy Spirit (v.2:4), this incident can be understood just as planned as any crusade from God's position.


What is the rationale for forbidding priests to marry in traditions where already-married men are allowed to become priests?

I am a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

I asked my Priest this (who is married), and what I recall him telling me is it has to do with the fact that if you were allowed to marry after becoming a priest, things regarding courtship and all that are likely to get in the way of being an effective and focused priest. Whereas if you are already married, then all that drama is out of the way, and though that does give you a family to concern yourself with in addition to the Church, you are firmly grounded and it doesn't get in the way of being the kind of priest you should be.

But you are allowed to become married and then become a Priest because Marriage is considered a Sacrament, and so to experience this Sacrament as laity, as long as you are being the husband / father you should be, then it is still acceptable to become a Priest (and in having a wife it's easier to not give in to earthly desires).  Personally I think this is a much more grounded and sensible reasoning than saying you cannot become a Priest if you are married.

This is what my Priest sent me:

  1) "the husband of one wife" (I Timothy 3:2) this is from the Pastoral
  Epistles of St. Paul.  This has been the core teaching on the
  priesthood since it was written.

  2) the generally, the priests are held to the standard that all
  Christians called to, but often don't live up to.

  This may give you a little background if you'd like it:
  http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/10/of-marriage-and-orthodox-priests

It is the view that celibacy is better, as is described in that article and by my Priest.  And one such Bible reference example comes from 1 Cor 7:

  [32] But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried
  careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the
  Lord: [33] But he that is married careth for the things that are of
  the world, how he may please his wife.

But thankfully it's also recognized that celibacy is a very high calling, and fares better for monks rather than priests.