Which denominations use the King James Version?

It's really not a denominational issue, per se, but a doctrinal issue or a simple preference.

The King James Only movement are people and churches that believe that the King James version is the only one to use.  They have various reasons for this.

James White has broken it down into five primary reasons for sticking with the KJV:

"I Like the KJV Best" - people who simply like the translation
The textual argument - people who believe that the KJV translation is more accurate because it's based on better manuscripts
Received text only - this belief states that the original manuscripts used by the KJV translation were supernaturally better than the ones we have today.
Inspired Translation - this group believes that there was inspiration behind the translation and that it was, therefore, inspired by God whereas other translations are not.
New Revelation - this group believes that the KJV translation was a new revelation from God.  This view is often called "Ruckmanism", after it's primary adherent, Peter Ruckman

Ultimately, it's not a denominational thing, but either a doctrinal issue (that extends beyond denominational decrees) or a preference.


Besides JWs, are there other Christian denominations where meetings regularly consist of congregation-wide study sessions?

The English Puritans of the 16th Century held "prophesyings":

  To improve the faith and training of parish clergy, Puritan ministers in the 1570s began holding a series of public conferences at which several sermons would be preached on the same Biblical text, the text would be discussed by the ministers present, and the proceedings would be summarized for the attending public by a moderator. Thus, though ostensibly for the education of clergy, the prophesyings also exposed the laity to Puritan teachings and to criticisms of the bishops and the Anglican Church.... Prophesyings were the first step in the formation of an informal and illegal system of presbyterian church government, which aimed to replace bishops with a hierarchy of assemblies comprising ministers and church elders. Because laypeople attended and observed prophesyings, the gathers were important not only for improving preaching among ministers but for spreading Puritan ideas among the people and thereby creating new adherents to the Puritan movement.

Source: John Wagner (2000). Historical Dictionary of the Elizabethan World: Britain, Ireland, Europe and America. p. 248.


What Scriptures did Arius use to support teaching that Jesus was created?

In the early fourth century, many Christians were divided over how best to understand the relationship between God and Jesus. Emperor Constantine called for an ecumenical council of bishops to settle the matter: the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD. The result was a condemnation of 'the Arian heresy'.

Letter to Emperor Constantine
A few years later, in 327 AD, Arius and his ally Euzoïus addressed a letter to Emperor Constantine to explain what their beliefs were. (Presumably, they didn't trust their trinitarian opponents to accurately represent them.) Arius wrote:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his son, who was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and on earth; who descended, and became human, and suffered, and rose again, ascended into heaven, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the holy spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of the heavens, and in one catholic church of God, extending from one end of the earth to the other.
This faith we have received from the holy gospels, in which the Lord says to his disciples, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit.’ If we do not so believe and do not truly receive the Father, the son, and the holy spirit, as the whole catholic church and the holy scriptures teach (in which we believe in every respect), may God judge us both now, and in the coming judgment.

In the second paragraph cited above, Arius included Matthew 28.19, a verse often used to argue for the trinity. By citing this passage, Arius was showing that he was not ignorant of its existence, and thus implicitly that he did not believe it taught a trinitarian theology.
The first paragraph above, Arius presents the beliefs of his group in the form of a creed. (The shape of this creed was possibly in direct response to the Nicene Creed that had been drafted at the council.) Notably, Arius' creed begins with an apparent allusion to 1 Corinthians 8.6 ('We believe in God the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his son'). Because Paul identifies each 'God the Father' and 'the Lord Jesus Christ', Arius seems to have taken this as a hard distinction between the two. This is a starting point, but very little else is readily discernible from this letter.

Letter to Alexander
A much more accessible letter to work with would be Arius' letter to Alexander circa 320 AD. Alexander was the bishop of Alexandria, and one of Arius' opponents. In this letter, Arius wrote his group's beliefs:

We acknowledge one God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge, governor, and provider of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Covenant. Who begat an only-begotten son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages and all that was made; who begot him not in appearance, but in reality; and that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of the other things begotten.

Now we have something to work with. Arius provides a dense cluster of allusions to Old and New Testament scripture, giving us a much stronger sense of his approach to the Bible as a whole:

"We acknowledge one God" — Presumably Deuteronomy 6.4 would be the ultimate origin of his point, but the phrase 'one God' is scattered throughout both Old and New Testaments.
"Alone unbegotten" — Psalm 2.7 would be the ultimate origin of this, as this psalm was popularly associated with Jesus (e.g. Acts 13.33; Hebrews 1.5). Arius took this to mean that, if Jesus was 'begotten', he must have had a beginning. This would go on to become one of the chief arguments used by Arius and those in agreement with him.
"Alone everlasting" — Possibly Isaiah 40.28 (Isaiah 40-55 has numerous examples of monotheistic proclamations), or perhaps Romans 16.26.
"Alone true" — John 17.3, where in prayer Jesus identifies the Father as 'the only true God'. While the Hebrew term 'elohim and the Greek term theos may be applied in various ways to human, angelic, or even demonic entities, Arius took this verse to mean that the Father alone could truly be identified with the term 'God', and thus not Jesus.
"Alone having immortality" — This is an explicit reference to 1 Timothy 6.15-16, where the author of the epistle wrote that God 'alone has immortality' (cf. 1 Timothy 1.17). Since God (whom Arius had already identified one-to-one with 'the Father') is alone immortal, Arius reasoned that Jesus was not immortal in the same sense, and thus not 'God'.
"Alone wise" — Romans 16.27, where Paul concludes his letter with a benediction 'to the only wise God forevermore through Jesus Christ!'
"Alone good" — Mark 10.18. Arius read this to mean that Jesus denied being God.
"Alone sovereign, judge, and governor" — 1 Timothy 6.15, where the author of the epistle says God is 'the only sovereign, the king of kings, and lord of lords' (cf. 1 Timothy 1.17).

Later in the same letter, Arius wrote:

Therefore he thus has his being from God; and glories, and life, and all things have been given over to him; in this way God is his beginning. For he is over him, as his God and being before him. But if the expressions 'from him' and 'from the womb' and 'I came from the Father, and I have come', are understood by some to mean that he is part of him, one in essence or as an emanation, then the Father is, according to them, compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and as far as their belief goes, the incorporeal God endures a body.

Here Arius explicitly cites three passages to distinguish Jesus as having a beginning and origin, in contrast to 'the eternal God'. Presumably, the passages Arius is quoting from were:

"from him" — John 6.46.
"from the womb" — Psalm 110.3.
"I came from the Father, and I have come" — John 16.28.

Thalia
Arius also wrote a poem titled Thalia, though it is uncertain when the poem was written, or even if what we have is an authentic copy of the text. (All we have is provided by his opponents.) The existing text does allude to Proverbs 8.22-25, and possibly also combines it with Revelation 3.14:

He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things

and

Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God
. . .
The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son

Summary
We could continue, but I think this is enough to demonstrate the key passages Arius relied on, as well as his general hermeneutic to the scriptures. Whenever Arius saw a biblical author speaking of 'one God', or that God 'alone' had an attribute, he took this as antithetical to a trinitarian theology. Whenever Arius saw a biblical author distinguishing between 'God' and 'Jesus', he took this to mean Jesus was not himself God.


Why were the interpreters called "Urim and Thummim"?

Well, a simple search would have revealed that the association is (contrary to the question claiming otherwise) made in D&C 10:1:

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those
writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means
of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost
them.

And even earlier, Moroni himself in Joseph Smith - History 1:35:

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows - and these stones
fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and
Thummim [...]

I also found this question on BH.SE which has the following insights which are somewhat consistent with Joseph's Urim and Thummim:

the OT's Urim and Thummim were on or in a breastplate
they could give complex answers, and in one case also no answer
some views say they were actually the twelve stones and illuminated to give answers, some more exotic views even speaking of letters moving on the stones

But all in all, it's not clear what they were, the Bible doesn't tell much about them, just that they were in some relation to the breast plate of the high priest and were used to inquire God.


Which of Luther's 95 Theses are still potentially valid critiques of Roman Catholicism?

The 95 These are not 95 points of criticism of Catholic doctrine. That is, Luther was not identitifying 95 different doctrines and/or practices of the Catholic church that he disapproved of. Really there are all about one practice of the Catholic church: the selling of indulgences, i.e. telling people that they could buy a "reduced sentence" in purgatory by giving money to the church.

I don't claim to be any sort of expert on the practices of the Catholic Church today, but to the best of my knowledge they are no longer selling indulgences, directly or indirectly. You might find individual cases where a priest or other representative of the church says or implies that someone can win some favor with God by making a big donation, but these are individual mistakes or abuses and not Catholic policy. Therefore, I think pretty much none of the criticisms in the 95 Theses apply today.

BTW, many of the 95 Theses are not, of themselves, criticisms of the Catholic church. For example #1, "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance." Or #94, "Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;" I haven't counted how many are criticisms of church practice and how many are points Luther is trying to establish along the way.

Also note that Luther carefully worded many to avoid overtly criticizing the Catholic church and especially the pope. For example #48, "Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring."


Paul's suggestion to not marry vs Great Protestant Theologians

The answer is in the verse just prior:

  Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. (NIV 1 Corinthians 7:26)

In other words, given the 'present crisis' marriage posed various difficulties.  The present crisis was the crisis of religious upheaval that would lead to great persecutions. In situations that call for potential martyrdom, a single life would release a person from the addition worries and fears about their close loved ones. Can you imagine a father's worry over wife and child, or a child's horror at seeing their mother killed? It would simply be better, in many ways, to be without family during those days.

On the other hand - and in support of Paul's application the the current crisis - if a person did not have a strong urge to be married (which is a special gift) even in days without 'crisis', there are benefits to a single life (verses 32-36).

It's just not considered as 'necessary' to be a great leader. Moses and Peter and the majority of leaders in the Bible had wives - only few went without, just like today.


What do baptists mean when they refer to an ordained baptist minister?

According to an article on one of the ABC-USA's regional websites, "ordination is the process that a church enters to affirm the calling, giftedness, and service of the candidate, ordination cannot be detached from a place of service," and it is "a public affirmation of what God has already done."

The article, as well as the SBC FAQ, says that ordination is done by each local congregation, and each congregation decides for itself what the requirements and prerequisites are, and may or may not consult other churches before doing so. Some don't even require ordination of its pastors.


Jesus Himself said Abraham was in heaven, in the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus:

Luke 16:19-31 NIV1984 (I have highlighted the six references to Abraham.)
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”


If Mary is sinless then how is Christ her victory?

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary's immaculate conception was made possible by Christ's sacrifice --- just like any graces that we get.  Specifically, the decree "Ineffabilis Deus", in which Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the immaculate conception, states the dogma as follows: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin." So it is not correct that "she would have done it without Christ."


Are there any well-known Christian nihilists?

Yes, there is school of theological nihilism influenced by Nietzsche, known as the "Death of God" movement. Probably the most famous individual associated with it is Paul Tillich. This work explores the idea that the traditional concept of God has "died", and the extent to which faith (or reason, or ethics, etc.) can still exist in such a world. We can argue about whether this sort of thing is nihilist, or existentialist, or both, or not really either; but in any case it comes out of that general area of thought.

It should be distinguished from the older and more "respectable" pursuit of apophatic theology. This is an approach to God founded on describing God in "negative" terms (he is not evil, he is not limited, etc.). Typically, this theology is mystical rather than rational, and Eastern rather than Western. A standard idea in apophatic theology is that God does not exist, meaning that the mode of his "existence" transcends the way in which ordinary everyday stuff is said to "exist". Contemplation of paradoxes associated with the divine is also part of apophatic practice - without necessarily trying to solve them in the manner of rationalist theology. Apophatic theology has influenced nihilistic theology but they are not identical.

Another relevant writer is Kierkegaard for his exploration of paradox and despair in a Christian context. He is not a nihilist but there is a good deal of later work which responds to him. I would suggest Fear and Trembling as a good starting point (because out of the two books I've read by him, it was the one I liked the best). In it, he works through the story of the Binding of Isaac with an emphasis on the supposed moral of the story, Abraham's greatness through faith; this is contrasted with the anxiety and subjectivity of Abraham's personal experience, in the context of an apparently immoral command to murder his son.


According to Emanuel Swedenborg, do infants go to heaven?

According to Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) and the New Church, all infants and children who die before they are adults go to heaven and are raised there until they grow up and become angels themselves. This, Swedenborg says, is true whether or not they have been baptized, and no matter where or in what religion they were born.

Baptism, Swedenborg says, does not itself confer salvation, but rather symbolizes the spiritual washing of rebirth or regeneration that must take place for us to be saved and become angels in heaven.

Swedenborg rejected the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, saying instead that we have inborn tendencies toward evil inherited from our parents and ancestors. Until we have chosen to act on those hereditary tendencies toward evil of our own free will as rational and self-responsible adults, we are innocent, and are therefore destined for heaven rather than for hell.

So although Swedenborg often says that we humans are "born into evils of every kind" (see, for example, Divine Providence #83), our infancy and childhood is a grace period in which we are not held responsible for those evils because we have not chosen to act on them of our own free will as self-responsible adults.

Once we reach adulthood, though, we are held responsible when we choose to act on our evil impulses instead of on our good impulses. Then, and only then, according to Swedenborg, are we in danger of going to hell.

In short, only those who choose evil over good as rational and self-responsible adults go to hell. All infants and children, and also most teenagers, have not yet reached that stage. Therefore, according to Swedenborg, they go to heaven if they die before reaching adulthood.

They do not become angels immediately, however. Rather, they continue to grow up in heaven under the care of angel parents until they reach adulthood and become angels themselves.

For more on this subject, see the chapter on "Children in Heaven" in Swedenborg's book Heaven and Hell (#329-345).

For a readable contemporary presentation of the same ideas, written for those who have lost a child, see my article, "Where are my Children who have Died? Will I Ever See Them Again?"


Was the Catholic title "vicar of Christ" conceived as an "assistant" or an "agent"?

Was the Catholic title “vicar of Christ” conceived as an “assistant” or an “agent”?

The short answer is: The original theological connotations of the title had a pastoral sense to it, evoking the words of Christ to the Apostle Peter, regarded by the first Catholic Pope in John 21:16-17, "Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep", so Christ made Peter his vicar.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the title of the Vicar of Christ as follows:

  A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.

  In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

Wikipedia adds the follows:

  Vicar of Christ (from Latin Vicarius Christi) is a term used in different ways and with different theological connotations throughout history. The original notion of a vicar is as an "earthly representative of Christ", but it's also used in the sense of "person acting as parish priest in place of a real person." The title is now used in Catholicism to refer to the bishops and more specifically to the Bishop of Rome (the pope).

  The use of the term Vicar of Christ appears in the 5th century, in a synod of bishops to refer to Pope Gelasius I. The theological connotations of the title got a pastoral sense, evoking the words of Christ to the Apostle Peter, regarded by the first Catholic Pope in John 21:16-17, "Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep", so Christ made Peter his vicar and pastor with the responsibility to feed his flock (i.e. the Church) in his own place.


What was meant by the charge: "the upsetting of the lamp"?

The phrase: “the upsetting of the lamp,” is a reference to the charge of incest, which is “facilitated by darkness.”

721 And anyone who makes use of them may in addition to [the guilt of] godless, impious, and intemperate intercourse, by chance be consorting with his own child or relative or brother. Some even prostitute their own children and wives, and others are admittedly mutilated for purposes of sodomy, and treat this as part of the mysteries of the mother of the gods—while beside each of those whom you think of as gods a serpent is depicted as a great symbol and mystery. You charge against us the actions that you commit openly and treat with honor, as if the divine light were overthrown and withdrawn—which of course does no harm to us, who refuse to do any of these things, but rather injures those who do them and then bring false witness [against us].

See footnote 721 here:

721 A reference to the charges of incest (facilitated by darkness) and cannibalism which other Apologists (Athenagoras, Tertullian, Minucius Felix) treat at length.


Is there a significant difference between salvation by faith with works and salvation by faith and works?

First a disclaimer, I come from the camp that salvation is by faith alone.  The answer will be coming from my perspective, since the question seems to be geared toward those who hold this view.  It also intentionally goes against the definition of Christianity as accepted for the sake of this community because I think that it's the only way to address the question.  I fully expect opposing answers and down-votes, but I'm also attempting to answer the question to the best of my ability because it's important.

The difference is very important.  It's not inconsequential at all.

The reason it is important comes down to three things (in addition to what I read in the Scriptures):

Pride
Giving the glory to God, who deserves it.
The command to worship God in spirit and in truth. (Emphasis mine.)

  Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man
  should boast.

To my view, and those who hold it, if we are attempting to add works to faith, then we are not depending solely on God or the saving grace of Jesus.  We are depending at least somewhat on ourselves.  Since we're told that we are saved by faith along apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28) if we try to add our own works on top of it, we're not obeying in faith.

We're placing part of the faith in ourselves, and (this may be harsh) we're calling God a liar by rejecting His clear word on the subject.  In essence, we're worshiping a "god" of our own making - one we've created in our mind, which is, by definition, idolatry.

This is not to say that works aren't important.  Works are a sign that we have already been saved by faith, and something we do out of gratitude.  I personally would argue that someone who is not showing good works is probably not truly saved because they are not showing the fruit of salvation.  But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it because I don't know the heart or state of salvation of anyone.

There's a good article on the subject here.

I'm adding this later as an illustration that may make the answer of whether it's a "minor detail" more precise.

Expanding on what I said about taking credit for our own salvation as being pride.  Pride is in and of itself a sin.  God hates pride.

Even a little bit of taking credit for our owns salvation is like having a "little bit" of sin. It's not something that can be seen in shades of gray.  It really is an all-or-nothing black-or-white issue.  Our pastor often uses an illustration in which he holds up a clear glass of water and asks if anyone would object to drinking it.  Then he asks, "OK, let's add just one drop of urine to it.  How many of you would drink it then?"  It's gross, yes. Disgusting.  But that's the point.  God's holiness is so supreme that even the smallest hint of sin is sickening to Him.  Adding the least bit of our own "works" to His gift pollutes the gift.

In Isaiah 64:6, we read that all of our righteousness is as filthy rags.  Not our sin, our righteousness - the very best we are capable of is worthless to Him.  How could we possibly hope to add to our own salvation when the best we can do is no good at all?


Do Christians believe that more sinful people suffer more on Earth?

As a note: I am non-denominational (just a Christian).

I think there is a difference between Israel and the other nations. Other nations did not make an oath in which they agreed to be cursed if they did not keep all the commandments of the Torah (Lev. 26:14). However, Israel did (Deut. 27:26).

As for humanity in general, Jesus said (Matt. 5:45), "That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and He sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous."

There are some terrible things that happen to pious Christians, and sometimes generally "bad" people get through life "unscathed." I don't necessarily believe that bad people suffer more on Earth than Christians. But, at the last day, there will certainly be a different fate for each.


In my understanding, Protestantism takes the view that "if not in the [Protestant] Bible, it's human doctrine" (view more formally called sola scriptura). And if human doctrine, it is therefore fallible and should be judged according to their merits and consistency with the rest of the biblical teaching. This is the origin of many Protestant rejections of Catholic and Orthodox doctrines.

Now, you are asking for these other practices that are not in the [Protestant] Bible. Are they true doctrines? Well, this is surely a matter of debate. A Protestant apology of the adoption of some of such doctrines is in this answer. Ultimately, the key issue is to whether there is authority in what the Catholic and Orthodox churches call Tradition, i.e. the rules of faith and practice that were (allegedly) transmitted by the Apostles to their own disciples and churches, and which are not explicitly in the Bible. It is pointless to deny the existence of these traditions. St. Paul himself states:

Corinthians 11:2

  I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

  So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

The debate is about what exactly does this tradition include and to which extent it is necessary for salvation.

It should be remembered here that not even within Protestantism there is a unified voice about what doctrines and practices are valid or not. For instance, an issue as basic as the Eucharist is very contentious (e.g. see here). Not all hold Sunday as the observance day either. And so on. In effect, here the Catholic Church states that actually, the Bible alone is not enough to define all necessary doctrines of faith and practice. Hence its recourse on Tradition for things like the seven sacraments, and so on.

Finally, notice also that the canon of the Bible is different among denominations. Thus, for instance, things like the purgatory are justified in Catholicism based, among other things, in 2 Maccabees, which is not part of the Protestant canon. Thus, even without recourse to tradition, mere canon differences give rise to doctrinal differences among denominations.


According to 21st century Catholic critics, what's so great about the Canticle of the Sun?

You don't specify what English translation, interpretation, rendering –whatever word one uses– you read to the children, but you do link to the Wikipedia text, which is more a translation of the original language in which St Francis wrote, and I agree that it is not inspiring or beautiful poetry. But there are other attempts, one of which may be found here. There are certainly others.

But it could be simply that we do not live in a poetic age, and very few people appreciate –or even know– any poetry at all. Children weaned on video games and movies filled with series of explosions are not oriented to poetry nowadays.  As for trying to "explain how awesome St Francis was," you might want to show them the Franco Zeferelli film Brother Sun, Sister Moon which was shot on location in Italy. Children nowadays are accustomed to on-screen learning. And it is a beautiful film.


Does a person lose anything by just praying to God the Father all the time?

Euan Cameron says, in Interpreting Christian History, page 126-7, the early Church had no cult of saints, but around the time of the persecutions, Christians began to commemorate their martyrs, to inspire their successors and protect their memory.  A little later, some Church Fathers decided that the saints must still feel the same concern for the faithful as when they lived, so the saints must be praying for us.  Later still, people supposed it was appropriate to pray to the saints in heaven, to call on them as patrons, and ask for favours and protection.  Thus it became established practice to pray to saints for intercession. Vivian Green says in A New History of Christianity, p118, there were instances of men beating the saint's image because the saint had not responded to their prayers.

Green also talks about the special reasons for praying to Mary. He says (p117) that St. Bernard declared, “If you fear the Father there is Christ the Mediator.  If you  fear him, there is the Mother, pure humanity.  She will listen to you. The son will listen to her, the Father to him.”

The Protestant position is strongly against praying to saints. Martin Luther believed that the veneration of saints had turned into the worship of semi-divinities who were addressed exclusively for some need, with no reference to Christ. He also objected to the cult of relics to raise money.  In Smalcald Articles, he called the invoking of angels and saints, praying to them, keeping fasts and festivals for them, saying masses and offering sacrifices to them, and assigning to them special functions, “idolatory”.

It seems that there is a divide between the position of the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Church) and other Christian denominations. You will be guided by which denomination you belong to.


She had no doubt He is God; the Archangel Gabriel told her, and, because she knew Holy Scripture, she knew prophecy (e.g., that of Isaias) was being fulfilled through her. After His birth, even the Magi adored Him, so, a fortiori, His own mother certainly did.
After His death, St. John provided Holy Communion for her, and thereby she worshiped her Divine Son:
Art. 5 "The Principal Mysteries which Contributed to Mary’s Increase in Grace after the Incarnation", § "Mary, Model of Devotion to the Eucharist" of Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., says:

It is most becoming to insist here a little on what Holy Mass and Holy Communion, received from the hands of St. John, must have meant for Our Blessed Lady.
Why had Mary been committed to St. John on Calvary rather than to the holy women who were also at the foot of the Cross? The reason was that St. John was a priest and had a treasure which they could not give her, the treasure of the Eucharist.


What is the general interpretation of God creating the humans "in his image"?

God has communicable attributes and incommunicable attributes. To be tautological, to be made in the image of God is to exhibit some or all of the communicable attributes of God.

An example of an incommunicable attribute is omniscience; people are finite and God is infinite, therefore we cannot possess all knowledge.

The list of communicable attributes is a matter of debate. It includes:

free will (with boundaries hotly debated)
the ability to love
a spiritual nature (soul)
intelligence (memory, language, logic, planning, etc)
creative ability (though not ex nihilo)
morality
authority (over lower creatures)
glory and honour

As one example, the Psalms support the idea that God has given man glory, honor and authority:

When I consider your heavens,
    the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
    which you have set in place,
4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
    human beings that you care for them?

5 You have made them a little lower than the angels
    and crowned them with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
    you put everything under their feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
    and the animals of the wild,
8 the birds in the sky,
    and the fish in the sea,
    all that swim the paths of the seas. (Psalm 8:3-8)


Where are the LDS revelations published?

As members of the Church we believe there is revelation that can be shared, and revelation that is so personal it cannot. Each member of the church can receive personal revelation. It is not restricted to the leadership. As with the individual, so it is with the leadership of the church.  They receive revelation that is strictly for them, and others that can be shared with the general population.

For my answer, I will go with the latter, the revelation that is allowed to be shared as a whole.

I do not know, nor do I think there could be a single list of the revelations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  There are too many. We believe the Heavens are open and revelation comes to those who seek and are worthy to receive.

The church is becoming more transparent in its history and other aspects.  You will find many previously unpublished revelations (and more) of Joseph Smith by viewing the Joseph Smith Papers. Many historical accounts can be found at the LDS History website.

If you care more about more recent revelations. General Conference is a good place to start. Every 6 months the church meets as a whole and the sermons are recorded and posted for all to review and study. Within the General Conference addresses, new temples are announced, policy changes are announced (Missionary age change), etc.

There is also the Mormon Newsroom, which publishes church statements which often clarify a position the church takes, or releases new statements.

The First Presidency will send letters to the Bishops to read to the general congregations. These contain direction, policy change, and so forth. They are only accessible if you are a member of the church and have an LDS Account and the accessibility is limited by church calling as well as membership. Occasionally they are published on the LDS Church News Website

In summary, there is no "one list to rule them all" but the revelations are not held in secret.


How is Lent observance reconciled with Matthew 6:16-18?

There is nothing about Lent observance that requires it to be public.

My experience is very different from yours, and most people keep their Lent observances very private. I don't know what anyone is doing for Lent except for my immediate family (I have deduced one person's Lent observance, but even then it was something they kept as private as possible.)

I've been part of Lent in several churches, and in no case was there any encouragement to share your observances with others. I would go so far as to suggest that if the people you are with are making it public they may be doing it wrong.

(Note: None of the churches I've been involved with were Catholic, so it's possible there may be a difference in practice there. I will leave it to a Catholic here to write another answer if appropriate.)


Is there anything unique to a christian marriage that non-christian marriages are deprived of?

It may be helpful to do a little set up first. There is a difference between indicative and imperative statements. An indicative is a statement of fact; there is no ought in it. The chair is brown; the ship is tilting, etc. An imperative is a command; it tells what we must do. Close the door; turn off the tv, and so on. Paul says, "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Eph 5:31-32)" He's not saying that this is the way it ought to be, but that this is what marriage is, what it means fundamentally. As he goes on, he fleshes out the picture with instruction (imperatives) for husbands to love their wives and for wives to submit to their husbands.

Every marriage is a picture of Christ and his bride, the church. The scripture makes no distinction between good and bad marriages in this regard, whether heathen couples or believers. All marriages proclaim to the world how Christ relates to his church. Because of sin and rebellion, many of these pictures are slanderous lies concerning Christ. But a husband can never stop talking about Christ and the church by how he acts. If he is obedient to God, he is preaching the truth; if he does not love his wife, he is speaking apostasy and lies – but he is always talking.

In another sense, a "generational " or "covenantal" sense, there is a difference. Paul says, "If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Cor 7:13-14)" So in this sense, an unbelieving couple would be outside the covenant body of Christ, while a couple with even one believer sanctifies, or covers the children and they are counted as covenantal members. This is not to say that they are 'saved' but that they are connected to the body covenantally.


What sort of Christians are proponents of just war?

The "Just War" is a concept very widely accepted by Christians - at least in the sense of acknowledging that there are conditions when Christians are called to fight. Catholics accept it, Anglicans do in principle (though some disagree), so do Lutherans, and many Baptists. They may not all agree on the conditions for fighting a 'just war', but they do generally agree that there are conditions when war might be legitimately fought. In fact it is much easier to list those churches that do not accept it.

Churches that believe it is wrong for a Christian to fight under any circumstances are mainly the historic Peace Churches. These are the Friends (Quakers), Brethren, and Anabaptists (which are comprised of Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites). There are other specifically pacifist groups also.


What is the New Testament basis for capital punishment?

This passage of scripture immediately springs to mind:

  1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. - Romans 13:1-4 NIV [emphasis added]

Elicott comments on this latter verse thus:

  It is clear from this passage that capital punishment is sanctioned by Scripture.

and Barnes:

  It may be remarked that this verse is an "incidental" proof of the propriety of "capital punishment." The sword was undoubtedly an instrument for this purpose, and the apostle mentions its use without any remark of "disapprobation."


What is the earliest Christian use of a worship leader?

It is a fairly natural idea to have somebody fulfilling this role, and various Christian traditions have done just that. The following are from Worship music: a concise dictionary (ed. Edward Foley, 2000):

Cantor [Latin]. "Singer" (1) In Christianity, a 5th-century term for the psalmist; later, the medieval singer (often cleric) who intoned and led the chants; more recently a leader of congregational song who often sings the verses to the congregation's refrain. ...
Precentor [from Latin praecino, "I sing before"]. (1) The leader of chant in a schola; the precentor usually intoned chants on the side of the first choir, while the succentor ("subcantor") intoned for the second choir. (2) Another title for the cantor. (3) In some reformation traditions, the liturgical master of ceremonies, with special responsibility for the choral services. (4) The leader of congregational song in a church having neither a choir nor instrumental accompaniment.
Psalmist [Greek, Latin psalmista]. (1) One who leads (or sings the verses of) the psalm, usually in responsorial style. The term appears in the 4th century in some lists of  ecclesiastical ministers. (2) The author of a Hebrew Bible psalm.
Psaltes (pl. psaltai) [Greek; Slavonic pevetz]. "Singer, cantor." In modern Byzantine usage when plainsong is used a psaltes or cantor ordinary leads the congregation by intoning and carrying the melody. In the Byzantine era (6th-15th centuries) Hagia Sophia had 2 choirs of psaltai; the leader (protopsaltes) stood between them. ...

In general, the lines seem to be a little blurred between the roles of "main singer" and "musical decision-maker", as with modern "worship leaders". The Orthodox protopsaltis seems to have evolved from the first into the second role. The Catholic Encyclopedia says under "precentor":

Anciently, the precentor had various duties: he was the first or leading chanter, who on Sundays and greater feasts intoned certain antiphons, psalms, hymns, responsories etc.; gave the pitch or tone to the bishop and dean at Mass (the succentor performing a similar office to the canons and clerks); recruited and taught the choir, directed its rehearsals and supervised its official functions; interpreted the rubrics and explained the ceremonies, ordered in a general way the Divine Office and sometimes composed desired hymns, sequences, and lessons of saints.

The Synod of Laodicea in the fourth century restricted who was allowed to sing:

Canon 15. No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from a book.

This is probably connected to the idea of having a person in charge of planning and performing the music in general. I don't know who had that job before the dates given in the references above (which go from the fourth century to the medieval period).


Was the full Sign of the Cross prevalent in entire Catholic Church?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  The manual act of tracing the cross with the hand or the thumb has at all periods been quite commonly, though not indispensably, accompanied by a form of words. The formula, however, has varied greatly. In the earlier ages we have evidence for such invocation as "The sign of Christ", "The seal of the living God", "In the name of Jesus"; etc. Later we meet "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth", "In the name of the Holy Trinity", "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", "Our help is in the name of the Lord", "O God come to my assistance". Members of the Orthodox Greek Church when blessing themselves with three fingers, as above explained, commonly use the invocation: "Holy God, Holy strong One, Holy Immortal One, Have mercy on us", which words, as is well known, have been retained in their Greek form by the Western Church in the Office for Good Friday.

Thus, it seems the formula has varied according to place, time, and probably the occasion. It has not been accompanied by words all the time either.

Regarding the actual sign, the same source tells of different methods:

  The course of development seems to have been the following. The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger on their own foreheads. This practice is attested by numberless allusions in Patristic literature, and it was clearly associated in idea with certain references in Scripture, notably Ezekiel 9:4 (of the mark of the letter Tau); Exodus 17:9-14; and especially Apocalypse 7:3, 9:4 and 14:1. Hardly less early in date is the custom of marking a cross on objects — already Tertullian speaks of the Christian woman "signing" her bed (cum lectulum tuum signas, "Ad uxor.", ii, 5) before retiring to rest—and we soon hear also of the sign of the cross being traced on the lips (Jerome, "Epitaph. Paulæ") and on the heart (Prudentius, "Cathem.", vi, 129). Not unnaturally if the object were more remote, the cross which was directed towards it had to be made in the air. Thus Epiphanius tells us (Adv. Hær., xxx, 12) of a certain holy man Josephus, who imparted to a vessel of water the power of overthrowing magical incantations by "making over the vessel with his finger the seal of the cross" pronouncing the while a form of prayer. Again half a century later Sozomen, the church historian (VII, xxvi), describes how Bishop Donatus when attacked by a dragon "made the sign of the cross with his finger in the air and spat upon the monster". All this obviously leads up to the suggestion of a larger cross made over the whole body, and perhaps the earliest example which can be quoted comes to us from a Georgian source, possibly of the fourth or fifth century.


What does "to pray" mean in Catholicism?

The Roman Catholic definition of prayer just means to communicate to God or the saints. To "pray" to a deity is to ask the deity for something, which involves communication. This is different from worship, which means to honor or show respect. Because a prayer means communication and worship means respect, prayer may be an act of worship or reverence. When Roman Catholics "pray" to saints or God, they really mean they want to communicate with them, looking at how the saints lived their lives and how that would be an example to present Catholics, which, in my opinion, does not sound too far-fetched from veneration of the ancestors in Chinese folk religion. Whether it is veneration of ancestors or saints, the veneration or worship should not be confused with the adoration of the gods or God. Assuming that the definition of "prayer" means "to ask or to beg a god for assistance", the Catholic definition seems to work nicely.


What is the biblical basis for Christ living on earth during the Millennial Reign?

The Bible contains many prophecies about the future, with the New Testament speaking about the return of Jesus to earth. Matthew 24, much of the book of Revelation, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16–18 are the more salient references to the second coming.

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then tall the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matthew 24:29-31).
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

Historic premillennialism was held by a large majority of Christians during the first three centuries of the Christian era. Many of the church fathers such as Ireneaus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and others taught that there would be a visible kingdom of God upon the earth after the return of Christ. Historic premillennialism taught that the Antichrist would appear on earth and the seven-year tribulation would begin. Next would be the rapture, and then Jesus and His church would return to earth to rule for a thousand years. The faithful spend eternity in the New Jerusalem.
When Christianity became the official religion of Rome in the fourth century, many things began to change, including acceptance of historic premillennialism. Amillennialism soon became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
One of the most influential historic premillennialists was George Eldon Ladd, an evangelical New Testament scholar and professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. It was through Ladd’s work that historic premillennialism gained scholarly respect and popularity among evangelical and Reformed theologians of the twentieth century. Other well-known historic premillennialists include Walter Martin; John Warwick Montgomery; J. Barton Payne; Henry Alford, a noted Greek scholar; and Theodor Zahn, a German New Testament scholar.
Historic premillennialism is one system of eschatology that has support in the Protestant community. Generally, all of the premillennialist beliefs teach that the tribulation is followed by 1,000 years of peace when all live under the authority of Christ. Afterwards, in a brief, final battle, Satan is permanently conquered. The placement of the rapture in relation to the other events is one of the main differences between historic premillennialism and premillennial dispensationalism.


In LDS canon, is the Final Judgement before or after the resurrection?

In Alma 40, it also states:

  21 But whether it be at his [Christ's] resurrection or after, I do not say; but
  this much I say, that there is a space between death and the
  resurrection of the body, and a state of the soul in happiness or in
  misery until the time which is appointed of God that the dead shall
  come forth, and be reunited, both soul and body, and be brought to
  stand before God, and be judged according to their works.

Which means, the final judgement is after the resurrection.

But remember also that the resurrection of the unjust is later than the resurrection of the just:

Doctrine and Covenants 76:63-65 (speaking of celestial glory)

  63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in
  the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.

  64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.

  65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the
  just.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:85 (speaking of telestial glory)

  85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the
  last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have
  finished his work.

So, yes, we are judged after we have been resurrected, and how that judgement is going to turn out determines when it happens (along with the resurrection of that individual). That makes perfect sense given the divine mercy, since that way the individual gets as much time as possible to repent, up until the appointed time of the Final Judgement.

So, both things you said are true (judgement determines how and when we are resurrected, but resurrection happens before the judgement), but as an event, resurrection happens before the judgement. Maybe the confusion clears if we settle with the following formulation: Our actions (and motives etc. and not forgetting this is only possible due to divine grace) determine when we are resurrected, how we are resurrected, and what the outcome of the judgement will be.


Is there scriptural basis for feelings such as "electricity", "fire", "heat" or "burning all over" reported in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles?

I regret that I can't speak specifically to Pentacostalism, which uses as one of its fundamental verses the experiences of the Day of Pentecost in the book of Acts (Acts 2:1-4), which appears to be more of an external experience than an internal (feelings) experience. But let's examine a couple of Biblical verses.

When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. (KJV Isa 4:4)

This appears to be speaking of the end-days when God shall restore Israel. He speaks of doing so by the "spirit of judgement" and the "spirit of burning." Part of any restoration must be (a) the individual's realization that past behavior was wrong and (b) some means of knowing that the new behavior is acceptable to God. I believe the spirit of judgement and the spirit of burning refer to (b). A person who successfully changes their lives to conform to the Gospel will know that their life is acceptable through a feeling (the "spirit of burning").

And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power. (KJV Luke 4:32)

My belief in this verse may be a bit more esoteric, but I believe it's valuable. The modern interpretations of the ancient Greek tend to favor the word "authority" over "power." But I've "spoken with authority" in my own profession (Engineering), speaking with both conviction and certainty — and I've never once had the reaction like that recorded in Scripture. Yes, Jesus did not come out of the Schools of Law, so it may be that they were simply surprised that He was as good a preacher as He was without that formal training — but I believe the Surprise had more to do with what they were feeling than what they were experiencing. And to support this idea, we have the following:

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? (KJV Luke 24:32)

That's perhaps the most obvious of the scriptural references to a feeling (specifically a "burning," perhaps the "spirit of burning" spoken of by Isaiah).
And finally, the words of Paul.

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: (KJV 1 Cor 2:4)

Paul talks about not simply speaking words, but those words being verified (a "demonstration") by the Spirit via some sort of power.
So, there is scriptural support for strong feelings, notably a feeling of "burning," that accompany the witness of the Holy Ghost to the preaching of the Word.
However…
In my experience, it can often be difficult to discern the difference between the Spirit and Showmanship. Humanity (and most certainly the devil) learned long ago that emotions can be manipulated. Those manipulations are the root of music, dance, drama, and other forms of entertainment. They're used for education, indoctrination (good and bad) — and frankly are tapped into for commercial marketing.
I believe it is for this purpose that God ensured the following verse was available to us today:

And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. (KJV 1 Kings 19:11-12)

As dramatic as that feeling of burning is (I know I have felt it), it must be discerned (analyzed, considered, tested) with patience, peace, and stillness. This secondary confirmation is so very important.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. (KJV James 1:5-6)

Because that wavering is what allows us to think that we felt a spiritual burning when what we really experienced was showmanship. I suspect that if we could interview people who heard Adolph Hitler speak in 1937, they would have said they felt a burning, too.


Which year did Jesus die? What is the most commonly held view

The traditional date is Friday, April 3rd, 33 AD.  The most commonly held date by modern scholars is Friday, April 7th, 30 AD.

The factors in figuring this.

On or near Passover.
Under Pontius Pilate, who ruled 26–36 AD.
Jesus was questioned by the High Priest Caiaphas.  He was priest from 18 - 36 AD.
Generally considering a 3 1/2 year ministry, John the Baptist's ministry was recorded in Luke 3:1-3, indicating a date of either 26 AD or 29 AD, depending on when the beginning of his rule is reckoned by Luke.
Most conclude a Friday, although Wednesdays and Thursdays have been suggested. While it was the before the Sabbath, some hold this could have been the feast Sabbath, and not the weekly Sabbath.  The only Friday Sabbaths between 29 AD and 36 AD, according to mathematical calculations, would have been 30 AD and 33 AD.
Since Luke 3:23 says he was approximately 30 years old at the start of his ministry, the date of his birth is considered.  As he was born under Herod, dates of 8 BC to 2 BC are commonly suggested.  Some history indicates Herod died in 4 BC, but recent scholarship indicates Herod may have died in 1 BC.
The testimony of Peter in Acts 2:20, indicating Solar and Lunar Phenomenon, as well as the darkness recorded in the Gospels themselves, give indication.  Phlegon recorded such a darkness in the 4th year of the 202nd olympiad, and this corresponds to a lunar eclipse on the 33 AD date, above (see here for the NASA site listing the lunar eclipse that may have been the night of his death.
Jesus cried out in the "ninth hour", which Biblical scholars indicates is usually around 3pm.
Also of interest by some is the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24.  Depending on the decree and calendar used, some figure a period of 490 years (of 360 days) to the day of Christ's triumphal entry, as predicted by the angel Gabriel, when using the date of the 33 AD crucifixion.  See Sir Robert Anderson's book "The Coming Prince" for his work.

Of these, one of the most sure is the date of Pilate's reign.  This limits the range of answers to a 10-year window.  Also, if one accepts the testimony of Phlegon in correspondence to the unexplained darkness at the same time as a lunar eclipse, you would point to a 33 AD date.

Isaac Newton figured a 29 AD baptism, and counted 5 passovers, and concluded 34 AD.  Many favored a 30 AD date after that, but popularity of the traditional 33 AD date is on the rise.

In my opinion, probably April 3rd, 33 AD at around 3:00pm local time fits the best.

Note:  This is another article that lists several points for determining the day of the crucifixion.


Do any Christian traditions hold the belief that Adam was androgynous?

You are correct - the Hebrew word for Adam is as androgenous as a word can be in a language which has no gender neutral pronouns. There are many, though obviously not all in Christian community who believe that humankind was fist created androgynous.

The Junia Project's article "Quick Start Guide to Equality in Genesis" says the following:

  The Hebrew word used for mankind in verse 27 is “‘adam” which refers
  to humanity as a whole [1]. We don’t see the proper noun, Adam, used
  until Genesis 4:25, so this common noun refers to the whole human
  race. One thing that is important to note is that the Hebrew language
  does not contain a gender neutral
  pronoun,
  therefore the word mankind was used.

  ...

  Genesis 2:22 states that God,
  “fashioned into a woman the rib which he had taken from man”.  This
  formation of woman was the culmination of all creation. Yet again we
  find that the English word “rib” used here doesn’t adequately depict
  what was taken from man. The Hebrew word used is “zela” which often
  means “a component, or more often, a side-wall” (alternatively, a
  chamber), indicating that more than simply a rib was taken [2].  Many
  scholars believe that the entire female essence was removed from man
  and fashioned into a woman. This would mean that the “mankind” in
  chapter 1 could have been an undifferentiated or androgynous person,
  with the blessing of male and female being a declaration in
  anticipation of the separation of the sexes in Genesis 2. The woman
  was then brought to the man who said, “This is now bone of my bone and
  flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken
  out of man”. The Hebrew words used for woman and man here are
  “ishshah” and “ish”, respectively [3]. This is the first time that a
  specifically male reference is made, and it happens at the time of the
  creation or extraction of woman. (Up to this point, the more generic
  “adam” was used.) Instead of pointing out differences, I think the man
  was actually pointing out similarities. They were both two of the same
  kind, and suitable for each other. Man was identifying woman as “of
  himself”.

  References

  Fee, Gordon D., Pierce, Ronald W., Groothuis, Rebecca Merrill, eds. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 2005.]
  Reisenberger, Azila Talit. “The Creation of Adam as Hermaphrodite–And Its Implications for Feminist Theology.” Judaism 42.4 (1993): 447-452. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. 15 July 2015.

The Junia project describes itself as "an online community of women and men advocating for the inclusion of women at all levels of leadership in the Christian church and for mutuality in marriage."

Therefore, we can imply that those denominations believe this are those that support women in ministry, though that conclusion is a bit tenuous as I doubt that this interpretation is not discussed in the capacity of any formal doctrine by these denominations. This would include:

The Emergent tradition
Lutheran
PCUSA (Presbyterian)
Episcopalian
Vinyard Movement
Alliance of Baptists
ABC USA (Baptist)
Non-denominational
Mennonite
Methodist
Evangelical Catholic Church
7th Day Adventist
Foursquare
Quaker
Probably others


Are chapter and verse divisions international?

In general, yes...
As Affable Geek answered, the divisions predate the printing press but were not part of the original texts.  There aren't that many publishers of Bibles and most of them use the same system that English translations have used since Langton.  So if you go to a Spanish-language service anywhere around the world, you can find your place in the text.  (Assuming you understand Spanish, of course.)
It seems likely that this is for convenience and because of the network effect.  Since most tools of interpretation (dictionaries, commentaries, concordances, etc.) use the standard system, most people who purchase a Bible will expect to find it to be compatible to that system.  A publisher would quickly go out of business if they tried to introduce a novel system.
with two exceptions.

The Tanakh
As H3br3wHamm3r81's answer notes that the Jewish Bible (what we call the Old Testament) uses a different system.  Since Judaism has a separate apparatus of interpretation, Jewish publishers divide chapters and verses in slightly different places.  It's not different enough to cause major problems, but we have experienced confusion over on Biblical Hermeneutics.  One noticeable pattern is that Psalms in Jewish translations often make the short descriptive text (ascription) part or all of verse 1 in contrast to Christian translations.  For this reason, I like to quote Bible passages or at least link to them rather than just include bare citations.

The Psalms
The earliest Greek translation of the Tanakh included a slightly different order of the Psalms then the Hebrew original.  Since the standard system adheres to the Hebrew order, this is normally not a problem.  But it's something to be aware of if you are talking Psalms across the Eastern/Western divide or if you are reading Catholic liturgy (which uses the Greek system for some reason).

As it turns out, Leviticus 6:7 is not the same between the Christian system and the Jewish system:

And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and thereby become guilty.”—Leviticus 6:7 (ESV)
And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, in front of the altar.—Leviticus 6:7 (JPS)

It turns out the Jewish system puts what we call Leviticus 6:1-7 into the end of chapter 5 as verses 20 to 26.


Was It Possible or Not To Keep the Law of Moses?

Is it possible to keep the law of Moses?
Yes, if you are Jesus.
No, if you are not.

The law had specific purposes.  A few include:
1.  Shows the Holy character of God.
2.  Identifies what is and what is not sin.
3.  Reveals to us our need for a Savior.

While the law identified sin, it was inadequate to make a man obey or be righteous.

When Paul said he was blameless, the question that must be asked is "blameless in whose eyes?"  He is either referring to being blameless in his own eyes or the eyes of others.  He was not referring to being blameless in Gods eyes.

  Romans 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified
  in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.


According to the Catholic Church, why did Jesus walk on water?

TL;DR to teach his disciples to believe in Him

In the account of walking on water in Mark, there is also a reference to Jesus being master of the elements (which links back to Job 38 as a sign of divinity).  That sign of divinity is also demonstrated in Matthew 8 through a  boat narrative.

  "Who is this man, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" ~ Matthew
  8:27

Jesus used this event in the boat to both demonstrate how important faith in him is, and to anchor that faith in his demonstration of divinity: control of the elements.  This is referred to in both Mark and John.
Mark 6(NAB)

  46 And when he had taken leave of them, he went off to the mountain to pray.
  47  When it was evening, the boat was far out on the sea and he was
  alone on shore.  48  Then he saw that they were tossed about while
  rowing, for the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the
  night, he came toward them walking on the sea. He meant to pass by
  them.  49  But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it
  was a ghost and cried out.  50 They had all seen him and were
  terrified. But at once he spoke with them, “Take courage, it is I, do
  not be afraid!”  51 He got into the boat with them and the wind died
  down. They were [completely] astounded.

John 6 (NAB)

  16 When it was evening, his disciples went down to the sea,  17
  embarked in a boat, and went across the sea to Capernaum. It had
  already grown dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.  18  The sea
  was stirred up because a strong wind was blowing. 19  When they had
  rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea
  and coming near the boat*, and they began to be afraid. 20  But he said
  to them, “It is I.* Do not be afraid.”

In Mark, the wind dies down, whereas in John that isn't mentioned. In both, he is teaching his disciples to (1) have faith in him (2) and to not be fearful.

Catholic Belief/Commentary

This gospel account is a point of departure for a variety of teaching.  The most common themes I've heard in homilies over the years are that (1) it demonstrates Jesus' mastery of the elements (2) he is teaching his disciples about faith.  (An example homily is at the link in the citation from Matthew).

Catholic Commentary

From St Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea, commentary on Mark 6:

  Glossa: The Lord indeed by the miracle of the loaves *shewed that He is the Creator of the world: but now by walking on the waves He proved
  that He had a body free from the weight of all sin, and by appeasing
  the winds and by calming the rage of the waves, He declared Himself to
  be the Master of the elements.*

  Theophilus of Antioch: Then by entering into the ship, the Lord restrained the tempest.  For it continues, “And He went up unto them
  into the ship, and the wind ceased.”  Great indeed is the miracle of
  our Lord’s walking on the sea, but the tempest and the contrary wind
  were there as well, to make the miracle greater.

Are the above the limits of RCC belief or teaching?  No, they are commentaries on scripture from early theologians/church fathers consistent with scripture (though the glossa appears to be either Aquinas' own interpretation, or that of an unattributed church father/theologian).

RCC Dogma is not necessary.

Jesus walking on water is not controversial.  There's no need for a discrete teaching about why Jesus did that; it is explained sufficiently in Scripture.

Don't cherry pick Mark; check other Gospels for comparison

Scripture is pretty clear on the message being sent: (1) Jesus' divinity and (2) a vivid demonstration of the same to encourage his disciples to believe in him, and to not be afraid.  (This encouragement to not be afraid would be put to the test after the crucifixion, but that's off topic for this question).


According to soul sleep adherents, if unclean spirits can be conscious without bodies, why can't human spirits also be conscious without bodies?

For Christian Mortalists, the human soul and/or spirit is mortal and dies at physical death. The soul and/or spirit is not independent of the body like on Platonic conceptions of the soul.
For advocates of Soul Sleep in particular (where the soul and/or spirit is alive but in an unconscious state), it's just the way God made humans as opposed to other incorporeal creatures. There isn't anything logically impossible with human souls and/or spirits being conscious apart from the body, but that isn't how God created human souls and/or spirits. Though God is spirit, it doesn't mean all spirits share in the eternal, uncreated spirit of God. Their spirits are created and qualitatively different from God's. Those of angels and demons are conscious when incorporeal, those of humans are unconscious when incorporeal.


Here's the problem.  The translation you're using is not a very good translation.  This is the verse you're referring to (in a translation that actually supports your argument):

In Genesis 4:12 (NIV), God tells Cain

  When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.

The phrase here, "then in moaning and trembling you will be upon the earth".  That is what is often translated as "restless wanderer" or "fugitive and vagabond"

Why?  Well, let's dig in:

  stenochōria Strongs 2532 dire calamity, extreme affliction

  kaiv Strongs 2532 and etc

  tremō Strongs 5141 tremble, to fear, be afraid

  eimi Strongs 1510 to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

  epi Strongs 1909 upon, on, at etc

  ho Strong 3588 this, that, these

  gē Strongs 1093 arable land, ground, the earth as a whole, a country, region, etc

So, the idea is with "[dire calamity/extreme affliction] and [trembling/fear] you [will exist/be present] upon [the earth/the land/the region]".

That doesn't really say anywhere that he will wander or that he will never stop wandering.  However, if you combine these two concepts:  fear and affliction, it's understandable that the translators could interpret that as someone who would wander.

If I was full of fear and troubled with distress, I would probably wander as well.

However, having said this, I have no idea why they chose that translation.  It seems to be a poor translation of this phrase.

Given a decent understanding of the curse, it should be easier to see that building a city and being fearful and in distress do not conflict.


In the Catholic or Orthodox tradition, did Jesus appear to his mother after death?

The only reference that I am aware of is from St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises, written in 1524. (See also the Spanish original.)

In his meditation on the apparitions of the Lord after the Resurrection, he writes,

  Primero: apareció a la Virgen María, lo qual,
  aunque no se diga en la Escriptura, se tiene por dicho, en decir que aparesció a tantos otros; porque la Escriptura supone que tenemos entendimiento, como está escripto: (¿También vosotros estáis sin entendimiento?).

  First: he [Jesus] appeared to the Virgin Mary. Although the Scriptures do not say so explicitly, it is implied by the saying, “He appeared to many others” [a reference to 1 Corinthians 15:6]. The Scriptures presuppose that we have understanding, as in the saying, “Are you also without understanding?” [Matthew 15:16].

Hence, at least St. Ignatius of Loyola felt that it was obvious that Jesus appeared first to his mother.

There is nothing, however, in the Scriptures, nor in any of the writings of the Fathers, that indicates that for sure.


What is the difference between the Life that Christ gives and the Life that Wisdom brings?

The hebrew word for life in Proverbs is chay (חָי) and means life or alive (which doesn't seem to imply anything spiritual).

In 1 John the word used is the greek word zóé (ζωήν) which means: life, both of physical (present) and of spiritual (particularly future) existence.

So in the literal sense the verse 1 John is talking about more than just physical life, true spritual life. True spiritual life wasn't something that was possible prior to Jesus.

In a less literal sense they are both talking about the same thing and that is that true life is only found in God.


It is out of respect for the type of relationship they are supposed to have with the people that they lead.

There are several places in Paul's letters where he says he has become the Father of those who he leads spiritually (1 Cor 4:15, Gal 4:19, Phlm 10 ).  But no where where it is exhorted in general to call the presbyters or elders by the title "Father".

Some people say Jesus says not to call anyone "Father", including Church leaders.  But the reason for calling a church leader "Father" is spiritual fatherhood.  So all the things you can think of that your father is supposed to do for your upbringing and sustaining your body a church leader is supposed to do for the upbringing of your spirit and sustaining your soul in friendship with Jesus.


Are today's Catholics encouraged to study the Bible at home?

The short answer is yes:

  The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian
  faithful... to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,’ by
  frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the
  Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.’”

-- Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 133

The Church offers some strategies and practices for getting more out of scripture as well. One of note is Lectio Divina, a pretty old approach in which you are encouraged to approach a passage like so:

Read it. A fairly obvious step. You read the selected passage.
Meditate. Ponder the Living Word, trusting the Holy Spirit to guide you.
Pray. Speak with God about the passage.
Contemplate. Sit in silent, loving attentiveness to the Word of God.


Worklabor during construction of Solomon's palace?

I would say yes, from scripture alone I think we can deduce Solomon used both 'Israeli' and 'non-Israeli' workers as both forced labor (employees) and salves.

As far as the Hebrew labor force I would say that since Ahishar was in charge of the palace (though at this time it would not have been built) and Adoniram in charge of the of the labor force, the probability that Hebrew's would have filled 'foreman' positions is high.  Since this still was an issue after Solomons death, and it took another 14 years to build the palace, it's likely that it was not constrained to only the temple.

  1 Kings 4:6
  Ahishar was in charge of the palace; and Adoniram the son of Abda was in charge of the forced labor.

  1 Kings 12:18
  Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was taskmaster over the forced labor, and all Israel stoned him to death with stones. And King Rehoboam hurried to mount his chariot to flee to Jerusalem.

  1 Kings 12:9
  And he said to them, “What do you advise that we answer this people who have said to me, ‘Lighten the yoke that your father put on us’?”

  1 Kings 12:14
  he spoke to them according to the counsel of the young men, saying, “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.”

  1 Kings 9:20-22
  All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel— their descendants who were left after them in the land, whom the people of Israel were unable to devote to destruction—these Solomon drafted to be slaves, and so they are to this day.....


How do Cessationists explain extreme manifestations of shaking and trembling observed in religious settings?

Cessationists do not say that demonic possession has ceased.

(Some events referred to by OP are claimed to be a manifestation of demonic possession.)

Cessationists say that the gifts of tongues and miracles have ceased.

Cessationists do not deny that the gifts of tongues and miracles can be mimicked.

Cessationists do not deny that demonic possession can be mimicked.

Cessationists do not deny that exorcism of demons can be mimicked.

The OP links to anecdotal evidence of what could be mimickry or deliberate misrepresentaton.

Cessationism is a Protestant doctrine that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing ceased with the Apostolic Age. Reformers such as John Calvin originated this view. More recent development has tended to focus on other spiritual gifts too, owing to the advent of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement that have popularised a radical continuationism – the position that the spiritual gifts are meant for all Christians in every age.

Wikipedia - Cessationism and Continuationism

Many will say to me, in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not ... in thy name, cast out devils ? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you : depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

{Matthew 7:22,23 KJV]


When Meister Eckhart deliniates the "ground" and "powers" of the soul, what is he differentiating?

One thing I like to point out in discussions like this one is that we are often talking in English about words and ideas from languages that we do not speak. For example where the word SPIRIT is used in the new testament passages and in the writings of many early Writers after that time it is the Greek word Pneumos which literally means air but also breath, vital essence, mind-set and a few other things dependant on context. So for example the Holy Spirit is literally renderable as The Fearsome Breath of God. When they spoke of evil spirits this was sometimes a reference to the bad smell on the breath of a sick person (literally bad breath).

My point here is that it is helpful to understand the word usage from the original language and where these ideas have come from as we hold them today. Some ideas like Spirit and Thoughts might well have been seen as synonyms or something close to that back when they were first penned and definitely the word choice in many cases would have been to underscore a particular aspect of what the writer was saying.

It might be easier to try and understand these ideas in terms of the gist of what the writer was trying to convey first and then drill down to the specifics later. Of course that is only my own approach.


According to the Catholic Church, when did the Church begin?

The Catholic Church believes the Church (catholic Church) began at Pentecost.  Here are references from its Catechism.

2617 ... at Pentecost, for the formation of the Church, his Body.
1076 The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the "dispensation of the mystery" the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, "until he comes." In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age
731 On the day of Pentecost when the seven weeks of Easter had come to an end, Christ's Passover is fulfilled in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, manifested, given, and communicated as a divine person: of his fullness, Christ, the Lord, pours out the Spirit in abundance.122
732 On that day [Pentecost], the Holy Trinity is fully revealed. Since that day, the Kingdom announced by Christ has been open to those who believe in him: in the humility of the flesh and in faith, they already share in the communion of the Holy Trinity. By his coming, which never ceases, the Holy Spirit causes the world to enter into the "last days," the time of the Church, the Kingdom already inherited though not yet consummated.
830 The word "catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole." ...  The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

To add scripture.

Acts 2:1-4, 33 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. ... Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.


Following the Doctrine in Council of Trent, does God give a soul to human at conception deprived of sanctifying grace?

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica I-II q. 81 a. 1 ad 2:

  Although the soul is not transmitted, because the power in the semen is not able to cause the rational soul [cf. I q. 118 a. 2], nevertheless the motion of the semen is a disposition to the transmission of the rational soul [which God creates ex nihilo]: so that the semen by its own power transmits the human nature from parent to child, and with that nature, the stain which infects it

So, it's the human nature (body+soul composite) that is infected, and semen is only an instrumental cause of bringing about a particular human nature. The corrupted body infects the soul, the rational soul being "the subject of sin" (ibid. arg. 2).

This will shed some light on your question:

Pedro Lumbreras O.P., "Saint Thomas and the Immaculate Conception," Homiletic and Pastoral Review 24, no. 3 (1923): 253-63.


Non-movable feasts in the Lent and Easter seasons

It has to do with, as with the Orthodox, the position of Easter (Pascha) which is a reflection of the calculation of the Passover prior to Pentecost.

Given the common tradition in both Rome and the East on this, at least for Ash Wednesday and Pentecost, it has all to do with their positions vis a vis Easter. It says the 'last possible' or 'first possible' because - lets say Ash Wednesday is the Wednesday in the week seven weeks before Easter - since Easter cannot be earlier than a certain date, nor can Ash Wednesday. The same logic follows for Pentecost, which is - going back before Christ - the fifty-day after Passover celebration.

As for St. Joseph's solemnity I can't say, I don't know the history (this feast is not in Orthodoxy.) Generally the explanation for any fixed feast (which can either be fixed against the date of Easter or the date of the First of the Year) is entirely historical.

Inclusion of feasts specifically in Lent, as for instance in our tradition, The Sunday of Orthodoxy, or the Sunday of St. Mary of Egypt, has much to do with the catechetical, ascetical character of Lent itself and special lenten tide feasts reflect that.

Annunciation on the other hand, sometimes in the Old Calendar can occur ON EASTER. This is called Kyriepascha, and you can't move Annunciation or Pascha. So you DO ALL THE PRAYERS. Which means all the texts specific to each feast are done, and considering how strange Pascha is structured, it's a crazy service!


What is the 'reward' that Jesus is referring to in Matthew 6:6?

One commentator on scripture presents the reward as Grace.  If you view prayer as a sincere communication with God, in humility, the commentary comes to a rational conclusion.  Responding to God's call will include communication with God, in prayer and in other ways.

  {Catechism of the Catholic Church 1996} Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

  6:5-8 You may as soon find a living man that does not breathe, as a living Christian that does not pray. If prayerless, then graceless. The Scribes and Pharisees were guilty of two great faults in prayer, vain-glory and vain repetitions. Verily they have their reward; if in so great a matter as is between us and God, when we are at prayer, we can look to so poor a thing as the praise of men, it is just that it should be all our reward. Yet there is not a secret, sudden breathing after God, but he observes it. It is called a reward, but it is of grace, not of debt; what merit can there be in begging? If he does not give his people what they ask, it is because he knows they do not need it, and that it is not for their good. So far is God from being wrought upon by the length or words of our prayers, that the most powerful intercessions are those which are made with groanings that cannot be uttered. Let us well study what is shown of the frame of mind in which our prayers should be offered, and learn daily from Christ how to pray.


Were Jews allowed to sacrifice to the LORD at altars other than at the tabernacle and temple?

Many places in the Old Testament show the people of Israel either being directed by God, or of their own accord, building altars to Him that were not either in the tabernacle, or (much later) the temple.

A sampling of passages:

Deuteronomy 27:4ff, "So when you have crossed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, about which I am commanding you today, on Mount Ebal, and you shall cover them with plaster. And you shall build an altar there to the Lord your God, an altar of stones on which you have not used an iron tool. You must build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones. Then offer up burnt offerings on it to the Lord your God, make sacrifices of well-being, and eat them there, rejoicing before the Lord your God. You shall write on the stones all the words of this law very clearly." (followed up in Joshua 8:30)
Joshua 22:10, "When they came to the region[a] near the Jordan that lies in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of great size."
Judges 6:24a, "Then Gideon built an altar there to the Lord, and called it, The Lord is peace."
Judges 13:19-20, "So Manoah took the kid with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to the Lord, to him who works wonders. When the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar while Manoah and his wife looked on; and they fell on their faces to the ground."
Judges 21:4, "On the next day, the people got up early, and built an altar there, and offered burnt offerings and sacrifices of well-being."
1 Samuel 14:35, "And Saul built an altar to the Lord; it was the first altar that he built to the Lord."
2 Samuel 24:18, "That day Gad came to David and said to him, “Go up and erect an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.”" (followed up later in the chapter)
1 Kings 18:30, "Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come closer to me”; and all the people came closer to him. First he repaired the altar of the Lord that had been thrown down;"

Worship offered at those altars appears to not be the same as the Levitical worship prescribed to the people of Israel - ie, they were meant for specific purposes at specific times, and not for "general" or "normal" worship.


Which doctrine supports the idea that Daniel 2:44 is the Millenium Kingdom?

I would hate that the Church is still under the Roman Kingdom - iron and clay. Divided.

Without getting into the discussion of the Millenium Kingdom, I thought it might be helpful to take a look at Daniel 2:43-45 (let's use the NIV):

  And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will
  be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with
  clay.

  "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom
  that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people.
  It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will
  itself endure forever.

  This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain,
  but not by human hands--a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the
  clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. "The great God has shown the
  king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its
  interpretation is trustworthy."

And let's take a quick look a bit earlier at 2:35:

  Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all
  broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the
  summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock
  that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole
  earth.

Let's also quote Revelation 20:6-7 just so we all know what we're talking about:

  Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The
  second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God
  and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

  When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his
  prison

Let's just highlight a few points outlined here.  First of all, note that the kingdom in Daniel will endure forever.  Now, strictly speaking, holding to Biblical literalism in all cases isn't necessary the most sure-fire method of evaluating theological bases, but Revelation 20:7 does specific that the end of the 1000 year reign is terminating by an event (the release of Satan) so it is perhaps unreasonable to consider the Millennium Kingdom (which terminates) as equivalent to the Daniel kingdom (which explicitly never terminates).

Is there any doctrine that supports this interpretation?

Certainly!

Is there any reasonable doctrine, internally consistent and grounded in Biblical evidence that supports this interpretation?

That is for you to decide.