Why did the soldiers go backward and fall down when Jesus said "I am he" in John 18:6?

Here are a few commentaries on this verse from Christian Bible scholars. To a large extent, they agree with your suspicion that the men were reacting to Messiah's use of the words "I AM," and the authority with which he spoke them. Parenthetical notes are the original authors'.

From Elliot's commentary for English Readers:

  They went backward, and fell to the ground.—There is nothing in the narrative to suggest that our Lord put forth miraculous power to cause this terror. The impression is rather that it was produced by the majesty of His person, and by the answer which to Jewish ears conveyed the unutterable name, “Jehovah” (I AM). (Comp. Note on John 8:24-25.) Guilt trembled before the calmness of innocence. Man fell to the ground before the presence of God. To Judas the term must have been familiar, and have brought back a past which may well have made him tremble at the present. To the officers the voice came from Him of whom they had been convinced before that “Never man spake like this man” (John 7:46). They have come to take Him by force, but conscience paralyses all their intentions, and they lay helpless before Him. He will surrender Himself because His hour is come (John 17:1); but His life no one taketh from Him. For this sense of awe in the presence of Christ, comp. the account of the cleansing of the Temple in John 2:14 et seq.

From MacLaren's Expositions of the Holy Scriptures:

  ‘I am He!’ When the Band were thus doubly assured by the traitor’s kiss and by His own confession, why did they not lay hands upon Him? There He stood in the midst of them, alone, defenceless; there was nothing to hinder their binding Him on the spot. Instead of that they recoil, and fall in a huddled heap before Him. Some strange awe and terror, of which they themselves could have given no account, was upon their spirits. How came it about? Many things may have conspired to produce it. I am by no means anxious to insist that this was a miracle. Things of the same sort, though much less in degree, have been often enough seen; when some innocent and illustrious victim has for a moment paralysed the hands of his would-be captors and made them feel, though it were but transiently, ‘how awful goodness is.’ There must have been many in that band who had heard Him, though, in the uncertain light of quivering moonbeams and smoking torches, they failed to recognise Him till He spoke. There must have been many more who had heard of Him, and many who suspected that they were about to lay hands on a holy man, perhaps on a prophet. There must have been reluctant tools among the inferiors, and no doubt some among the leaders whoso consciences needed but a touch to be roused to action. To all, His calmness and dignity would appeal, and the manifest freedom from fear or desire to flee would tend to deepen the strange thoughts which began to stir in their hearts.

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  hey went backward ... - The cause of their retiring in this manner is not mentioned. Various things might have produced it. The frank, open, and fearless manner in which Jesus addressed them may have convinced them of his innocence, and deterred them from prosecuting their wicked attempt. His disclosure of himself was sudden and unexpected; and while they perhaps anticipated that he would make an effort to escape, they were amazed at his open and bold profession. Their consciences reproved them for their crimes, and probably the firm, decided, and yet mild manner in which Jesus addressed them, the expression of his unequalled power in knowing how to find the way to the consciences of men, made them feel that they were in the presence of more than mortal man. There is no proof that there was here any miraculous power, any mere physical force, and to suppose that there was greatly detracts from the moral sublimity of the scene.

Other commenters give similar commentary. As for your second question, "why did they arrest him anyway?" I'll give another sample from MacLaren, though the emphasis is mine:

  Thus, then, we may see in that picture of our Lord’s surrendering Himself that His trembling disciples might go free, an emblem of what He does for us, in regard to all our foes. He stands between us and them, receives their arrows into His own bosom, and says, ‘Let these go their way.’ God’s law comes with its terrors, with its penalties, to us who have broken it a thousand times. The consciousness of guilt and sin threatens us all more or less, and with varying intensity in different minds.
  He died because He chose; He chose because He loved. His love had to die in order that His death might be our life, and that in it we should find our forgiveness and peace. He stands between our foes and us. No evil can strike us unless it strike Him first. He takes into His own heart the sharpest of all the darts which can pierce ours. He has borne the guilt and punishment of a world’s sin. These solemn penalties have fallen upon Him that we, trusting in Him, ‘may go our way,’ and that there may be ‘no condemnation’ to us if we are in Christ Jesus.

In summary, MacLaren's answer is that they still arrested him because it was his divine will to be arrested in place of his disciples, and also to suffer and die in their place, and indeed in our place.


What was inside the Ark of the Covenant?

In his commentary on Hebrews 9:4, John Gill notes,

  but how this pot, as well as Aaron's rod, can be said to be in the ark, when it is asserted, at the bringing of the ark into the temple, at the dedication of it by Solomon, that there was nothing in it but two tables of stone, (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chr. 5:10) and both the pot of "manna," and Aaron's rod, are said to be before the testimony, (Exo. 16:34; Num. 17:10) and not in it, is a difficulty.

John Gill supposes that

  the preposition ἐν sometimes signifies "at," or "with," as in (Col. 3:1; John 1:28; Eph. 6:2) and so the sense is, that these were near unto it in the most holy place, and might be in the sides of it, though not within it; for there were places in the sides of the ark to put things into (Deut. 31:26; 1 Sam. 6:8) .

In 1 Sam. 6:8, the author writes that "vessels of gold" (כְּלֵי הַזָּהָב) were placed beside it (the Ark) (מִצִּדּוֹ). These vessels of God were "five golden hemorrhoids and five golden mice" (cp. 1 Sam. 6:4). We know without a doubt that the scriptures never mention any of these being present in the Ark itself. So, we may assume that there was some sort of storage space beside the Ark, yet the exact nature of this storage is unknown. Another possibility is that makeshift platforms were placed beside the Ark at various times to hold such things. Again, scripture is not clear.

Yet, one thing seems to be clear, and that is that there was nothing in the Ark except the two tables upon which were written the Ten Commandments (cp. 1 Kings 8:9). I would tend to agree with Gill's assertion that the Greek preposition ἐν can mean "with" (it is so translated in the A.V. 140 times). There are many examples of ἐν followed by a relative pronoun being translated as "with" (e.g., Matt. 7:2; Rev. 19:20).

Even if the pot of manna and Aharon's bud were located by the side of the Ark, they would still be considered "in the presence of YHVH" (לִפְנֵי יְהוָה; cp. Exo. 16:33) because YHVH dwelt between the kruvim (cp. 1 Sam. 4:4).

One more point to note. In Num. 17:7, it is written that Aharon's rod was to be brought "before the testimony"  or "in the presence of the testimony" (לִפְנֵי הָעֵדוּת). Some might assume that the "testimony" (or "witness) referred to here is the two tablets of the Ten Commandments (cp. Exo. 25:16). Thus, they may conclude that the rod and the pot of manna had to be in the immediate presence of the tablets contained inside the Ark itself. However, in his commentary on Exo. 16:34, Avraham ibn Ezra writes,

  לפני העדות שהוא הארון. ונקרא ארון העדות בעבור לוחות הברית שהיו שם

which is translated as,

  "Before the testimony," which is the Ark. And it was called "the Ark of the testimony" (cp. Exo. 25:22) on account of the tablets of the covenant that were there."

In summary, it's possible that there is no contradiction and that instead of being "in the Ark," the pot of manna and Aharon's rod were "with the Ark" inside the Temple and/ or Tabernacle.


Does Catholicism teach that the Wise Men from the East in fact, Jews settled in a far away place?

Given the accompanying texts to the Gospel that are read in the Epiphany of the Lord (based on the Roman Calendar), these magi might have well been non-Jews.

For example, the first lecture, in the link above, taken from Isaiah, states:

  Caravans of camels shall fill you, dromedaries from Midian and Ephah; All from Sheba shall come bearing gold and frankincense, and proclaiming the praises of the LORD.

The genealogy of the Bible states that Midian, Ephah, and Sheba are, strictly speaking, not Jews (mainly descendants of Jacob).

Similarly, the Psalm reads:

  The kings of Tarshish and the Isles shall offer gifts;
  the kings of Arabia and S[h]eba shall bring tribute. All kings shall pay him homage, all nations shall serve him.

So, given this context, there seem to be a suggestion that these magi were indeed non-Jews. Surely, these could have been Jews settled elsewhere, but the context of the quotes is that of non-Jews expressing homage to the Lord.

Another interesting answer comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia (not official doctrine but official in the sense that it has the Imprimatur). The entry on the magi states:

  The religion of the Magi was fundamentally that of Zoroaster and forbade sorcery; their astrology and skill in interpreting dreams were occasions of their finding Christ.

It also refers to non-biblical evidence:

  Herodotus (I, ci) is our authority for supposing that the Magi were the sacred caste of the Medes.

The Medes were non-Jews.


What are the requirements for establishing an Eastern Orthodox church or mission?

Firstly, you will need your Bishop's approval. However, before that (sorry if that is ironic), you will need to make sure that you have enough people in the area who would like to be in a mission. Enough people? Hmm...
Here is a link that has some info. Quoting from it (member David):

  Here is how most OCA missions have been established in our diocese for the last twenty years or so.

  Secure a core group to explore starting a mission (usually 2-5 families/individuals) that are Orthodox
  Contact your bishop, letting him know of your desire to start a mission in your area.
  If the bishop approves, he will give you permission to start holding reader's services.  Perhaps one or more of the starting members will be tonsured a reader if a member in good standing at their last parish.
  Once you have secured a place to meet and have had reader's services for a month or two, the local dean and/or bishop will arrange to have supply priests hold a liturgy at the mission at least once a month.  At this point the mission usually receives it's name.
  After showing enough growth that demonstrates that the community has the potential to evangelise their local area and support a priest and his family either a priest will be assigned to the mission or one of the mission families will go to seminary.

Really, though, this type of question should be asked of a Priest (or Bishop :)), not of online strangers... :)


Were any of the early church leaders Gentile converts to Christianity?

This question already has a lot of answers, but I feel like the most basic answer is missing!
The answer is yes, and we need look no further than the Bible.
Titus himself was a gentile convert. We learn this in Galatians 2

Galatians 2:3 nkjv - Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

For the sake of being concise, I wont quote more of the chapter, but you should check it out.
Now that we have established Titus Gentile-ness, we must ask the second question, was he a "Leader in the early Church"?
If we go to the book of Titus, we can find that out

Titus 1:5 nkjv - For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you
Titus 2:15 nkjv -  Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.

So his job is to choose elders, teach , exhort, and rebuke, and in general get the churches in line. To me it is clear that Paul is asking Titus to act as a leader in the church.
Its at this point that the discussion gets more complicated if we don't have a shared doctrine of what constitutes an Elder/leader in the church etc, but personally I think this single example answers the original question quite nicely!


Revelations 3:17
The word "miser" appears appears in the Latin text of Revelations 3:17:

quia dicis quod dives sum et locupletatus et nullius egeo et nescis quia tu es miser et miserabilis et pauper et caecus et nudus

Strictly the word means miserable, but here it is often also translated to mean wretched. This is distinct itself from poor, which is "pauper" in the above translation.
Psalms 37:7
It also appears in the Latin text of Psalms 37:7:

miser factus sum et curvatus sum usque ad finem tota die contristatus ingrediebar

Here it is often also translated to wicked in other biblical translations.
Isaiah 16:4
It also appears in the Latin text of Isaiah 16:4:

habitabunt apud te profugi mei Moab esto latibulum eorum a facie vastatoris finitus est enim pulvis consummatus est miser defecit qui conculcabat terram

Here it is often also translated to aggressor or oppressor, or the like in other biblical translations.


Where did St. Jerome say this quote about the manger of the nativity?

I was a bit skeptical, but the quote appears to be legitimate.  It's from one of Jerome's homilies.  Merely searching for jerome manger silver, I found this page in The Homilies of Saint Jerome, Volume 2.

Here's a more complete quotation:

  O, if only I were permitted to look upon that manger in which the Lord lay!  Now, as an honor to Christ, we have taken away the manger of clay and have replaced it with crib [sic] of silver, but more precious to me is the one that has been removed.  Silver and gold are proper to heathendom; Christian faith is worthy of the manger that is made of clay.  He who was born in that manger cared nothing for gold and silver.  I do not find fault with those who made the change in the cause of honor (nor do I look with disfavor upon those in the Temple who made vessels of gold), but I wonder at the Lord, the Creator of the universe, who is born, not surrounded by gold and silver, but by mud and clay.


Christians are no longer held to the strict laws of Sabbath (an argument can actually be made that Jews were never held to this strict law, either, but that they made it stricter than necessary--but that's beside the point).

I have had jobs in the past where I was required to work on Sunday.  To ensure that I still had a "Sabbath day" (day of rest), I chose some other day of the week as my rest day.  I think this practice is well within the intention of Sabbath rest, as outlined in the Bible.

But you're asking specifically about a certain task, whether it is work or not.  I think Jesus demonstrated that the standard for Sabbath day activity should not be "work,"--as he did several acts of "work" (including harvesting grain, and healing) on the Sabbath.  Rather, I think the more important principle is "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy"--that is, use the day for God's glory.

If, for you, that means no studying, then don't study.  If for you, studying includes attending a lecture, then don't attend that lecture.

For many people, studying is very stressful, and distracting... for those people, I would think choosing to avoid study as part of their Sabbath ritual is a good idea.  For others, studying may be a relaxing thing.  I'm not in school, but I find it relaxing to read--and I rarely ever read fiction.  That means that almost all of my reading is "study" of some form.  If I therefore never "studied" on Sabbath, I would be avoiding one of the most relaxing activities I know.

What it boils down to, I think, is your own personal conviction.

You did the right thing to refuse the lecture, which would have gone against your convictions.  If you decide that your convictions should change, I'd say you're also doing the right thing, as there is no "right" answer in this case.


Why do people interpret "Lucifer" as being Satan in Isaiah 14?

It is commonly believed to be Satan.  "Lucifer", however, is a transliteration of the word in the Latin Vulgate.  So, basically, it's a transliteration of a translation.  Many more modern translations render the original word rather than following the traditional transliteration.

How you are fallen from heaven,    O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you
are cut down to the ground,    you who laid the nations low! (Isaiah 14:12, ESV)
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes (Isaiah 14:12, Biblia Sacra Vulgata).


By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant?

By the mechanism of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - that is the supernatural power of God.  The human authors of the Bible wrote under the direct inspiration of the Spirit, writing exactly and precisely what God wanted them to write in their native language.  They willed to submit to God and his will was done, so neither the author's will nor God's was violated.
Note that inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts, not subsequent translations, nor even copies of them.
According to H. C. Thiessen, giving the Evangelical Pentecostal point of view:

Not only is Scripture inspired and authoritative, it is also inerrant and infallible. By this we mean that it is without error in the original manuscripts. It is inerrant in all that it affirms, whether in historical, scientific, moral, or doctrinal matters. Inerrancy extends to all of Scripture and is not limited to certain teachings of Scripture.
-- Lectures in Systematic Theology, Thiessen & Doerksen, William B. Eerdmans, 1979. [Emphasis mine.]

The Catholic position is similar, though worded less concretely, probably to protect the duality of scripture and tradition within that body:

II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”
107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
-- Catholic Catechism. [Emphasis original.]

The most salient section being the last bit: "firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures".


What Are Biblical Arguments for Egalitarianism?

In the letter to the Galatians, it is written that in Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, men and women, slave and free, because we are all one in Christ. That's generally what is quoted.
However we can also see this in Genesis, where God made man in His image, male and female.
God also tells his people Israel (e.g. in Deuteronomy) that they are to have one law for the native and the sojourner, that they are not to favour either the poor or the rich in a dispute but rather must seek justice, a man cannot simply accuse his wife of adultery and declare her guilty without evidence, etc.
The message conveyed in all this is that God does not want one gender or race or class, etc. to do injustice to / mistreat the others. He wants justice for all. That's because we are all His children and he loves us. This does not however mean that we have no difference in roles; e.g. priests must be men (see the letter to Timothy). St. Paul writes we are the body of Christ and each person is a member of that body; just like in a body, each member has a different role to play but each is vital for perfect function.
Hence the adage: we are all equal but different
Edit
I have checked once more and I see that the egalitarianism you've asked about is different from the definition I thought about. I thought you're referring to equality as in our value, but the one you've referred to is about equality in authority and responsibility. My apologies.
The texts written above are used as evidence and further arguments for egalitarianism include the existence of prophetesses like Deborah, and how Aquilla and Priscilla (husband and wife) are listed together as a couple with Aquilla being mentioned first sometimes and Priscilla being mentioned first other times.
However, it must be noted that this doesn't suggest a radical egalitarianism where there is absolutely no difference in authority or responsibility; that egalitarianism isn't supported. Instead it focuses on there being overlap in roles.


Are God, Son (Jesus) and The Holy Spirit Same?

It's three Persons in one Divine Nature, all separate in their personhood, all equal in their divinity.  An image pulled from an old catechism diagrams the relationship like this:

The legendary analogy that Saint Patrick used when educating the Irish was the shamrock: three distinct leaves in one plant.  Obviously, any image we make is going to be an imperfect representation of what the Trinity is, but the essence is that the three distinct persons are united in their shared Divine nature.


Is there a good Swedish Bible Translation that's not the equivalent of the NIV?

Wikipedia has a list of Bible translations in the Swedish language. There are two types of Bibles:

Official government-sanctioned translations, used by the Lutheran Church of Sweden
Other translations

The 1917 version that you found is most likely the 1917 års bibelöversättning, which is a government-sanctioned translation. The latest government-sanctioned one is the Bibel 2000. Given that it is used by the Lutheran Church of Sweden, which is the largest denomination in the country, you ought to have an easier time finding this version.

Other translations are most commonly available in the New Testament only, but it looks like the Svenska Folkbibeln (Swedish People's Bible) is the most popular non-government modern translation that contains the entire Bible. Wikipedia has an unsourced claim that this translation was commissioned in response to conservative concerns that the Bibel 2000 was strongly influenced by liberal theology and higher criticism, but I couldn't find anything on my own to confirm this (although I'm limited to English sources since I can't read Swedish).*

It does not appear that a Swedish translation to the New King James Version (NKJV), or English Standard Version (ESV), are available. I suspect that is because they are of interest to English language speakers, but less so to Swedish speakers who would prefer a translation from the original languages to their own language.

*As a personal note, I'll say that it's not worth getting worked up over whether a Bible translation is "conservative" or "liberal"; I personally can't tell unless I really search for differences. Just get a Bible that you can find. If your friend attends a church that uses a certain translation, that's an excellent version to pick up, and means they will read the same words in both services and private study.


What is the role of the Three Persons of the Godhead in creation?

The first thing to keep in mind is that in the Old Testament, doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not at all explicit. The passage in Genesis 1:26 is frequently interpreted as a prefiguration of the Holy Trinity, but it would be a mistake to say that the human author of Genesis is affirming anything about the Divine Persons.

Similarly, it would be a mistake to think that the author had the Holy Spirit in mind when he wrote of the “Spirit of God” (note that the word for “spirit” could also mean “wind”) who “was hovering over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:2).

In fact, God did not reveal the Holy Trinity to us until He sent Jesus Christ, the Son. It is the “sending”—the “mission”—of the Persons that reveals them to us. (See John 17:18, John 20:21, and 14:16, regarding the Missions of the Persons.)

Naturally, creation is, in fact, the work of all three Persons of the Trinity, and so even though the sacred author knew nothing about the Trinity, the Trinity was at work in the world, from the moment of Creation. God chose to reveal His Triune nature, however, only with Jesus Christ.

Hence, it is possible that the sacred author, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave the Old Testament a foretaste of the revelation to come by portraying God as refering to Himself as “we.” The “Spirit of God” may indeed be a hint regarding the Holy Spirit. However, from the Old Testament alone, we cannot draw any definitive conclusions about the Holy Trinity—for that we need the revelation given to us by Jesus in the New Testament.

More à propos to the O.P., there is no way to tell for sure if the one “speaking” when God speaks is the Father, or who exactly He is referring to when He says “we.” Certainly, the sacred author did not have the Trinity in mind, but the passage can legitimtely be interpreted in that vein, in the light of the New Testament.


Did JWs believe in trinity and immortality of the soul before they got their own Bible?

The very early Jehovah's Witnesses (then called Bible Students) already believed that trinity and immortality of the soul were unscriptural.
As the book God’s Kingdom Rules! on page 24 says:

For centuries, the world of Christendom had been enveloped in spiritual darkness; many of its teachings were rooted in paganism. A prime example is the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. During the 1800’s, though, a few sincere students of the Bible scrutinized that teaching and saw that it had no support in God’s Word. Henry Grew, George Stetson, and George Storrs wrote and lectured boldly, exposing that satanic lie. Their work, in turn, had a profound impact on C. T. Russell and his close associates.
The little group of Bible Students found that other doctrines linked to the immortality of the soul were likewise confusing and false—for example, the teaching that all good people go to heaven or that God torments the immortal souls of the wicked in eternal hellfire. Russell and his close associates boldly exposed those lies in numerous articles, books, pamphlets, tracts, and published sermons.

Russell started his work in the late 19th century, so what was decades before.
Their stance on the trinity doctrine was already very clear in that period too as this article writes:

Through the pages of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, Russell and his associates courageously denounced false religious doctrines that misrepresented God. They discerned that—contrary to popular religious opinion—the soul is mortal, that at death we go to the grave, and that Jehovah is the only true God and therefore not part of a Trinity.


Besides Satan, was Jesus alone in the desert?

It's not written in any of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) that Jesus was alone. Someone in a comment below prior to this edit referenced a hymn called "Jesus walked this lonesome valley" - this is an assumption by the composer. Aside from Satan's obvious presence, no further information is given about other witnesses of the event - we could theorize that someone, or even many someones, were present, Jesus was alone and told his disciples the events afterwards, or that he was alone and the Spirit provided the Gospel writers this info. All we have is what is written in the gospels, anything else is just supposition.


Usually when people use the term "Messianic Prophecy," they're referring to a prophecy concerning the "Annointed One" (messiah) that was to come. (Here's a list of 45+.) These prophetic predictions/descriptions were about some yet unknown person to come.

When Jesus speaks of himself, it could certainly be described as prophecy, it doesn't exactly fit the pattern of previous "messianic prophecies."

The OT Messianic prophecies are another assertion of the validity of Jesus, because these predictions were made and recorded hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

Jesus' predictions about himself don't provide the same kind of external proof because to assume they were accurate presumes that the author is recording the truth, and that presumption is essentially assuming the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah. A pessimistic analysis of these predictions might say that they were fabricated after Jesus came and so, of course they are accurate. Whereas the Hebrews had spent the previous 400+ years studying the predictions made before Jesus' fulfillment of any of them. The accuracy of those predictions serves as proof that Jesus' coming bears the stamp of God.


Question for those who hold to the immortality of the soul

On the subject of the immortality of the soul, Martin Luther has this to say :

For since we call it a sleep, we know that we shall not remain in it, but be again awakened and live, and that the time during which we sleep, shall seem no longer than if we had just fallen asleep. Hence, we shall censure ourselves that we were surprised or alarmed at such a sleep in the hour of death, and suddenly come alive out of the grave and from decomposition, and entirely well, fresh, with a pure, clear, glorified life, meet our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the clouds.

Martin Luther and William Tyndale on the State of the Dead
John Calvin exhorts not to enquire into matters that are not revealed but what he does say is this :

Many greatly torment themselves with discussing what place they occupy, and whether or not they already enjoy celestial glory. It is foolish and rash to inquire into hidden things, farther than God permits us to know. Scripture, after telling that Christ is present with them, and receives them into paradise (John 12:32), and that they are comforted, while the souls of the reprobate suffer the torments which they have merited goes no farther. What teacher or doctor will reveal to us what God has concealed?

As to the place of abode, the question is not less futile and inept, since we know that the dimension of the soul is not the same as that of the body. When the abode of blessed spirits is designated as the bosom of Abraham, it is plain that, on quitting this pilgrimage, they are received by the common father of the faithful, who imparts to them the fruit of his faith. Still, since Scripture uniformly enjoins us to look with expectation to the advent of Christ, and delays the crown of glory till that period, let us be contented with the limits divinely prescribed to us--viz. that the souls of the righteous, after their warfare is ended, obtain blessed rest where in joy they wait for the fruition of promised glory, and that thus the final result is suspended till Christ the Redeemer appear.

There can be no doubt that the reprobate have the same doom as that which Jude assigns to the devils, they are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day," (Jude ver. 6).

Calvin's Institutes - Book 3 - Chapter 25
It is quite clear that neither Luther nor Calvin accepted the idea of the annihilation of the soul, in any way or for any reason, nor did they accept the possibility (whether temporarily or permanently) of the 'cessation of existence'.
A more clear text, regarding immortality, than the two quoted (the two quoted texts are not definitive in respect of the topic under inquiry) is the last verse of Isaiah, 66:24, which is quoted by Jesus and reported by Mark :

... to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [Mark 9:43,44 KJV]

Writing of this text Gill says the following in his commentary :

This will be always the case; conscience will be ever distressing, racking, and torturing them; it will never cease, nor cease doing this office, and so the Chaldee paraphrase of Isaiah 66:24 renders this phrase, , "their souls shall not die"; but shall ever continue in the dreadful torments and unspeakable horrors of a corroding conscience; and by "the fire" may be meant the fire of divine wrath let into their souls, which will never be extinguished; and so Jarchi interprets the phrase in Isaiah 66:24, "their fire", "in hell".

Gill's Commentary - Biblehub


Is there a moral goodness in In vitro fertilization?

It is a good when a new person comes into existence; God still creates a rational soul out of nothing even for those conceived as a result of sin.

But it is never moral to use evil means

in the case of IVF:

depriving a child of his or her right to be conceived in an act of marital love
masturbation to obtain semen
killing many people by subjecting them to harsh living conditions (Petri dish) when their proper place for their age is in a woman's wombA high fraction of those conceived with IVF do not survive because of the harsh living conditions, so many ova have to be fertilized for there to be a chance of one surviving long enough to be implanted in the woman's womb.

to achieve a good end:

bringing a new life into existence.

The authoritative Magisterial source on IVF is Donum Vitae, a 1987 document from the CDF. It says that even if masturbation and grave danger to the life of the embryo could be avoided, IVF is still intrinsically immoral because it deprives the child of his God-given right to be procreated in an act of marital love. Look at section A.1, “Why must human procreation take place in a marriage?”

For more information on this, see the discussion on IVF in Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis by Benedict Ashley, O.P.("Artificial Human Reproduction" on p. 86 of the PDF or §9.2 "Reproductive Technologies" of the EPUB)

There are moral, more successful alternatives to IVF, such as Dr. Hilger's NaProTECHNOLOGY. You can find a NaPro doctor here. See also The NaProTechnology Revolution: Unleashing the Power in a Woman's Cycle and associated website.


Did the 1983 Code of Canon Law change the law on celebrating/receiving the Eucharist in a state of serious sin?

Commentating on the 1917 Code, Dom Augustine writes in his A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law can. 856:

No one who is conscious of a mortal sin, no matter how sorry or contrite he may feel, is allowed to receive Holy Communion without having previously gone to confession. In case of urgent necessity, when no suitable confessor is at hand, such a one must make an act of perfect contrition before approaching the Sacred Table.
This canon we leave to moralists to explain, because it pertains to the court of consequence. We will only add that this law, no matter whether it be regarded as divine [cf. 1 Cor. 11:27,29] or ecclesiastical, is a grave one, as is apparent from the Council of Trent [cf. sess. 6, ch. 15]. Copia confessarii must be understood of any confessor with the necessary faculties who is not an accomplice of the penitent. Theologians say that the repugnance to, or impossibility of going to confession must be such as is not directly connected with the act itself. Urgent necessity of receiving Holy Communion exists when one has to fulfill the paschal obligation, and before contracting marriage.

The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law p. 1170 on the 1983 Code says:

It is not for canon law to determine what sins, including transgressions of the ecclesiastical law itself, are grave and what sins are non-grave or venial.8989. …canonical avoidance of distinctions between "grave" and "mortal" sins…

Thus it seems "grave" and "mortal" sins are synonymous terms in Canon Law.


What is so special about sitting at God's "right hand"?

It simply means that Christ is uniquely special to God and has his authority.

To sit at the right hand of an earthly king was a place of honor, denoting special trust, authority from, and relationship with the king.  It was something that was understood without needing explanation at the time.

If you were to sit at the right hand of the King meant that you acted with his authority.  Those who came to you would treat you with respect and obedience, as if you were the king yourself.

It's one of the many demonstrations in the Bible, which is not readily understood by us in our time that made perfect sense to the culture as it was then.

There's an article that explains it a bit differently, with more detail here: http://www.letusreason.org/onenes10.htm

This is an excerpt:

  To sit at ones right hand means a place of authority, it was a place
  of honor it meant dignity and rulership. Throughout the O.T there are
  used what are called anthropomorphism to describe God in some function
  or characteristic. this is figurative language describing a certain
  characteristic of God it is describing his divine actions from a human
  view point.

...

  The term at the right hand of God points to his exalted position he
  now is active on. There are numerous things that need to be considered
  to understand this phrase. The phrase right hand is a metaphor, God
  exercises his authority by his right hand.

  Right after Peter writes of the resurrection he says 1 Pt.3:22 Who has
  gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and
  authorities and powers having made subject to him". If he is God the
  Father then they are already subjected to him, If he is only a man,
  then the ruling of the universe is in a humans hands. So it is as in
  Mt.28:18 all authority was given to him in both heaven and earth. This
  is something he did not have as he came to earth in a state of
  humility Phil.2:5-8.

There are several other ways of stating the same basic thing here: http://biblemeanings.info/Words/Body/Right_hand.htm


Forgive Others As We Have Been Forgiven?

Where your confusion seems to lie is in the fact that Salvation(forgiveness) is a gift from God.

This is what Christians believe.

The fact that Jesus died on the Cross So that our sins might be forgiven;

Matthew 20:28  KJV

  Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Please notice that this scripture says many and not all.

The reason for this is rather simple in that Salvation is a gift from God due to his enormous grace.

God sacrificed his son on the cross, so that we might receive his gift of Salvation , but just as any other gift it must be received by the person to whom it is presented.

For instance if you never open your Christmas gifts they are still gifts, but they do not do you any good until you do open them and begin to use them. And if you never do it is not the fault of the person who gave the gift .

So it is with Salvation it is there just waiting for acceptance, and even beyond acceptance to be used by the receiver. The two go hand in hand.

When Jesus died on the cross God heaped on him punishment for all the sins of the World, but it must be remembered that as terrible as it sounds that too was a gift (albeit a miserable gift), and as with all gifts Jesus had to accept them.

Colossians 2:13  KJV

  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

We must also remember that a gift not only has to be received, but it must also be given and remember that those are our sins, they do not belong to either God or Jesus, therefore it is us who must make a gift of them to Jesus so that he too can make use of them to justify his dieing on the cross. Since he has taken the punishment,  we should at least make it worth his sacrifice.

The next step would logically be to do that, but the question is how can we?

Well that's a good question and I'm glad you asked it!

1st John 1:9  KJV

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Here is how it is done.

1  We must admit that those sins belong to us. (that is confession)

2 We must ask God to allow Jesus death on the cross to be the remission of our sins. (ask for forgiveness)

God will then turn to Jesus (who is at his right hand) and ask if he will accept your sin . (of course Jesus will say yes since he already suffered torture in your name).

At that time your sins will be taken from you and sacrificed on the Cross with Jesus.(that is forgiveness)

Believe then that your sins have been paid for in full, and you have been born again, not of the flesh but of the Spirit, and you have become worthy to enter Heaven since you are now sinless in God's eyes, and have become perfect as Jesus was perfect.

The key word here is believe.

1st John 1:12  KJV

  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

As I said before a gift is only a gift not only when it is opened, but it must also be used.

Suppose you are given a car, and all you do with it is set it up and look at it.

It is still a gift and it is yours but until you start to dive it you are not making use of your gift.

There are two ways in which you can use your gift of Salvation, you can bask in it, which God wants you to do.

John  10:10  KJV

  The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

I like the more abundantly part!

and you can also share it. (which is what I am doing now.)

Here are some other Scriptures which help to explain.

All are from the King James version of the Bible.

  Mark 4:12  That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

  Matthew 9:6  But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

  Ephesians 4:32  And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


What do Evangelical Protestants say about sanctification?

If there's any one denomination finds itself consistently in accord with "broad evangelicalism," it's gotta be the Southern Baptist Convention. Certainly that's true on this issue; article 4 of the Baptist Faith and Message says:

In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. [...] Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.

Methodists/Wesleyans are also well-represented in the evangelical movement, and they would agree with what's quoted above, but they would add the concept of entire sanctification.
Lutherans too are well-represented in evangelicalism, and would probably sign on to the Baptist statement above. But they would emphasize strongly that justification and sanctification are separate and must be kept separate in preaching. Lutherans are big on what they call the law-gospel distinction, and the gospel of free/unmerited grace (the grace of imputed righteousness, resulting in justification) must not be mingled with the preaching of the law, which sanctifies the justified but condemns the unjust.
Then you've got Presbyterians (which is basically synonymous with reformed). Almost everything I said above about Lutherans applies to them as well, although they tend to approach the law-gospel distinction a little bit differently. Since I'm most familiar with them, and since they're perhaps the most confessionally verbose anyway, I'll quote two of their confessions, starting with the Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 13). This pretty concisely defines the Protestant doctrine of sanctification. And if you don't read too much Presbyterian baggage into "effectual calling" in the first sentence, and if you discount the pieces that contradict Methodist "entire sanctification" teaching, it pretty well encapsulates a view of sanctification that any evangelical should be able to raise his glass to:

They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Now comes the Belgic Confession (article 24), which predates the Westminster Confession. It says much the same, but it mixes in some polemic specifically designed to parry Catholic attacks on the doctrine:

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

From each of these, we could synthesize a statement on sanctification that most or all evangelicals would agree with:

We are able to be justified by virtue of Christ's death and resurrection. The justifying, unmerited grace of God frees us from selfish motives for seeking holiness. Sanctification is gradual, aided by the work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. It comes entirely after we have already been justified.

Though justification and sanctification are separate, it's important to remember that the same faith that justifies also sanctifies. John Piper, a reformed Baptist, wrote a book with that premise with the aim of aiding Christians in their sanctification and in their joy. It's called Future Grace, and it's considered a modern classic.
For more comparison and contrast between the various Protestant views of sanctification, you might want to check out two books on five views of sanctification. Both of them document reformed, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal views. The former book adds Keswick and "Augustinian-Dispensational," and the latter adds Lutheran and contemplative. (Keswick and Pentecostal theology both are closely related to Wesleyanism.)


Bizarre. The user's profile page names the business as FoxRaven Designs. A quick search led me to FoxRaven's website, which claims:

  FoxRaven prayer beads, malas and rosaries are individually hand-crafted and reiki-charged in Connecticut by Maya, a Karuna and Usui Reiki Master.  Maya creates Christian rosaries and prayer beads spanning many faiths, including pagan, islamic, buddhist, yogic and new age spiritualities.

The artist claims to have been "raised in a Roman Catholic/Buddhist environment," (whatever that means) but now professes to be a "Reiki Master and Shamanic Practitioner."

Any connections the artist may have had to the Catholic Church appear to be solely historical.


What is the basis that some Protestants teach the non-necessity of baptism for salvation?

Why do Protestants teach the non-necessity of baptism for salvation?

Those who see baptism as something additional to salvation might use the following verses;

  Luke 23:43  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
  shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The thief on the cross was not baptized.

  1 Corinthians 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach
  the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should
  be made of none effect.

Paul did baptize a few but was not sent to baptize which would indicate that the act was peripheral to salvation.

  Ephesians 2:8-9  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.

Baptism can be considered a "work" (something a person does) and therefore inconsistent with salvation by faith.

  Acts 16:30-31  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to
  be saved?   And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou
  shalt be saved, and thy house.

Although baptism can follow quickly, the actual process of salvation is never cited as requiring baptism.

The often cited verses used to favor baptism can also be seen in a different light.

  John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a
  man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
  kingdom of God.

When Jesus talks to Nicodemus, the context is physical human birth and spiritual (born again) birth, the "water" and the spirit.

  Acts 22:16  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and
  wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Ananias came and restored to Paul his sight. He then told him the purpose Jesus had for him. He then summarized for Paul that he should be baptized, wash away his sins, and call on the name of the Lord. This is not necessarily a description of a salvation process.

  Titus 3:5  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
  according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
  and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The "washing" here is the baptism (immersion) in the Holy Spirit that happens when a person is saved.

  Matthew 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
  in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

This "commission" was given to the disciples in anticipation of the Kingdom activities expected of the nation of Israel. If it were a universal activity, Paul would have been instructed to include it in his apostleship to the gentiles. In any event, it is still not described as an integral part of the salvation process.

Many find the views of church "fathers" to be compelling, however as far as the Bible goes, it is difficult to find any specific instruction of baptism as essential for salvation.


When was the number of the beast, 666, first identified as referring to Emperor Nero?

The first time Nero is directly interpreted as 666 or 616 was in 1831.

  The riddle seems to have been forgotten almost as soon as it was written and not solved until 1831 (when it first was proposed), seemingly because the number was assumed to be Greek or Latin—and not a Hebraic one.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html

About 270 Victorinus mentions Nero in his commentary on Revelation chapter 17, but when it comes to 666 he says the following.

  “His number is the name of a man, and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”] As they have it reckoned from the Greek characters, they thus find it among many to be τειταν, for τειταν has this number, which the Gentiles call Sol and Phœbus; and it is reckoned in Greek thus: τ three hundred, ε five, ι ten, τ three hundred, α one, ν fifty,—which taken together become six hundred and sixty-six. For as far as belongs to the Greek letters, they fill up this number and name; which name if you wish to turn into Latin, it is understood by the antiphrase DICLUX, which letters are reckoned in this manner: since D figures five hundred, I one, C a hundred, L fifty, V five, X ten,—which by the reckoning up of the letters makes similarly six hundred and sixty-six, that is, what in Greek gives τειταν, to wit, what in Latin is called DICLUX; by which name, expressed by antiphrases, we understand Antichrist, who, although he be cut off from the supernal light, and deprived thereof, yet transforms himself into an angel of light, daring to call himself light.2304 Moreover, we find in a certain Greek codex αντεμος, which letters being reckoned up, you will find to give the number as above: α one, ν fifty, τ three hundred, ε five, μ forty, ο seventy, ς two hundred,—which together makes six hundred and sixty-six, according to the Greeks. Moreover, there is another name in Gothic of him, which will be evident of itself, that is, γενσήρικος, which in the same way you will reckon in Greek letters: γ three, ε five, ν fifty, σ two hundred, η eight, ρ a hundred, ι ten, κ twenty, ο seventy, ς also two hundred, which, as has been said above, make six hundred and sixty-six.

Irenaeus (130-202) discusses 666 and 616 in chapters XXIX and XXX of Against the Heresies Book V, but he never mentions Nero. Here is an excerpt.

  It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found possessing this number, it will be asked which among them shall the coming man bear. It is not through a want of names containing the number of that name that I say this, but on account of the fear of God, and zeal for the truth: for the name Evanthas (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, (ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels ε and ι, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed “Titan” by those who do now possess [the rule]. This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment because he (Antichrist) pretends that he vindicates the oppressed. And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch, then, as this name “Titan” has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many [names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called “Titan.” We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.


Is Luke's label for Christianity - "the Way" - used in later Christian writings?

I looked into Lampe (ed.)"A Patristic Greek Lexicon", Oxford University Press, 1961.

It makes four mentions for the use of hodos in this sense:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 1,48. (Migne 20.428A)
Chrysostom, Homily 19 on the Acts of the Apostoles (Migne 60.152)
Ammonius of Alexandria, On the Acts of the Apostoles 14:14 (Migne 85.1592C)
Theodoret of Cyrus, On Romans 9:33 (Migne 82.163)

According to what we see in Chrysostom, it would seem that this title hasn't been used since. He explains that those of the way was what "the believers were called, probably because of their taking the direct way that leads to heaven" (Migne 60.152).

[I know that there are very good patristic concordances that would help you out, but I don't have access to them at this time. Haven't had time to look very well into the references but I did make sure they correspond.
Hope this helps out a little.]


Why did St. Peter propose to make different tents at the time of Christ's Transfiguration? (Catholic perspective)

The Catena Aurea says of the tabernacles in this passage:

Origenes: Hereupon follows what the warm Peter spake, "Peter answered and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here." Because he had heard that He must go up to Jerusalem, he yet fears for Christ; but after his rebuke he dares not again say, "Be propitious to thyself, Lord," but suggests the same covertly under other guise. For seeing in this place great quietness and solitude, he thought that this would be a fit place to take up their abode in, saying, "Lord, it is good for us to be here." And he sought to remain here ever, therefore he proposes the tabernacles, "If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles." For he concluded if he should do this, Christ would not go up to Jerusalem, and if He should not go up to Jerusalem, He should not die, for he knew that there the Scribes laid wait for Him.
Remigius: Otherwise; At this view of the majesty of the Lord, and His two servants, Peter was so delighted, that, forgetting every thing else in the world, he would abide here for ever. But if Peter was then so fired with admiration, what ravishment will it not be to behold the King in His proper beauty, and to mingle in the choir of the Angels, and of all the saints? In that Peter says, "Lord, if thou wilt," he shews the submission of a dutiful and obedient servant.
Jerome: Yet art thou wrong, Peter, and as another Evangelist saysLuke 9:33, knowest not what thou sayest. Think not of three tabernacles, when there is but one tabernacle of the Gospel in which both Law and Prophets are to be repeated. But if thou wilt have three tabernacles, set not the servants equal with their Lord, but make three tabernacles, yea make one for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that They whose divinity is one, may have but one tabernacle, in thy bosom.

The commentators here link the three tents were meant as a ploy to dissuade the Lord from going to His Passion, as he knew that He would. In this sense, Peter would follow protocol and set up a separate tent for each VIP — it would be rude of them to make them share a tent, and they might have refused and gone off, prompting Jesus to go down from the Mount.
St. Jerome, of course, remembers to rebuke St. Peter in his commentary regarding the very point of placing Jesus in the same level as Moses and Elijah. If there will be three tents, it should be one for each person of the Trinity. However, he implies that St. Peter wasn't trying to make a theological statement with his three tabernacles, but it ends up suggesting one in the mind of the Gospel readers.


From this discussion, if "three days and three nights" is taken idiomatically, it means 3 days as the Jewish people of the day would have understood it.

  Now lets take a look at Jesus time in the sepulchre:

  Part of Friday = one dayspan.

  All of Saturday = one dayspan.

  Part of Sunday = one dayspan.

  Literally three days and three nights? No. Idiomatically three days
  and three nights (i.e., three dayspans), as uncleanness-periods were
  measured? Yes.


Do the religious figures leading a particular See of Christianity have a specific title(s) for that office?

Typically, in Catholicism, in Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy, and in the Assyrian Church of the East, the highest-ranking bishops of a particular see are given the title Patriarch. The see itself can also be called a patriarchate.

Note however that this title of patriarch applies, within the Catholic Church, not only to the pope as head of the whole Catholic Church but also to the heads of the various Catholic Churches sui iuris, such as the Melkite and Maronite Catholic Churches. I'm not aware of any title that applies to (for example) only the pope within the Catholic Church and also to the heads of all other Orthodox and Eastern churches.


How to reconcile Aquinas' analogical view of God with God's self-revelation?

Remember that Aquinas wrote almost 1,000 years after the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated.  Analogical language is not "incapable of truly grasping or describing."  It is just a form of compromise between equivocal and univocal predication, both of which are inadequate to describe God.  It's not even clear what you take "analogical language" to mean, for your link is broken.

Against this background, Aquinas asks how we are to interpret the divine names. He argues that they cannot be purely equivocal, for we could not then make intelligible claims about God. Nor can they be purely univocal, for God’s manner of existence and his relationship to his properties are sufficiently different from ours that the words must be used in somewhat different senses. Hence, the words we use of God must be analogical, used in different but related senses. To be more precise, it seems that such words as ‘good’ and ‘wise’ must involve a relationship to one prior reality, and they must be predicated in a prior and a posterior sense, for these are the marks of analogical terms.
-Aquinas on Analogy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


What is the biblical basis for the idea that people can't stop sinning?

The doctrine you are addressing is called Total Depravity.
This question will actually say much more about it: What is the Biblical basis for Total Depravity?
Various denominations have slightly different nuances to the idea, but typically the following verses are first up:

Romans 3:10-11: "There is none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."
Romans 8:7-9: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."
Ephesians 2:3b: "[We] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."
1 Corinthians 2:14: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

In the Old Testament, one looks to:

Jeremiah 17:9 (NLT) "The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?
Jeremiah 13:23 (NIV): "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil."

Basically, the idea is related to original sin, and says that mankind is incapable of not sinning.


Why does Jesus speak of himself in the third person?

I think a large part of His reason for doing this is to make shed more light on His identity. The title used reflects additional information about the person using it. So, to look at a few of Jesus's many titles:

"son of man" -> associates Jesus with the glorious figure seen in Daniel 7
"son of David" -> associates Jesus with the promise God made to David about a descendant who would sit on the throne forever
"son of God" -> describes Jesus as a king (since some of the kings of Israel were called "sons of God") although it is sometimes used in other ways by other people ("Son of the living God", "the Son of God") to refer to Jesus's divine nature.
"messiah" / "Christ" -> associates Jesus with prophecies about a prophet from God who would rescue Israel

So when Jesus used a particular title, it would evoke a particular image and bring to mind different ideas, even though they were all correct.

Short example of how this makes a difference. Say I'm trying to get into a fancy restaurant and the guy at the front is looking doubtful that I "fit in". I could say (assuming it was true):

I'm Richard, let me in.
I'm the son of the owner of this restaurant, let me in.
I'm cousin to the President, let me in.

They might all be true, but I'd be gaining something from the use of different titles.

Likewise, Jesus used different titles to show different aspects of Himself. Here is a great article on some of them (although it does miss a bit theologically).


What does title of "Bishop" mean in some African-American churches?

Well, as you point out, the term Bishop—which is ultimately derived from the Greek episkopos > biscop [Old English] > bishop—literally just means "overseer." While it came to mean a leader over several parishes in many traditions, its more general meaning could just as easily be applied to someone who oversees a single congregation, which these historically black  churches seem to have done. I don't think there's much more to it than that.


How can a Christian effectively explain the seeming contradiction between Gen 1:31 and Gen 6:6?

The answer to your question is really quite simple. God said that what He created was very good indeed (or really good, or better than good) prior to the fall of man and woman.
With the fall of our first parents, both they and the world they inhabited were spoiled permanently. Paul wrote that

". . . the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:20-22 NASB Updated Version).

That spoliation became worse and worse, to the point where God "repented" of His having created humans in His image. Remember, the Bible tells us that humanity had become so depraved that

". . . every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (6:5).

Think of the "absolute" terms in that verse:

every intent

only evil

and evil continually

This may sound flip, but if I were God, I would've wanted to

". . . 'blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.'"

The good news, however, comes in verse 8, which is certainly a pivotal verse in Genesis:

"BUT Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD."

In conclusion, what God created good, man spoiled. There is no contradiction between these two facts.
Take a homely analogy. Cancer is ravaging a person's intestinal tract. The only recourse is to remove the cancerous intestines and transplant into the body of the cancer patient the healthy intestines from an organ donor who has just died. Is the transplant cruel or unfair, or does it contradict the Hippocratic Oath in any way? Of course not. Out with the diseased body part, and in with the healthy body part, to give the cancer survivor a new lease on life. He or she will still die, but their life could be extended for many years.


According to Catholicism, is it possible for the Devil to kill someone?

Matthew 10:28, New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE), says:

  "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Incidentally, Mark 5:11–13 narrates an incident where the devil kills animals after possessing them:

  "Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; and the unclean spirits begged him, “Send us into the swine; let us enter them.” So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea."

It is only natural that the devil is able to do similar thing to human beings. Whether he needs to obtain permission  from the Lord of Life for doing such an action, as is mentioned in the case of Job, and even in the case of swines, is a matter of further discussion.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand the essential nature of hell, and how does it differ from that of Seventh-day Adventists?

Wikipedia has decent information on this topic.  First, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on this subject:

  Watch Tower publications teach that hell (hades or sheol) is not a place of fiery torment, but rather the "common grave of mankind", a place of unconscious non-existence. Gehenna, the Bible word commonly translated "hellfire", is said to describe a judgment of complete destruction, from which resurrection is not possible. They reason that complete destruction does not allow for literal "torture" of the wicked, as the deceased person is not conscious.

This describes a form of annihilationism that appears to be consistent with what your friend is describing.  However, there doesn't appear to be much difference when comparing these views to those of the Seventh-day Adventists:

  Seventh-day Adventists believe that death is a state of unconscious sleep until the resurrection. [...] They reject the traditional doctrine of hell as a state of everlasting conscious torment, believing instead that the wicked will be permanently destroyed after the millennium.

For more on this, as well as a comparison with other systems of Christian belief, see Wikipedia's article on Christian views on hell.


Matthew 18 also cites Jesus' words regarding little ones, and does so more frequently:

  At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest
  in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in
  the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn
  and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
  4  Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the
  kingdom of heaven.

  5  “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but
  whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,
  it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around
  his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.  Matthew 18:1-5

In this context, Jesus specifically identifies a child and speaks of children, then refers to children as "these little ones".  So, interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture, it is pretty conclusive that "little ones" refers to children.


Similarities and differences between the priesthood of all believers and the LDS priesthood

Disclaimer: My knowledge of "priesthood of all believers" is limited, what I write always reflects my understanding of the general doctrine and may differ between denominations.

Authority

Priesthood of all believers (as far as I understand):

All believers have the priesthood, meaning they can, for example baptise. No ordination required, the authority comes from the Holy Ghost.

LDS:

Priesthood is conferred by ordination of someone holding authority to do so (another priesthood holder). All worthy men may receive the priesthood, and are encouraged to do so. Priesthood also entails a convenant with God. Many priesthood holders have a list that traces back who ordained whom and can trace back their priesthood to Joseph Smith (and then, through Joseph Smith, to Peter, James and John and ultimately Jesus Christ himself).

Duty and service

Priesthood of all believers

While all lay people are priests, most congregations have professional ministers. Other functions are filled by the members of the congregation. Degree of central organization differs. Lutherans are very organized, Evangelicals supposedly less so. Since everyone is a priest, it is unclear if the priesthood entails any duties.

LDS

The priesthood entails well-defined duties (notably the ones in D&C 20) which express themselves in the congregational life, for example that every priesthood holder (except deacons) gets the responsibility to regularly visit and care for a number of member families (home teaching). The priesthood is also the reason why a mission is expected of a young adult man, but not of women (which can still go but don't share the same duty).

Everyone is serving in the church one way or another, the specific calling is given by the leadership (the bishop in case of a ward calling), and understood to be inspired. With the exception of Apostles, all callings end after a few years, at which point the person is assigned a different calling. Everyone is lay, including bishops and all higher positions. Anecdotally, my different bishops' professions over the years have included everything from bus driver to university professor.

Conclusion

So, the similarity is certainly that almost all men encountered in the church are priesthood holders. The difference is where the authority to act in God's name (the priesthood) is coming from. Churches which believe in "priesthood of all believers" derive their priesthood from the Holy Ghost. LDS believe that this is not enough, it must be transferred from someone that already has the authority to act in God's name.


No non-Latin prayers in European churches before Reformation?

No non-Latin prayers in European Catholic Churches before Reformation?

Is this true that before the Reformation, all Christians in Europe would have to study Latin in order to understand the prayers pronounced during Masses in Roman Catholic Churches?

The short answer is no, for two reasons.
The first reason is quite simple. A large percentage of the faithful could not study Latin because they were illiterate.

The Reformation dawned on European societies where literacy was restricted. At the end of the Middle Ages, the ability to write was restricted to less than 10% of men and hardly any women possessed it. This fundamental division between the sexes persisted for centuries and throughout the early modern period male achievements almost always overshadowed those by women. For example, one bridegroom in three could not sign Amsterdam's marriage register in 1630 compared with two-thirds of brides. Until the eighteenth century the rate of improvement for men generally exceeded that for women, so that the gap between the sexes seldom narrowed. Amsterdam brides and grooms both saw illiteracy fall between 1680 and 1780: males from 30% illiteracy to 15% and females from 56% to 36%.14 The literacy of townspeople also grew more quickly than that of rural dwellers and the wealthier merchants and professionals inhabited city centers where concentrations of reading and writing ability were especially high, distinguishing them even from suburban dwellers. By the mid-eighteenth century London and Paris had literacy levels of over 90%, which would not be achieved nationally until the late nineteenth century. In Eastern and Southern Europe nearly the only literate people were town dwellers and rural landowners. - Introduction: The Literacies of Early Modern Europe

The second reason is completely different. Although the Mass of the Roman Rite was Latin in churches of the Roman Catholic Church, exceptions were permitted by Rome.

The Roman Rite is used in Dalmatia in an Old Slavonic version (written in Glagolitic letters), occasionally in Greek in Italy; but in any language it is always the Roman Rite. - Catholic Encyclopedia

In other words, the exact same Mass could be said in at least three languages: Latin, Greek and Old Slavonic and thus were considered Roman Catholic and not Eastern Rite Catholics. Please note that some authors employ the term Greek Rite or Old Slavonic Rite, but in this case, the term means a variation or usage of the Roman Rite.


How many of each species went onto the Ark?

In the KJV it might be hard to understand, but in the translation you used above I think its very clear.

There was "one pair" of each unclean animal, i.e. 2 of each of those species.

There were "seven pairs" of every clean animal and bird, i.e. 14 of each of those species.

So they did essentially go in "two-by-two" but for some species there was only one pair, and for others there were seven pairs.

If the problem is that Genesis 6:19 does not mention the seven pairs like Genesis 7:2 does, that is easily overcome by assuming that God would give Noah more specific instructions closer to the event than the general overview he gave earlier.  After all, notice that Noah is not tasked with rounding up the animals, but Genesis 6:19 says all these animals "will come to you."  So God may have initially made it sound like to Noah that only 2 of each animal would come, but for whatever reason later sent 14 of certain species, and explained it to Noah again when the animals arrived.


Looking for a website with the 1984 NIV Bible version

This appears to be what you are after here:

http://biblemegasite.com/outline-niv1984.html

As well as click through links (by book and then section) through to the NIV 1984 version hosted at studylight.org, it has  links that compare the changes in the newer version, and even a link to an audio version hosted at bible.is; although what Zondervan would have to say about some of their links I don't know...


Why do Catholics believe transubstantiated host may still affect the gluten sensitive?

Your girlfriend sounds correct. It may sound silly at first, but the doctrine of Transubstantiation is a well developed, detailed explanation of what happens during the consecration of the bread and wine. It is not a minor thing.

The Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation  teaches that the substance of the bread, what the bread really is, becomes the Body of Christ. The accidents of the bread, the characteristics like color, taste, etc, are not changed. These are properties that are not essential to what bread is. Red bread would still be bread. The accidents include everything that you could determine using chemistry.

The human body will still react to the host because the chemical accident/characteristic of containing gluten remains true.

Gluten-free hosts

Several people have commented/suggested edits about gluten-free hosts. It is my understanding that these are not valid for the Eucharist. See this letter  of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI)

To answer a comment:

Note that the words essence , substance , and accidents have a specific philosophical meaning with a history and development that stretches back thousands of years. They don't necessarily agree with how we use the words today, especially if one is coming from a modern, rationalist-materialist worldview.

It is tempting to say that the chemistry of the bread or its components is the essence of the bread, but that does not coincide with how the Catholic Church uses the term essence. An overview of that would be a good question to post (if it has not already been asked).


The concept of guardian angels  and praying to them to protect one is deep rooted in the Catholic Church.
Many other churches and Christians also believe in existence of guardian angels based on the following Bible references:

Psalms 91:11 (NLT)

  For he will order his angels
        to protect you wherever you go.

This gives the idea that God will ask His angels to protect each person who trusts in Him on his/her way.

In Matthew 18:10 (NLT) Jesus says

  Beware that you don’t look down on any of these little ones. For I
  tell you that in heaven their angels are always in the presence of my
  heavenly Father.

This verse is often taken to mean that there is an assigned angel for each of the follower of God and those angels are in the presence of God. Many take both references cited above to mean that a single angel is assigned for a single believer. I believe rather it implies there is an assigned angel for each believer and that angel may be assigned for one or more living persons who trusts in the God.

More indirect references can be found else where in Bible. Like for instance, Hebrews 1:14 (NLT) implies that one role of angels is to care for people.

  Therefore, angels are only servants—spirits sent to care for people
  who will inherit salvation.


What's the biblical basis for the belief that God truly judges our hearts behind our actions and not the actions themselves?

There are many references in the bible regarding judgment however to stick to you question directly the simplest answer can be read at Jeremiah 17: 10 which states I God am the searcher of hearts examining the innermost thoughts to give each one according to his ways according to the fruit age of his works. Mt 15:19 Jesus Jesus speaks of the heart and how out of it stems many sins. And in proberbs4: 23 it counsels us to safegaurd our heart because out of it comes the source of life. So with regards to Romans 14:10 where it states we all render an account to God. Logically God knows us better than we know ourselves the psalmist states he knew us from the womb and he knows the number of hairs on our heads so from the bible I would conclude there is much more to how God judges us then simply our actions, isaiah55:8,9 says God will forgive in a large way for my thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not my ways declares God for as the heavens are higher than the earth so my ways are higher than your ways and my thought than your thoughts


How long was David on the run from Saul?

The short answer is: We don't know for sure because there are very few dates or ages given in the stories of Saul and David in the Bible.

We cannot even be certain of the length of Saul's reign, or of how old he was when he began to reign—information that is commonly provided for kings of Judah and Israel in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible. That information probably was originally contained in 1 Samuel 13:1. However, the Hebrew text in that verse seems to be corrupted, and the verse does not occur at all in the Septuagint (see that verse in the Blue Letter Bible).

Though Acts 13:21 states that Saul reigned for 40 years, this seems to be based on traditional sources, since the Hebrew Bible itself provides no length for Saul's reign. Or perhaps it is based on 2 Samuel 2:10, which states that Saul's youngest son Ishbaal, or Ish-bosheth, was 40 when he briefly succeeded Saul on the throne for the northern tribes. However, that age seems likely to be a scribal error. Ishbaal seems not even to have been of fighting age (20+, see Numbers 1:3) at the time of Saul's final battle and his death, when Ishbaal's three older brothers, who were of fighting age, died along with their father (see 1 Samuel 31). On this basis, some scholars believe that Saul's reign was probably only about twenty years long, and that Ishbaal was probably twenty years old at most when he succeeded his father.

We also do not know how old David was when he was anointed by Samuel to (eventually) succeed Saul as king in 1 Samuel 16:1–13. Nor do we know how old David was when King Saul first called him into service, in 1 Samuel 16:14-23. However, at that time, a servant of Saul describes David as, among other things, "a man of valor, a warrior, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence" (1 Samuel 16:18). Although some have pictured David as a mere teenager when he went into Saul's service, this description suggests that he was more likely a young man of fighting age, meaning at least twenty years old, at that time.

One age we do know is how old David was at the time he succeeded Saul as king of Judah in the south:

  David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years. (2 Samuel 5:4–5, emphasis added)

This beginning of David's reign as king took place shortly after Saul's death.

Combined with the above likely minimum age of David at the time he went into Saul's service, this suggests that Saul and David's interactions with one another took place over a period of a decade or less. However, once again, this is based on inference drawn from the story, since we have no definite ages or dates for the beginning of this time period.

The only other definite date/age figure we are given in the entire story is the time period David took refuge in Philistine territory to escape Saul's attempts to assassinate him:

  The length of time that David lived in the country of the Philistines was one year and four months. (1 Samuel 27:7)

We are told a few verses earlier, in 1 Samuel 27:4, that Saul stopped pursuing David when Saul heard that David had fled to Philistine territory. It was only after Saul's death that David returned from Philistine territory to the territory of Judah, his own tribe. David is still in Ziklag, in Philistine territory near that of Judah, when he receives word of the death of Saul and his three eldest sons, and mourns their death (see 2 Samuel 1). He then at last returns to the territory of Judah, and is anointed king there, as told in 2 Samuel 2:1–7.

This means that the only definite timing we are given is that the final period of Saul's hostility against David, when David was out of Saul's reach in Philistine territory, lasted one year and four months.

Beyond that, we can only speculate and make educated guesses based on the narration of events between 1 Samuel 16, when David first went into Saul's service, and 1 Samuel 31, which tells the story of Saul's final battle and his death.

Such speculation and educated guesses would likely push this answer beyond the length parameters of this site.

However, one expression of previous efforts in this direction is found in the dating associated with the various chapters that is provided in some editions of the King James Version of the Bible. That dating places 1 Samuel 16, when David first enter's Saul's service, as well as the following two chapters, in which Saul begins to become jealous of David and to fear David, in 1018 BC, and 1 Samuel 31, in which Saul dies, in 1011 BC. Traditional Christian scholarship, then, has placed the time period in which Saul sought David's life and David fled from Saul at about seven years.

That time period also does not have any definitive biblical basis. However, it is probably as good an estimate as any for a time period whose length we simply do not know and cannot determine for certain.


Are any writings of the Apostles non-Canonical?

One of the closest examples would be Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans.  Scholarship is divided about the authorship, whether it is Paul or a Marcionite forgery - but the point is that at the time, when canonization was occurring, it was not accepted as such.

Most everything else (Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, etc...) was pretty much rejected even at the time as being inauthentic.

Oddly, Hebrews was often ascribed to Paul, but not universally.  Still, that was its reason for inclusion.

At this point, even if we could authenticate a new work, that would not automatically make it scripture, however.  Canonization was often supported by apostolic authorship, but it was cemented by common concurrence.  At this point, the canon is closed, by consensus.

*P.S.  I've walked through Laodecia, and seen the place on the picture.  It's an amazing place!


Was Catholicism chosen by the Roman Empire because of synergies to Roman hierarchy?

In my catechetical training, and in a biography of Constantine, I learned that the conversion of the Roman Empire was "top down". Constantine converted to Christianity, made Christians equal to those of practitioners of other religions, and lower class Romans found it expedient to adopt the religion of the emperor. The development of the hierarchy of Catholic Church resulted in similarities to the Roman political structures because the Catholic Church deliberately copied those structures because they worked. Romans at first did not convert but later decided to adopt Catholicism as their religion.


How could Jesus get through locked doors?

Great question! I'm sure it was a miracle because John would not have bothered to mention the locked doors otherwise.

  On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’

John 20:19

So how did it happen? Jesus clearly had a physical body:

  And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.

Luke 24:41-43

So how did Jesus just appear  in a different location? Well, this is not the only time in Scripture this has happened:

  When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and travelled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

Acts 8:39-40

Here the Spirit of the Lord performed a miracle.

Furthermore, we also read that Jesus also could suddenly disappear (Luke 24:31):

  Then their eyes were opened and they recognised him, and he disappeared from their sight.

Whether Jesus Himself in His resurrected body could perform miracles by Himself (which I suspect) or whether The Holy Spirit did it for Him, the conclusion must be - it was a miracle.


What Christian denominations accept the idea of a pre-Genesis creation?

Though I am not sure I can speak for an entire denomination, I do have a major in Bible from Free Will Baptist Bible College, so I can say the denomination educated me.  With the preliminaries out of the way, one must consider that there is no mention in any form of the Genesis account of the creation of Angels.  That leaves two possibilities (because such a detail would not have been excluded): that Angels were created either before or after the creation of the earth and mankind.
Your reference to Job 38:4-7 would indicate that it was indeed before. This concept does not conflict with any doctrine I am aware of.  We can also consider that Satan (an angel himself) had already "fallen" and was active in the temptation of Eve and Adam.  Light on Scripture, I know, but God apparently didn't consider that a "need to know" item.


Is there anything known about Jesus time as a carpenter - was he a small business owner with employees?

What little we know for sure is that Joseph was a carpenter:

  Matthew 13:55  KJV  Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

As the eldest son Jesus under Jewish law would have inherited one half of Joseph's wealth. That would mean that he was in line to inherit Joseph's business. As the apparent heir Joseph would have taught Jesus all the skills in carpentry that he had most likely learned from his father as well as through his own experiences.

In that time the business would have been a family business and all four of Jesus' brothers would have been likewise trained by Joseph.

Those things are discernible from Scriptures, and some other writings from the period, such Josephus among others.