According to Reformed theology, what is an infant's first sin?

Your hypothetical developing baby's first sin was disobeying God in eating the forbidden fruit.

On a more fundamental level, you are conflating two different concepts here. According to Reformed Theology (and indeed most branches of Protestantism) there are two different concepts in play here. Original sin, or the state in which we are born is different from specific acts of sin and the latter does not cause the former. Baby Jane doesn't have to do anything specific to be born sinful. She gets that from Adam—and by virtue of being a human.

The main doctrine you should read up on is called federal headship. This doctrine explains how all of mankind is considered fallen an account of Adam's sin. There are a number of good resources on the topic listed on Monergism and a summary on CARM.

Additionally the Reformed teaching of "salvation by grace alone" (sola gratia) is relevant here: salvation cannot be earned by by not sinning nor can it be lost by committing sinful acts. Believers can and do sin and don't automatically lose their salvation while non-believers may do "good" deeds that don't earn them favor from God because they are still inherently separated from him on account of Adam's sin and their fundamental nature. Baby Jane will do things that are selfish, defiant, and sinful starting even in the womb because that is the nature of a human. We do not wait around for our first acts of sin to be considered sinful. We deserve hell (separation from God) on account of our nature before we've done any specific acts of any moral importance.


Church/denomination with highest young adult attendance?

By experience in my area (Ohio), it appears that non-denominational (Baptist with a little 'B' generally) contemporary services tend to draw in young adults.  I'd feel safer to say that if your age group is 18 to 32.  16 year old are still under control of their parents.  At 18 they can choose where to go and more parents do not object since at least they're attending some church.

Catholic churches also have a good crowd, but those are usually people who were raised Catholic and attending service is a tradition.  Unchurched people are more inclined to join a church as mentioned above.


Demon Possession in the Old Testament?

We can be sure that demonic possession occurred prior to the birth of Christ. There are a few instances in the Old Testament of demonic activity in the affairs of people.

  Exorcism is a ritual of power performed in order to drive an evil spirit, whether demonic or ghostly, from a possessed person, location, or object. The Christian scholar Origen credits Jews with a special talent for exorcising demons (Against Celsus, book 4).

  The first allusion to exorcism appears in the Bible, in the youth narratives of David (l Samuel). But while the biblical David seemed to be able to effect a temporary expulsion of Saul’s evil spirit using music, the book of Tobit contains the first explicit description of an (informal) exorcism. Josephus recounts incidents of possession and exorcism in his Antiquities of the Jews (2, 5, 8, 45-48). In his description, exorcism involved burning herbs and immersing the possessed person in water. The New Testament also reports Jesus to have performed numerous exorcisms of demonic spirits in first-century Palestine (Matthew 12; Mark 5, 6, 13; Luke 8).

  The Dead Sea Scrolls include several exorcism incantations and formulae, mostly directed against disease-causing demons. The DSS Psalms collection in particular (11Q5) has “four songs for the charming of demons with music.” People who fell under the influence of false prophets and mediums were thought to also require the exorcism of possessing evil spirits (the false prophets and mediums themselves were subject to death, a sure cure for most possessions; see Zechariah 13). - Jewish Exorcism

There is at least one New Testament source admits that the Jews definitely performed exorcisms:

  When Jesus sends out the Twelve Apostles, “they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them” (Mark 6:12-13). But did you know that exorcisms actually predate Christianity, and that there were Jewish exorcists at the time of Christ?

  Jesus actually refers to this, but it’s such a brief mention in Scripture that it’s easy to overlook. It’s in Matthew 12:24-28, while the Pharisees are questioning Him about His own exorcisms:

    But when the Pharisees heard it they said, “It is only by Be-elzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Be-elzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

  Jesus’ remark makes it clear both that Jewish exorcists existed in His day, and that they were apparently successful in driving out demons.

  That’s all the detail that Scripture gives us. Fortunately, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus tells us much more, in Book VIII of Antiquities of the Jews. - Casting Out Demons in the Name of Solomon: Jewish Exorcisms at the Time of Christ

Demonic activity in the Old Testament:

There seems to be at least vague two incidents in Scriptures for those who are of Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

The first one can be found in 1 Sam 16-23: The first incident involves David where he plays the lyre/harp (1 Sam 16: 18-23) in Saul's presence and the Spirit of Melancholia could flee his presence.

  Whenever the spirit from God came on Saul, David would take up his lyre and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him (1 Samuel 16: 23).

Fr. Gabriele Amorth SSP mentions in this in one of his books that the singing of sacred hymns is a valid form of expelling the demon. Being a Catholic priest moreover, he encouraged the singing of Gregorian Chant during exorcisms, since Gregorian Chant in itself is very scripture based. Fr. Amorth makes note of David playing the harp incident.

  When they had finished eating, they escorted Tobi′as in to her. As he went he remembered the words of Raphael, and he took the live ashes of incense and put the heart and liver of the fish upon them and made a smoke. And when the demon smelled the odor he fled to the remotest parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him (Tobit 8).

A second incident comes from the Book of Tobit which is part of both the catholic and Orthodox biblical canons. The Book of Tobit recounts the story how the young Tobias with the aide of the angel Raphael made the demon flee their presence.

Fr Gabriele Amorthe mentions in one of his two books (on exorcisms) this incident and encourages the use of blessed incense in homes subject to demonic influence.

Josephus Flavius ("Ant." viii. 2, § 5) relates the following:

  "I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal, in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and his captains and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down, immediately he abjured him to return into him no more, still making mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby let the spectators know that he had left the man; and when this was done the skill and wisdom of Solomon were shown very manifestly." See Ba'aras. - Jewish Encyclopedia


Which Catholic theologians say that Purgatory is a "fiery moment"?

The only one I've seen Wright specifically identify is Pope Benedict XVI. In Wright's 2004 book For All the Saints?, after briefly discussing Karl Rahner's unusual purgatorial theology, he turns to a discussion of Benedict:

  Perhaps more remarkable still is the view of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who has held high office in the Vatican for many years. Building on 1 Corinthians 3, which we shall look at presently, he argued that he Lord himself is the fire of judgment which transforms us as he conforms us to his glorious, resurrected body. This happens, not during a long-drawn-out process, but in the actual moment of final judgment.

  By linking purgatory to Jesus Christ himself as the eschatological fire, Ratzinger separates the doctrine of purgatory from the idea of an intermediate state, and thus snaps the link that, in the Middle Ages, gave rise to the idea of indulgences. One of the greatest contemporary Protestant theologians, Wolfhart Pannenberg, says that in Ratzinger's view, 'The doctrine of purgatory is brought back into the Christian expectation of final judgment by the returning Christ' -- in other words, Ratzinger has brought the idea closer to a biblical model.

One example of Benedict's conception of purgatory as a "moment" can be found in his book Eschatology (pg. 230-231):

  Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where one is forced to undergo punishments in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Rather it is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. Simply to look at people with any degree of realism at all is to grasp the necessity of such a process. It does not replace grace by works, but allows the former to achieve its full victory precisely as grace. What actually saves is the full assent of faith. But in most of us, that basic option is buried under a great deal of wood, hay and straw. Only with difficulty can it peer out from behind the latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands. Man is the recipient of the divine mercy, yet this does not exonerate him from the need to be transformed. Encounter with the Lord is this transformation. It is the fire that burns away our dross and re-forms us to be vessels of eternal joy.

Another more recent example is in his encyclical Spe Salvi (paragraph 47), in which he, like Wright, mentions "some theologians" as sharing said view without specifying them:

  Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation "as through fire". But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ's Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the "duration" of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming "moment" of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of "passage" to communion with God in the Body of Christ.

James Akin, senior apologist at Catholic Answers, seems to endorse Benedict's view in How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants:

  So the Church has never said that purgatory involves the same kind of time as we experience here on earth, or even time at all. Thus Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, no theological liberal, writes that purgatory may involve "existential" rather than "temporal" duration (cf. Ratzinger's book Eschatology). It may be someone one experiences, but experiences in a moment, rather than something one endures over time.


The Last Judgement: a civilized trial or a barbaric ordeal?

Neither. You're asking the wrong question.

Earthly and fallable court systems work one way. As omniscient maker of the universe and its sovereign King, God is not required to work quite the same way. We use the imagery of a courtroom to talk about the last judgement, but it is just imagery. The actual proceedings are a little different.

For one thing, there won't be a "discovery" phase. God knows every detail of your life backwards and forwards better than you do -- including your motivations. There will be nothing to argue, nothing to learn.

You will be found guilty.

What role Satan may play is not terribly important. He is an accuser and would love to remind God of the fact that you are guilty. But God already knows that. You are going to know it too. There won't be any doubt.

The only question remaining is, who is your defense. You will either have none at all, or if you belong to Him, you will have Christ who can step up and say, "That one is mine, I paid his ransom, I have removed his guilt and made him a new creation."

The guilty will have no chance of slipping through because some evidence against them is inadmissible. There is no jury that might let things slide. There will be no question about the strength of the evidence, whether presented by Satan or whether it's just known.

There is nothing barbaric in this. You will either be administered perfect justice or you will be redeemed through another having been justly punished in your place.


Short answer(s):

  Was Jesus omniscient regarding earthly matters?

No. At least not at all times. (eg. In Luke 2:52 Jesus is said to grow/increase/advance in wisdom depending on translation - these all imply either a lack of omniscience, or at the very least an unexercised omniscience)

  Is there a notable doctrine of major denominations about this?

Yes, the doctrines of the hypostatic union of Christ's natures and Kenotic Theology are at play regarding this issue.

In more depth:

The doctrinal divisions on this doctrine revolve around to what degree a denomination or tradition accepts or rejects Kenotic theology. Most major denominations and Traditions are Chalcedonian in outlook and hold to a hypostatic union of Christ: the two natures of Christ - Divine and human - are essentially indivisible. Commonly, they regard the concept of Christ actually emptying himself of divine attributes as heretical despite the wording of Philippians 2:6-7 -

  6 Christ was truly God.
  But he did not try to remain
      equal with God.
  7 Instead he gave up everything*
      and became a slave,
  when he became
      like one of us. - CEV (emphasis added)

For those major denominations and Traditions, the only sense that Christ Jesus on earth would not be actually omniscient, is through his voluntary choice to live according to his human nature and not exercise his divine nature in regard to the acquisition of knowledge, but if he so chose, he could access his omniscience and attain knowledge supernaturally at any time.  Clearly there is testimony in the gospels that portray Jesus' (seeming) ignorance of some matters (cf. Luke 2:52, Luke 8:44-48, Matthew 24:36), while in other places he appears to access knowledge supernaturally (cf. John 1:47-51, John 11:11-15 - this last one actually contradicts your supposed indication in point 1.). The first is declared to be consistent with Christ living in general according to his human nature in order that:

  Jesus understands every weakness of ours, because he was tempted in every way that we are. But he did not sin! - Hebrews 4:15 CEV

The second is taken as prima facie evidence that the doctrine of hypostatic union is orthodox and Christ always retained access to his divine attributes - accessible when necessary.

These are not the only views on the matter - the Oriental Orthodox Churches do not adhere to the Chalcedonian creed, and their Monophysite Christology may make it very difficult to provide an answer to your question (not being expert in this doctrine, I do not undertake to speculate on what a response according to it may be).

The perhaps significant divergence is with regard to those who unashamedly hold to a version of Kenotic Theology - that there was a real 'emptying' of the divine attributes of the Son at the incarnation.  Holders of this view tend to regard the moment at Jesus baptism when the Holy Spirit is recorded as descending on him as being especially significant in explaining how Jesus could have emptied himself of his omniscience and yet access knowledge by supernatural means - it was by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by his own 'emptied' divine nature. They may also quote Hebrews 2:9 in support of this view -

  What we do see is Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels. Because of God’s wonderful kindness, Jesus died for everyone. And now that Jesus has suffered and died, he is crowned with glory and honor! - CEV (emphasis added)

In general many if not most Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations have some form of Kenotic theory at the back of their Pneumatology in particular, even if they do not explicitly express their Christological doctrines in a Kenotic manner.

*The verb in the phrase 'he gave up everything' is:

  κενόω (kenoō)

  Strong: G2758

  GK: G3033

  to empty, evacuate; ἑαυτόν, to divest one’s self of one’s prerogatives, abase one’s self, Phil. 2:7; to deprive a thing of its proper functions, Rom. 4:14; 1 Cor. 1:17; to show to be without foundation, falsify, 1 Cor. 9:15; 2 Cor. 9:3 (from Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, cf. http://studybible.info/strongs/G2758)

From which comes Kenosis (noun form) or Kenotic (adjectival form).


To what extent did Isaiah understand his own prophecies?

Peter gives us some insight into this:

  10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace
  that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care,
  11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit
  of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the
  Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them
  that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the
  things that have now been told you by those who have preached the
  gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to
  look into these things.  1 Peter 1:10-12 NIV

Many passages in the Old Testament were considered to be Messianic well before the time of Christ. One theory was that there would actual be two Messiahs.  This arose out of an attempt to reconcile what appeared to be both a suffering Messiah and a conquering Messiah.  These were known as Messiah Ben Joseph (or Ephraim) and Messiah Ben David.

The Messiah Ben Joseph (son of Joseph) indicated the sufferings that Joseph, the son of Jacob, endured at the hands of his brothers and during the first part of his time in Egypt.  Interestingly enough, Joseph became as Pharaoh in Egypt, much like Jesus, who did suffer at the hands of His brothers and the forces of another country, but who now reigns as King of Kings.

Messiah Ben David would be a king.

So, Isaiah, like Peter reveals, likely searched intently and with the greatest care trying to find out the time and circumstances when Messiah would come.  He likely did not understand everything about it, but more than likely understand a good bit.


Tower of Babel dispersion after the Table of Nations?

If they had already been dispersed in chapter 10, who was left to be
  dispersed in chapter 11?

The time frame covered in the table of nations in Chapter 10 of Genesis is quite wide as you would expect in a multi-generational listing. The dispersion event described in chapter 11 may represent simply a greater explanation of the dispersion.


What's the context in the "Hail" part of Hail Mary?

The "Hail" would be a normal greeting. I've encountered some people who believe that when Catholics say "Hail Mary.." they're worshiping her. To my understanding the original meaning doesn't necessarily connote addressing royalty, and especially not worship. Those contexts to the word might be a much more modern development.

Even in today's English we see Hail used with regular contexts instance; if someone "Hails a cab", are they worshipping the car or the driver? No; they're flagging it down.

In movies, especially in naval ( or space sci-fi contexts), characters sometimes say "We're being hailed by the USS Magellan" or some such. Again, obviously nobody is honoring or worhsipping the crew or the ship- they're greeting it.


What is (the source of) this quote about God's turning any evil into good?

Perhaps you are referring to this quote:

  In God’s hands intended evil becomes eventual good.

It was written by Max Lucado in his book God Will Use This for Good: Surviving the Mess of Life.  I'd say that he's a relatively famous Christian author, so perhaps this is the quote you're looking for.

Here's where I found this information:

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/24515175-god-will-use-this-for-good-surviving-the-mess-of-life

http://www.faithgateway.com/what-was-meant-for-evil-god-uses-for-good/#.WYXZCIjyvIU


What is the name of this disciple of Jesus in the English language?

According to the chart on this page, the English equivalent of the Malayam "Pathrose" is "Peter".


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses hold a "commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ"?

Jehovah's Witnesses observe the Memorial of Jesus' Death (also called the Lord's Evening Meal) after sundown on the day that coincides with Nisan 14th according to the ancient Jewish calendar. Nisan 14th may be on any day of the week from year to year, so the fact that it's on a Saturday this year has no relevance. In 2017 it was on a Tuesday, and in 2016 it was on a Wednesday.

Jehovah's Witnesses commemorate the death of Jesus Christ because Jesus commanded that we do so at Luke 22:19 saying, "Keep doing this in remembrance of me." This command is reemphasized by Paul at 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.

Jesus' resurrection is also core to the Christian faith, but we are not commanded to commemorate it, nor is there evidence that early Christians celebrated it until the 2nd century. Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Easter because of its association with pagan customs. God does not permit his servants to mix false religion with true religion. (1 Corinthians 10:21)


What is the difference between humans as "image of God" and Jesus as "image of God"?

Answer from a specifically Catholic viewpoint:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has many references to humans as images of God, but only a few that I have found to Jesus as the image of God:

At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.

(paragraph 479)

Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father. ...
For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: ... as "the image of the invisible God"; as the "radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature."

(paragraphs 240–241)
In distinction from this, humans are images of God in the sense that God has created them to be like him in certain ways:

Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator." He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake," and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity.

(paragraph 356)
St. Thomas Aquinas discusses the meaning of "image" as it pertains to the Son of God in the Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 35, Article 2, and specifically discusses the difference between "image" as applied to humans and "image" applied to the Son.
To understand the structure of Aquinas' answer, understand that the Summa is not simply a book presenting Catholic Truth monolithically and without any discussion. Aquinas presents a question (usually a question that could be answered "Yes" or "No"), and comes up with reasons why it could be answered in one particular way (typically the "wrong" way from his viewpoint). These possible reasons are typically called "Objections". After he presents his answer, he must of course discuss why these objections are after all incorrect; and he does this in "replies to the objections".
Thus, in our particular case, Aquinas asks the question: "Whether the name of Image is proper to the Son?"; that is, "Should we be using this word to describe the Son of God in the first place?" One possible objection he comes up with, which applies to your question, is this:

Objection 3: Further, man is also called the image of God, according to 1 Cor. 11:7, "The man ought not to cover his head, for he is the image and the glory of God." Therefore Image is not proper to the Son.

Aquinas concludes that "Image" is in fact applicable to the Son,

because the Son proceeds as word, and it is essential to word to be like species with that whence it proceeds.

That is, since the Son is the Word of God, he must be the same sort of being and have the same sort of characteristics (species) as God—thus it's appropriate to call him the Image of God. In responding to the objection dealing with man as "image of God", Aquinas replies,

The image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the king's image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God.

That is, humans are said to be "the image of God" because they are like God in certain ways (knowledge, understanding, free will, etc.); but the Son is said to be "the image of God [the Father]" because he is God—and has all the characteristics of God.


What is the significance of verb choices in Genesis 1?

What is the significance of the verb "create" during the creation account?

To answer this question I believe we first need to understand why Genesis was written.

The research that many exegestes, such as James K. Hoffmeier's “Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2 and Egyptian Cosmology”, have done conclude that it was written to reject the Egyptian Cosmology (Creation Mythology).

These creation myths are greatly explained in this article: Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths by Tony L. Shetter.

Since I don't believe I could explain this any better I'll just quote the summary of the article:

  In conclusion, the author/redactor(s) of the Genesis creation accounts
  share certain concepts of the makeup of the world with other ancient
  Near Eastern cultures. However, it is especially with Egypt’s
  worldview that the author/redactor(s) are familiar. Evidence for this
  lies in the many allusions to Egyptian creation motifs throughout the
  Genesis creation accounts. But, rather than being a case of direct
  borrowing, they demythologize the Egyptian concepts and form a polemic
  against the Egyptian gods. Thus, they elevate Yahweh-Elohim as the one
  true God, who is transcendent and who is all powerful. He speaks his
  desire and it comes to pass. He does not require the assistance of
  other gods to perform the acts of creation. He alone possesses the
  power and means necessary to effect the creation of the world.


Using the invitatory at the office of Vigils

The answer is that you should not read the invitatory at Vigils, as it is meant to begin the day's prayer.

  The invitatory is placed at the beginning of the whole sequence of the day's prayer, that is, it precedes either morning prayer or the office of readings, whichever of these liturgical rites begins the day.
  -General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours


In any of James's passages, does he agree to the law being cursed and abrogated?

Your answer has "Catholicism" tag, so I'll try to explain Catholic belief that Paul and James are in perfect harmony, that they say the same, just from two perspectives.

Let's start with James. He wrote in the second chapter of his letter:

  14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have
  faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother
  or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says
  to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about
  their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by
  itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

  18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

  Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my
  deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons
  believe that—and shudder.

  20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds
  is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for
  what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see
  that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith
  was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled
  that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
  righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a
  person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

The kind of deeds James is writing about are helping the needy and other actions that true faith (accompanied with true love) makes absolutely natural. No sacrifice in temple, but serving Christ in the poor, not because law orders to do so, but because you believe and recognize it as God's will.

Abraham is a good example: he has no law to obey, but obeyed God because he believed in him. The sacrifice of Isaac wasn't a work to deserve justification regardless of faith, it was an act of obedience to God's will, or faith in action.

James don't criticize faith, but he criticizes faith that remains theoretical, with no action induced by it, with no fruits of the Spirit. If you don't reflect your faith in your life, it remains just a theory.

Have you ever been to Antarctica? I assume not. Even though you have only testimony of others (through pictures, interviews with travellers, labels saying that penguins in a zoo are from there etc.), you believe the continent exists. But does this belief make you a better person? If you are not an exception who wants to go there and helps others go there too, there's no good fruit of this belief. we don't know what demons know for sure, but there are other things they just believe in, and they believe in them like we believe in Antarctica. And if we believe in God this way, we are neither cold nor hot (see Revelation 2:15), and we can't expect this faith to justify us.

On the other hand, Paul never proposes faith without the kind of deeds James requires. Paul criticizes deeds without true faith, deeds that should merit salvation by themselves. But there are many passages in his letters, where he requires the kind of deeds James writes about. Just as the first example I found in brief search, I picked Ephesians 5:3-9:

  3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or
  of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for
  God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or
  coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For
  of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a
  person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and
  of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of
  such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7
  Therefore do not be partners with them.

  8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live
  as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all
  goodness, righteousness and truth)

"No immoral, impure or greedy person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" - what else should it mean than that it's necessary to live as children of light to be saved? How should faith that won't bear fruits of goodness, rightousness and truth lead to justification? And how one should be good, righteous and truthful if it is not reflected in their everyday life, in their everyday deeds? This is essentially what James wrote.

James focuses on "faith without deeds is dead" and Paul on "deeds without faith are in vain", but both say the same: both is necessary. Both agree that to accept God's grace by faith is first and more important, but this necessarily leads to good deeds, so lack of deeds indicate lack of faith.

This is essentially what Catholic Church teaches. Here is an example of a good article discussing Catholic view on justification in detail.


Why does Christianity have Satan as well as God?

First off, I like your question because it made me think. Second, no answer can be given that does not also make as many assumptions as your questions. This answer assumes Biblical Inerrancy, a traditional timeline for the writing of all the books, and the assumption that not much editing has occurred between when the books were originally written and today.

1. Did the Old Testament always have a concept of Satan or was it added later?

From a literary standpoint, themes related to Satan run from beginning to end. The only addition is of depth, scope and detail. The first promise of a savior is in Genesis 3:14-15, and that is spoken directly to the serpent. The last reference to Satan is in Revelation, the last book of the Bible.

One place where you can argue that information about Satan was added later is in Job. The literary structure implies that Job is unaware of Satan’s involvement in his suffering, so that detail must have been added later. Tradition holds that Moses wrote down the Book of Job a few centuries after its event occurred. Another view is that Joshua, Moses’ scribe, who finished writing the Pentateuch after the death of Moses, wrote down Job. There are a few phrases found only in Job and Joshua, supporting this view.

Job is interesting because one of his first statements in his complaint is:

  May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse
  Leviathan. (Job 3:8, NIV)

God describes Behemoth (a terrestrial monster) and Leviathan (an aquatic one) in detail in Job 41. Then in Revelation 13, two beasts, one from the land and one from the sea, are described. Commentators mostly agree that those two beasts are Behemoth and Leviathan, and the latter is Satan. This makes the final chapter of the first book of the Bible to be written devoted substantially to a representation of Satan.

You might ask, why? Satan, the devil, Lucifer - serves several roles. He is adversary, accuser, liar and murderer. The Old Testament is preoccupied with God as a lawgiver. In a court of law you have the accused and the accuser, testimony and witnesses, criminal, victim and crime. Satan serves as the focus of lying to make false accusations in contradiction to God (especially Jesus) who is the truth. Satan falsely accuses and God forgives. Satan murders and God gives eternal life. Thus, from a literary standpoint, the presence of Satan makes sense. The worldview of both Old and New Testaments is that all things have logical causes and laws that govern them, hence there must be an origin of evil, lies and death, and a good God will reveal it to his people.

2. If so, why was it added? (For example some of the scriptures in the Bible that were present in Coptic scrolls in the Nag Hamadi library e.g. the "Exegesis of the Soul" were destroyed due to a clearout of suspected heretical material in the Bible that may have crept in over the centuries and so do not feature in the 1611 KJV many centuries later.)

My assumption is that it was not added, except as I described concerning the Book of Job.

3. Was it added because devout people were afraid to depict actions of God as being negative and they were scared of being seen to blaspheme?

The Book of Job and Ecclesiastes are each hard-hitting books that subversively question accepted wisdom and false religious ideas that attempt to give simplistic answers to hard questions. Job especially takes exactly the opposite tack of the one you suggest. After relating a conversation between God and Satan in which Satan is given permission to inflict catastrophe upon Job, God never lays blame on Satan in His answer in chapters 38-42. In Genesis, Eve blamed the serpent for her actions, and Adam blamed his wife. God blames no one for Job’s misfortune. He assumes full responsibility - even if that means bad PR for his religion, and Job accepts that and continues to worship that same God:

  Then Job replied to the LORD: “I know that you can do all things; no
  purpose of yours can be thwarted. You asked, ‘Who is this that
  obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did
  not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. “You said,
  ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall
  answer me.’ My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.
  Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:1-6,
  NIV)

4. If Satan is there to carry the burden of all evil within the world, are actions such as the anger of God in the old testiment, good or bad, or neither?

The Bible distinguishes between God’s anger and man’s.

  My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be
  quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human
  anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. (James
  1:19-20, NIV)

God’s anger is foreseeable, justified and proportionate.

It is foreseeable, because God gives us His laws so we know what to expect, he does not change them without advance notice, he reveals his future actions via His prophets, and then when the time arrives, He executes His judgment as promised.

  Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to
  his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7, NIV)

It is justified, because God only punishes according to the truth, cannot be bribed, and does not show favoritism.

  There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does
  evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and
  peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the
  Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 2:9-11, NIV)

It is proportionate. When God sent foreign armies to punish Israel and they overstepped their bounds and tried to cause more harm than He had decreed, He sent distress upon those nations, too.

Israel was exiled for seventy years. They had failed to faithfully honor him on the Sabbath for 490 years, so one seventh of 490 is seventy. Their exile was measured out precisely.

God’s anger is not the anger of Satan who wants to kill. It is the anger of a father who wants to teach, admonish and straighten the path of His children so they will be perfect and can experience joyful fellowship with Him forever. Motive is important. Thus God’s anger is not evil or neutral, it is good.

5. Is there any clue in the Bible that gives indication as to why God's anger is not the responsibility of Satan?

Job finally accepts that the terrors assailing him are part of God’s plan to purify him:

  But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come
  forth as gold. (Job 23:10, NIV)

Paul reiterated this idea:

  And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who
  love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28,
  NIV)

A vital part of the theology of suffering is that God speaks to us in various ways, and one of those ways is suffering. If you look at all of Job’s speeches, you will find that he is publishing a job description for a savior, laying out all the troubles from which he needed God to rescue him. That job description matches point for point every things that Jesus eventually did. So Job’s suffering taught him what was needed in a Savior. Job recognized that he needed a savior with the power of God (could walk on water: He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea. (Job 9:8, NIV)) but also the empathy of a fellow, suffering human, whom he called the “son of man”, a title Jesus would later adopt to describe himself:

My friends scorn me;
   my eye pours out tears to God,
that he would argue the case of a man with God,
   as a son of man does with his neighbor.
 (Job 16:20-21, ESV)

Job basically prophesied the incarnation!

6. Is there an official stance on this, and is it based on the scriptures, or by a figurehead, such as say a saint or a pope?

I have based my answer on Scripture. God’s anger surely has many purposes beyond those I have discussed, but most assuredly is a tool that He employs to strengthen our character and give us hope.

  Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that
  suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and
  character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love
  has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has
  been given to us. (Romans 5:3-5, NIV)

Satan’s Role. It is one thing to say that Satan was not a later addition, but it certainly was an inclusion. The Bible has an author and that author had a purpose in including information in the Bible concerning Satan. Satan is not mentioned often in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament he appears most often as a symbol in Jesus’ parables. Those few appearances occur at crucial times.

There are only five conversations in the Bible where Satan is present. In one (Zechariah 3), Satan is told to shut up and does not get to speak. In two (Matthew and Luke) we hear the same story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness by Satan, with a slight variation in the ordering of events, we we will count that as one. That leaves Genesis 3 (the temptation of Eve) and Job 1 & 2.

So we have three principal conversations:

In Eden about 6,000 years ago (or more).
In Heaven (discussing Job) about 3,700 years ago
In the wilderness near the Jordan about 2,000 years ago

In the first, Satan speaks to the creation (Eve) to attack the goodness of the Father in withholding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from her and Adam.

In the second, Satan speaks to the Father about Job, saying that the man will curse God if made to suffer. Since Job’s great prayer is that his words be written down, Satan is attacking the Word of God - Jesus. If Job failed and cursed God, then the Bible’s first book could never be written.

In the third, Satan speaks to Jesus about - what? Immediately prior to entering the wilderness, Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended upon him. The Holy Spirit is the Advocate (teacher that explains Jesus’ words) and Comforter (who helps us with our emotions). Satan tried to trick Jesus with lies and scare him into getting angels to help him avoid suffering, persecution and death. Satan was trying to get Jesus to lose his connection to the Holy Spirit. Later in his ministry, Jesus told Peter that Satan wanted to sift him as wheat. What was Peter’s big moment? When he delivered the keynote address on the day of Pentecost. Peter announced the arrival of the Holy Spirit to empower people, work miracles of healing and enable truth to spread to the whole world.

Take this all together, and Satan’s main appearances (apart from Revelation, the end) are to attack the Father, then The Son, then The Holy Spirit - to create division within the members of the Trinity and cause God to fall apart. Satan failed, but in this failure caused the clear Triune nature of God to be manifest.

I am sure that God had other reasons for including stories about Satan than these, but he at least had these reasons.


Do OT scriptures clearly indicate sacrifices will be replaced?

The writer to the Hebrews [Heb 1:1,2] makes it clear that the very repetition of the sacrifices, themselves, is proof of the fact that they are not effectual. And the only reason for their repetition could only be an intelligent expectation that something better would arise.

For the law […] can never with those sacrifices which they offered […] make the comers thereto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered ? [KJV]
[…] because that the worshippers, once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins.
But in those [is] a remembrance again of sins every year.

As with any repetitive ritual, some will be content, thoughtlessly, to continue with a habit thinking that a mere performance will be effective spiritually. And it is clear that many of old were so contented with the outward representation - and looked no further.
But to the intelligent worshipper it was evident, in the very repetition, that this was but a means to an end, but an herald of a reality yet to be revealed.
Until that revelation, there could only be the representation. The prophets speak in many places, in many ways, of that which was promised. But I can only think of one definite prophecy that is relevant to this particular question, which is Daniel 9:27 :

[…] shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,

but it is a mysterious prophecy and I would not wish to venture to say more about it.


Are there or have there been any Christian traditions that follow Kosher food laws?

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church maintains a practice that resembles Kosher food laws. (There are similarities and differences: the members of this church avoid pork, but they do commonly mix meat and dairy products in their cuisine.)


Why does blood need to be put on the mercy seat

This practice of sprinkling the altar reminds the people of the blood of Jesus. Yes Jesus died, but when the Jews saw the blood, it reminded them of the huge, very real sacrifice Jesus would have to pay when He came. Goat blood on the actual altar, Jesus' blood on the altar of the cross.


If the old priesthood is abolished, what is the point of having Catholic priests?

They are obviously not re-sacrificing Christ when they say the Mass

It's true enough that they are not re-sacrificing Christ. But in a mystical way the Catholic priest acts in persona Christi to offer, in an unbloody way, the very same sacrifice that was offered in a bloody way on Calvary. Here is the modern Catholic Catechism (paragraph 1367), quoting the 16th-century Council of Trent (my emphases):

  The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same [Christ] now offers through the ministry of priests, Who then offered Himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different."

Thus a principal point of having priests, in the Catholic Church, is to continually make the unique, unrepeatable sacrifice of Calvary mystically present to us here and now. Our priests, like Christ himself, are of the order of Melchizedek, not the order of Aaron. Indeed there is in a sense only the priesthood of Christ -- as St. Thomas Aquinas says (and the modern Catechism quotes, paragraph 1545):

  Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers


The Greek lettering is (in modern script) Ό Άγιος Παΐσιος ὁ Ἁγιορείτης — Saint Paisios of Mount Athos.
Wikipedia has an article on him.

He was  born Arsenios Eznepidis (1924–1994), was a well-known Greek Eastern Orthodox ascetic from Mount Athos, who originated from Pharasa, Cappadocia. He was respected for his spiritual guidance and ascetic life and many people worldwide highly venerate Elder Paisios, especially in Greece and in Russia.
Venerable Elder Paisios was canonized on 13 January 2015 by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the church commemorates his feast day on July 12.
The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church decided at its meeting of May 5, 2015 also to add the name of the Venerable Paisios of Mount Athos to the Menology of the Russian Orthodox Church, establishing his feast day on June 29/July 12, following the Menology of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople.


Segal's Persepective and its Reception
That book by Segal was one of the first to advance that argument, and has been fairly influential since then (e.g. Heiser, 2004; Boyarin, 2001. McGrath and Truex (2004) cite six other works influenced by Segel's book). Certainly there is a case to be made that some Jews (not all) in the late second temple period were binitarian in some sense; for instance Boyarin in Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John, (2002).
An excerpt (p. 254):

"The Memra has a place above the angels as that agent of the Deity who
sustains the course of nature and personifies the Law." [Edwards 1995,
Justin's Logos and the Word of God, p. 263.] This position
has been well established among historians of Christianity since the
late nineteenth century. Alfred Edersheim saw the Memra as referring
to God's self-revelation. As Robert Hayward says of Edersheim: "He
also made a distinction between God and the Memra. Noting that
Rabbinic theology has not preserved for us the doctrine of distinct
persons in the Godhead, he remarks: 'And yet, if words have any
meaning, the Memra is a hypostasis.'" [Robert Hayward, 1981
Divine Name and Presence: The Memra p. 3] With this comment,
Edersheim is clearly implying the existence of non-rabbinic forms of
Judaism that were extant and vital within the rabbinic period
alongside the rabbinic religion itself. Although the official rabbinic
theology suppressed all talk of the Memra or Logos by naming it the
heresy of "Two Powers in Heaven," both before the Rabbis and
contemporaneously with them there was a multitude of Jews, in both
Palestine and the Diaspora, who held onto this version of monotheistic
theology. If we accept Edersheim's view, the Memra is related to the
Logos of Logos theology in its various Christian manifestations.

Emphasis mine. Also p. 249:

It becomes apparent, therefore, that for one branch of pre-Christian Judaism, at least,
there was nothing strange about a doctrine of a deuteros theos, and nothing in that
doctrine that precluded monotheism.

On p. 257 Boyarin quotes the Palestinian Targum for the Genesis 19:24 verse you cite (from Klein, 1980):

"And the Memra of H' rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah...

The idea is that in this theology, the Memra of God (Word of God) fulfils the physical, personified actions, while God himself remains invisible and totally transcendent from the creation. The way this theology could naturally develop (or be fulfilled, if you like) with a Christian incarnation should be clear.
Boyarin's article goes into quite extensive detail presenting the case, with relevant material from Philo, Justin Martyr, Targumic sources, as well as other Jewish prayers and texts.
But were Jews Binitarian?
Perhaps, but it's not really something that can be answered definitively, and is likely to remain controversial. Arguments can be made (like that of Segal, etc.) that some Jews were, but Jewish thought was not monolithic. As mentioned in the except from Boyarin, the rabbis opposed this line of thought officially.

References
Boyarin, D. 2001. Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John. Harvard Theological Review 94:3 July, p. 243-284.
Heiser, M. S., 2004. The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature. Doctoral Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Klein, M. L., 1980. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch: According to Their Extant Sources. Vol. 1, p. 45-46.
McGrath, J. F., Truex, J., 2004. 'Two Powers' and Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Journal of Biblical Studies 4/1 January. p. 43.


Do Matthew and John have a discrepancy with regards to Jesus before Pilate?

John's account of Pilate's questioning of Jesus is more detailed: in Matthew it's given only four verses, 27:11-14, but in John it's given nine verses, 18:33-38, 19:9-11.

In both gospels Jesus responds to Pilate's question of whether Jesus is the king of the Jews: Matthew 27:11 and John 18:34-37.

And in both gospels Jesus is later silent when Pilate questions him at the insistence of the Jewish leaders: Matthew 27:12 and John 19:7-9.

John 18:28 explains that Pilate's questioning took place without the Jewish leaders being present, because they refused to enter the governor's headquarters so that they wouldn't be defiled. Matthew collapses the whole of John 18:28-19:11 into four verses which of course means it is less detailed. But in both gospels Jesus' two kinds of responses, accepting the title of king of the Jews and not deeming the Jewish leader's accusations worthy of a reply, are presented.


Does the Bible ever say that the Ark of the Covenant flew or levitated?

The Ark of the Covenant is never recorded as having flown in Scripture.

There were only two means by the Ark ever moved -

Per God's command, the Ark was transported by the priests, using the Acacia poles which held it through the base, for this purpose.

When the Priests carried it into the Jordan River when it was still flowing in Joshua 5, for example, the river receded. If it could have flown, there would have been no need for the priests to "step out" in faith.

On two occasions, contrary to God's command, an ox cart was used to transport it.

a. In 2 Samuel 6, the Ark is being drawn "on a new ox cart," as follows:

  And they carried the ark of God on a new cart and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. And Uzzah and Ahio,[a] the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart,[b] 4 with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark.

Famously, it began to tip, and Uzziah tried to steady it.  For this, he was immediately zapped (that's not a technical term) by God, and died instantly.  Had the Ark been capable of flight, one would have assumed that it would have steadied itself in such an instance.

b. Also, in 1 Samuel 5, the Israelites had lost the Ark in battle to the Philistines.  When the Philistine's local deity Dagon kept falling over before it, as if it were bowing, the Philistines started moving it from Ashdod to Gath and throughout their cities.  Problem was- people kept dying.  So, eventually they decided to get rid of it, and send it on its merry way with a bunch of gifts for the Israelites.

1 Samuel 6 records:

  The men did so, and took two milk cows and yoked them to the cart and shut up their calves at home. 11 And they put the ark of the Lord on the cart and the box with the golden mice and the images of their tumors. 12 And the cows went straight in the direction of Beth-shemesh along one highway, lowing as they went. They turned neither to the right nor to the left, and the lords of the Philistines went after them as far as the border of Beth-shemesh. 13 Now the people of Beth-shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley. And when they lifted up their eyes and saw the ark, they rejoiced to see it. 14 The cart came into the field of Joshua of Beth-shemesh and stopped there. A great stone was there. And they split up the wood of the cart and offered the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord.

The story of the Ark of the Covenant being moved by Nazi jeep pickup truck is, alas, non-canonical, and adheres only to the obscure Spielbergian sects of Christianity.

In all seriousness, however, the legends of the ark flying may be attributable to the winged cherubim on top of the mercy seat. This ornament of two angels, only either end of the ark, their wings touching, may have inspired such an idea, but they were strictly ornamental.


How do Christians reconcile this passage?

Christians have addressed this in various ways:

Some (a very small minority), such as Marcion challenged premise 1. - they didn't believe in the Old Testament. Most Christians have rejected this approach to the extent of labelling those who adopt it as being heretical.

A slightly bigger group (comprising the likes of Seventh Day Adventists and Messianic Jews) would take serious issue with your premise 2. - they take the Old Testament law seriously and do seek to follow whatever part of it that can still be followed (considering that the destruction of the temple has practically put paid to all the laws related to temple worship, Orthodox Jews are in the much the same boat here).

The vast majority of Christians would challenge your premise 3. as being a completely false characterization of what Jesus did and taught:

  17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:17-20 NIV

Additionally, many would make the point that although God is Lord over all, the Mosaic law wasn't given to humanity in general, but to the children of Israel in particular, and the vast majority of Christians are not descendants of Israel, but gentiles - they are, by default, excluded from the Mosaic Covenant therefore they are not bound by it's provisions. Of more relevance are the commands given to Noah from whom all are believed to be descended and these provisions were actually reiterated by the early Christian Church at her first general council.

Your point 4. is completely moot - the Old Testament has not (except by Marcion and his ilk) been disavowed and there is therefore no direction to follow "other Gods".


How do Trinitarians deal with imbalances in their relationship with each Person of the Trinity?

I think what is at play here is a matter or your perception. Or to put another way, "things don't always appear as they seem."
Yes, God is three persons and yet there are so many scriptures that only use Lord, God and many other titles referring to God.
Where no distinction is made, it is obviously unnecessary to make a distinction. The persons of the Trinity are persons in RELATION to each other, any one of the persons in relation to us is simply God, in that there is only one God.
So, the Holy Spirit is a person in relation to the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is God in relation to us. If you are in a relationship with the Father/Son/Holy Spirit, then you must be in a relationship with them all; for there is only one God. If you deny one, you deny them all.
Jesus said at John 5:23, "in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (Notice Jesus was sent, not created).
What about the Holy Spirit? Is He treated unfairly? I think not. Matthew 12:31, "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven."
There is a contrast in this passage between all other sins (even sins against the Son of Man, verse 32) and the sin against the Holy Spirit. The sin against the Holy Spirit is not merely a particular act; rather, to blaspheme the Spirit reflects an attitude that is decidedly against God and His nature. Just read verses 34-35. The Pharisees had this attitude by virtue of them accusing Jesus of joining forces with the devil.
In short, the reason the sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven is because the Pharisees persisted in saying, "He has an unclean spirit." The Pharisees who called the Holy Spirit in Jesus an unclean spirit were rejecting the Spirit's witness to Jesus as Messiah and Savior.


Please clarify Phil 2:8-9 with reference to the Trinity

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses your questions in his Summa Theologica I q. 42 ("Of Equality and Likeness among the Divine Persons"). Specifically, regarding your

first question, see ibid. a. 6 obj. 2:Objection 2: Further, greater is the power of him who commands and teaches than of him who obeys and hears. But the Father commands the Son according to Jn. 14:31: "As the Father gave Me commandment so do I." The Father also teaches the Son: "The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doth" (Jn. 5:20). Also, the Son hears: "As I hear, so I judge" (Jn. 5:30). Therefore the Father has greater power than the Son.and St. Thomas's reply (ad 2):Reply to Objection 2: The Father's "showing" and the Son's "hearing" are to be taken in the sense that the Father communicates knowledge to the Son, as He communicates His essence. The command of the Father can be explained in the same sense, as giving Him from eternity knowledge and will to act, by begetting Him. Or, better still, this may be referred to Christ in His human nature.

and your

second question, see ibid. a. 4 obj. 1:Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in greatness. For He Himself said (Jn. 14:28): "The Father is greater than I"; and the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:28): "The Son Himself shall be subject to Him that put all things under Him."and St. Thomas's reply (ad 1):Reply to Objection 1: These words are to be understood of Christ's human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed by Athanasius, "Equal to the Father in His Godhead; less than the Father in humanity": and by Hilary (De Trin. ix): "By the fact of giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same being is given"; and (De Synod.): "The Son subjects Himself by His inborn piety"—that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas "creatures are subject by their created weakness."

cf. also Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s commentary on this question from his Trinity & God the Creator.


What is the Biblical argument against Limited Atonement?

Limited atonement brings with it the implication that not anyone can be saved by Christ - only those for whom he atoned.  The language used in the Bible to describe salvation is inclusive.  It is described as being presented to whosoever wills.  In 1 Timothy, Paul claims that God desires all people to be saved.

  1 Timothy 2:3-6 (ESV)
  3  This is good, and  it is pleasing in the sight of  God our Savior, 4  who desires  all people to be saved and  to come to  the knowledge of the truth. 5  For  there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6   who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is  the testimony given  at the proper time.

This would make little sense in light of limited atonement, and in fact, the presence of the phrase "ransom for all" seems to directly contradict it.  If God desires all people to be saved, then why would salvation not be even theoretically available to some?  If God desires all people to be saved, then wouldn't he offer it to the entire world?  John tells us that this is exactly what he did:

  John 3:16 (ESV)
  16  “For  God so loved  the world,  that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not  perish but have eternal life.


What is the Plan of Salvation in LDS theology?

The LDS Plan of Salvation can be found on the official LDS website here.

In summary, the following are the main points:

We all once lived as spirit children of God in our premortal life.  While we were in our Premortal life, our Heavenly Father presented us with his plan of happiness, as described in Abraham 3:22-26
We chose, in our premortal life, to come to this earth, this existence, to follow the plan of Eternal Progression.  We are now in our Mortal Life.  During our mortal life, we are able to grow in ways we couldn't in our premortal life. The purpose of our current life is to grow, to prepare to be worthy of eternal life, to prove ourselves worthy, and to help others to know of God's plan.
When we die, we will be judged and received into a Kingdom of Glory.  The level of glory we inherit will depend on the depth of our conversion and our obedience to the Lord's commandments

This, of course, only scratches the surface, and the LDS Plan of Salvation encompasses not only salvation, but exaltation.

The most basic LDS explanation of what Salvation is:

  In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
  the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings. As used in
  Romans 10:9-10, the words “saved” and “salvation” signify a covenant
  relationship with Jesus Christ. Through this covenant relationship,
  followers of Christ are assured salvation from the eternal
  consequences of sin if they are obedient. “Salvation” and “saved” are
  also used in the scriptures in other contexts with several different
  meanings.

There are actually six definitions of Salvation in LDS theology, all defined here. (Click the "view more" link.)

Salvation from Physical Death
Salvation from Sin
Being Born Again
Salvation from Ignorance
Salvation from the Second Death
Eternal Life, or Exaltation

A somewhat shorter version than the one linked to at the beginning of the article can be found here.

As for how one achieves Salvation, the teaching differs from mainstream Christianity.  Whereas the vast majority of Christianity believes that salvation is by Faith alone, with no works attached, LDS teaching is different. In LDS theology, only General Salvation is attained through Faith in Christ alone.

From Elder Theodore M. Burton

Assistant to the Council of the Twelve
July 1972:

  As I listened to the radio a few days ago, I heard a minister tell his
  listeners: “Confess Christ and you shall be saved. Admit Christ into
  your heart and he will save you.”

  Then he quoted Ephesians 2:8 for his clinching argument: “For by grace
  are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift
  of God.” [Eph. 2:8]

  Then he gave his final advice: “Is this too much to ask of you?
  Thousands and hundreds of thousands have found lasting peace and
  happiness by accepting Christ as their Savior. Join with us in
  Christian faith and you shall be saved.”

  I wonder how many people have been lulled into a false sense of
  security by such teaching. As a missionary knocking at the doors of
  people, I had literally hundreds of people tell me that they were not
  interested in learning more about Jesus Christ, for they were already
  saved. The shocking thing about this is that they were right. What
  that minister said was true, but the difficulty is that it was not the
  whole truth.

  ...snip...

  The true value of the sacrifice of Christ means much more than this
  general salvation which comes to all mankind. There is an additional
  salvation that God has planned for his children. This additional
  salvation is an individual salvation and is conditioned not only upon
  grace, but also upon obedience to gospel law. One of the prophets in
  the Book of Mormon explained why he and his associates were so
  concerned about teaching more about Jesus Christ, as he wrote:

So the general salvation is through faith in Christ alone, but that's just the beginning.  There are, in Salvation, more than one level of Glory, which is, as stated above "conditioned not only upon grace, but also upon obedience to gospel law.".

However, this is not seen within LDS teaching as a works-based salvation, even at this level.  There is somehow, in LDS theology a difference between obedience, and earning your way in.  More from the article quoted above expands upon this.

  Exaltation comes as a gift from God, dependent upon my obedience to
  God’s law. No works I do solely of my own power can bring this to
  pass. Only by the grace of God has this course been opened to me, but
  only through obedience to the laws of God can I claim my inheritance
  in the celestial kingdom of my Heavenly Father as a son within his
  family. I cannot be exalted in my sins, but must work until I overcome
  them.

  Amulek the prophet explained this most clearly as he said of God:

  “And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for
  I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can
  inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except
  ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in
  your sins.” (Alma 11:37.)

But later on in the article, Burton again teaches that works are a result of faith.  But the fact remains that in LDS theology, works are required. Perhaps not as a way of "buying" our way in, but as a sign, in that, if we don't have works, it's a sure sign that we don't have faith. Often, the following is quoted as support for this belief.

  James 2:14-26 (KJV)

  14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but
  does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is
  naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them,
  “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the
  things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus
  also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

  18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me
  your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by
  my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even
  the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish
  man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our
  father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
  22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by
  works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which
  says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
  righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see
  then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

  25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she
  received the messengers and sent them out another way?

  26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works
  is dead also.

And also, the lack of good works/righteousness as a sign of not really being Faithful is stressed in Matthew 15:8, which is heard in almost every Sunday School class I attended when I was attending the LDS Church.

  These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from
  me.

Burton goes on to define those works:

  Those works, which follow the true exercise of faith, include
  repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and continued
  righteousness to the end of our lives.

Burton expands a bit on those who do not obey the Law in full:

  God said of those who were not willing to pay the full price of
  exaltation through full obedience to his whole law: “Therefore, when
  they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in
  marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are
  ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far
  more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

This is the opposite of Mainstream Christianity, which believes that as imperfect beings, we cannot be fully obedient, and thus is the distinction - the splitting of hairs between the "mainstream" understanding of "by faith alone".  Mainstream Christianity says "I can never be good enough to add a single iota to my salvation.  I am miserable and wretched, and I rely solely on God's mercy because even my righteousness is as filthy rags to Him."   The LDS teaching, on the other hand, is that we must be fully obedience, and we are able to be fully obedient, and those that achieve this attain the highest form of exaltation.


Is there any evidence that Jesus had no children?

I think the clearest is prophecy in Isaiah 53:7-9:

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.


First off, this bit of your question:

  I take vengeance in this context to mean that God will intercede for a wronged person and give the other party their come-up-pance here on earth

I'm sorry, but there is no reason to think that. I'm not saying it's wrong, but you can't assume it because there is nothing in the passage to support it.

The general theme of Romans 12 and Deuteronomy 32 is very much along the lines of "don't take the law into your own hands: rely on God and let him execute his judgement." That's what the phrase means. In particular, in Romans 12, the theme is about the paradoxical behaviour required of Christians. The following verses say,

  No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The point Paul is making is not that vengeance is for the Lord per se, but that it is not for Christians to execute for themselves.


Where did Martin Luther say that he placed "his Christ higher than any dogma or council"?

Luther wrote extensively, and in German, making quote identification rather difficult.  However, the language you use here is reminiscent of Luther's famous speech at the Diet of Worms, where he said:

  Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen. (Marty, Martin Luther, 68)

Here, however, Luther does not say that Christ is higher than the councils, but rather the Scriptures.  He does connect the two in other writings, and perhaps come closer to your language:

  I pray the God of all mercies that he teach Your Grace this one thing, that Christ and his Word are more, higher, greater, and more trustworthy than a hundred thousand holy fathers, councils, churches, popes, etc., for the Scriptures call all of these sinners and lost sheep. (Luther: Letters, 164)


From a trinitarian perspective, how do you biblically reconcile Jesus dying and Jesus being God?

The Doctrinal Position
Trinitarian position usually includes the doctrine of Jesus's having two natures in one person (Hypostatic Union).  Armed with both the doctrine of Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, the standard explanation of what happened when Jesus died on the cross is as follows:

The Divine nature of Jesus did not die or cease to exist
Neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit died on the cross
The body of God the Son in his human nature died and was buried
Although the human body of God the Son died, the hypostatic union of two natures was never separated, broken, or compromised

Source: Did God Die on the Cross?: The Trinity and the Crucifixion
Answering your questions
Q1: Does the Bible even say that God can't die?
Answer: Yes, see several Bible verses such as

Isa 40:28: ... The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of all the earth. ...
1 Tim 1:17: All honor and glory to God forever and ever! He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen.
Deut 33:27: The eternal God is your refuge, and his everlasting arms are under you. ...

Q2: [paraphrase] How do Trinitarians explain that Jesus truly died as a human being but yet retains His Divine Nature who never die?
Answer: Quote from the article above for the explanation:

As mentioned above, human nature doesn’t cease to exist in death; rather, the body perishes but the soul/spirit lives to God. Jesus’s human nature—like ours—still existed in his death, because the soul/spirit is immortal and thus the human nature still lives in/not in the presence of God. If Jesus’s human nature died/ceased to exist for three days, this would indicate not only a death of his soul, but also a split in his person—only half of Jesus would exist for three days while his body was in the tomb. We need to affirm, then, that the human soul/spirit of Jesus remained alive (thus, his nature did not die), but that he experienced a real human death like all of us: body in the ground, soul/spirit with the Lord. And his resurrected body, like ours one day, was raised imperishable and he now lives as the God-man who will never die again.

Q3: What's the Biblical evidence for the answer of Q2?
Answer:
STEP 1: Trinitarians look at the Bible verses below as the starting point (with straightforward plain sense interpretation).

Jesus is God: see supporting Bible verses such as

John 1:1,14: In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.
John 10:30: The Father and I are one.

Jesus died: some supporting Bible verses:

John 19:30-33: When Jesus had tasted it, he said, “It is finished!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.  It was the day of preparation, and the Jewish leaders didn’t want the bodies hanging there the next day, which was the Sabbath (and a very special Sabbath, because it was Passover week). So they asked Pilate to hasten their deaths by ordering that their legs be broken. Then their bodies could be taken down. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus. But when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was already dead, so they didn’t break his legs.
Mark 15:37: Then Jesus uttered another loud cry and breathed his last.
1 Pet 3:18: ... He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit.

STEP 2: Trinitarians then came up with the doctrinal position above as the straightforward logical way to reconcile them, yielding the explanation in the answer to Q2 above.
Conclusion
The straightforward meaning of the Bible verses and the explanation preclude having to "grasp for straws".


In what manner did Christian baptism differ from ritual washing as part of Jewish Teshuva (repentance.)

Teshuva, to my knowledge, would take place in a ritual bathing pool called a Mikveh. Mikveh's were typically constructed with a set of steps separated by a middle divider (a risen stone divider several inches to a foot high) next to the entrance of the outer court of a Jewish synagogue or temple or in a town square. This water was also heated or "living" water, as the Jews called it, typically provided by hot springs or other means. Jews, before entering the Mikveh, often fasted several days to cleanse soul, spirit, and body, as the Mikveh was a required ritual bath upon intention to enter a synagogue or temple, as well as a pool used for other religious purification. Separate Mikveh's existed for men and for women. The partaker of the Teshuva would then walk down one side of the steps unclean, immerse oneself in water, and then walk up and out of the pool on the other side of the steps and be proclaimed clean. Only then were they allowed to enter the temple. The pools of Bathesda, and in particular, the pool of Siloam were probably both Mikvehs to this effect. (Bathesda in the gospel mentioning the "stirring of the waters" provided by it's probable hot springs periodically).

Partaking in a Christian baptism was essentially based on the same premise as the Teshuva. Baptism in ancient Judaism had both to do with ritual cleanness, but also to do with agreement. In obtaining water baptism you agreed to the laws, statutes, and beliefs of the institute or theology presented by the temple or prophet providing the means of baptism. In effect, it is symbolic of dying to your old way of thinking, and being reborn in unity with the beliefs of your baptizer. John the Baptist, for example, was readying hearts for Christ's arrival by preaching repentance, or the realization of one being a sinner needing forgiveness. One cannot fix a problem if one is in denial of it existing, after all. Then, upon Christ showing up, Jesus provided the answer to this revelation of sin in man. Water baptisms, to this effect, helped others in the Christian church publicly identify with John the Baptist's idea of needed repentance, that those who got baptized, were publicly proclaiming their agreement with their baptizers that Christ was the one who would solve their issues of sin.


What is the significance of the Julian calendar for the Orthodox church?

Today, many Orthodox churches use a Revised Julian Calendar, which largely corresponds to the Gregorian calendar used throughout the rest of Christendom, with the exception of the date of Easter.

The dating of Easter is seen by some, like Lewis J. Patsavos of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, as the primary reason that Orthodox churches originally rejected the Gregorian Calendar when it was presented in the 16th century:

  Despite the efforts of the emissaries of Pope Gregory to convince the Orthodox to accept the New (Gregorian) Calendar, the Orthodox Church rejected it. The main reason for its rejection was that the celebration of Easter would be altered: contrary to the injunctions of canon 7 of the Holy Apostles, the decree of the First Ecumenical Synod, and canon 1 of Ancyra, Easter would sometimes coincide with the Jewish Passover in the Gregorian calendar.

The aforementioned canon of the Apostolic Canons reads:

  If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed.

To avoid this issue, a Revised Julian Calendar was adopted by many Orthodox churches in the early 20th century.  Such churches follow the Western calendar except in the case of Easter, for which they maintain the original calculation.  Thus, the date of Easter for the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox churches continues to often be one or more weeks after the Western date.

For others, the root issue in the 16th century was not the date of Easter but rather papal authority.  John W. Morris writes:

  When first introduced, acceptance of the Gregorian Calendar implied the recognition of the authority of the Pope. (The Historic Church, 506)

But Morris recognizes that many continue to reject even the revised calendar, and attributes this to "rigidity" and "legalism" over "non-essentials such as the calendar." (508)  Timothy Ware describes the "Old Calendarists" more neutrally:

  The Old Calendarists see the change in the calendar as the first in a long series of innovations which, so they believe, have corrupted the mainstream Orthodox Churches in the twentieth century.  In their view, what is at stake is not just a technical mater of thirteen days, but the purity of the Orthodox faith. (The Orthodox Church)


Why don't Catholics believe that Christ's atonement removed Original Sin?

Original Sin is washed away through Baptism

The Church believes that Christ's atonement removes original sin precisely through baptism.  More generally, in baptism the power of Christ's paschal mystery comes to bear in the recipient, who also becomes a partaker in that paschal mystery and the life of God. For example, we are told that infants are baptized not because they have committed personal sins, but because their nature is tainted by original sin:

  Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1250)

The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "Baptism is made obligatory after Christ's resurrection."  It goes on:

  This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when
  he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the
  resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; and also from what Paul
  says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might
  sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.
  (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II on baptism)

Catholic Encyclopedia also implies that the atonement is applied through baptism in a paragraph where it argues that baptism, like original sin and the atonement, ought to be applied to all people, even infants:

  Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism)


What is the biblical basis for Jesus' eternal pre-existence (as opposed to having been created a long time ago)?

John clearly and logically makes four statements :

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. [John 1:1,2 KJV]

'In the beginning' states the moment of 'beginning'. If one existed at that moment, then that one has an existence that is independent of time. If independent of time, then eternal. This one, the Logos, is quite evidently, from context, the one born in Bethlehem of the virgin Mary.
This one is God and was with 'the' God in the beginning. Evidently, from this statement alone, Deity is not alone. And Deity is not alone eternally.
John also makes a further statement :

την ζωην την αιωνιον ητις ην προς τον πατερα  [1 John 1:2 TR Undisputed]

... the life the eternal which was with the Father  [Literal]

Again, in context, John refers to 'manifestation' and it is clear that this is Jesus.
Prior to 'manifestation' the life, the eternal ... was with the Father.
If 'with the Father' then with the Father, eternally, as 'Son'. Evidently. If entitled 'Father' in eternity, the name must mean what it says, in eternity. And if 'life' is with that Father (and that eternally) then that life must be 'Son'.
John's statement is simple, brief and utterly profound.

In these two places, John sets forth logical and indisputable statements that clearly demonstrate the eternal existence of the one who came into the world by woman.
This is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Difference in Hebrew between חֹ֔שֶׁךְ (ḥō·šeḵ) and וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ (wə·ḥō·šeḵ)

khoshekh - חשך means "darkness"

vi'khoshekh - וחשך means "and darkness"

Remembering the following common conjunctions will be useful:

ו - and
ה - the
מ - from
ב - in
ש - that

For example, if I say, "bread and water from Christ", it would be

לחם ומים ממשיח

Lekhem vi'maim m'mashiakh


What happens if the Pope is automatically excommunicated?

As the article here states (linked in the comments), the short answer is that the current legislation of the Church (i.e. the Canon Law) does not foresee such situation to occur. Perhaps it does not do so because under its own beliefs, God will never allow that to happen.

On the one hand, some excommunications (ferendae sententiae) are not automatic. They require a legal procedure in the form of a judicial investigation. One thing this investigation aims to find out is if all the conditions for an excommunication were met, e.g. that the person knew about the penalties of the sinful action to be conducted. These investigations are carried out by a judge, which is designated by the bishop. Canon Law states:

  Can.  1419 §1. In each diocese and for all cases not expressly excepted by law, the judge of first instance is the diocesan bishop, who can exercise judicial power personally or through others according to the following canons.

The bishop has himself the right to be the judge, and to reserve some cases to himself:

  Can.  1419 §2. The judicial vicar constitutes one tribunal with the bishop but cannot judge cases which the bishop reserves to himself.

Thus, ultimately it is the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, who can decide if he is to judge himself or not, as the matter cannot be delegated to a superior.

Now, recall that the purpose of excommunication is to make the person reconsider his/her error, and reconcile with God/Church. Thus, these types of excommunications could be quickly irrelevant if the Pope were to repent. All he need to do is to design himself as the judge for his case, and take notice that he repented, following the ordinary legal procedures (upon which he has full authority). Yet, if he were not to repent, it could well be the case that the Pope could block an excommunication process against him, or appoint himself as judge and dictate in favour of himself (e.g. that he was not aware of the penalties), and thus, there would be no excommunication. In other words, even if he committed a sin such a s to deserve excommunication, he might not excommunicate himself. Therefore, nothing will happen.

On the other hand, if the excommunication were to be automatic (latae sententiae), then, as point 1.3 of Canon 1331 states, an excommunicated person is forbidden:

  to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

This is the real conundrum. The See of Rome is de facto without a Bishop. More importantly, as explained in this answer, most of dioceses have an adjunct bishop, which takes office if the principal bishop leaves the place (e.g. if he dies). However, precisely because the See of Rome is the primus inter pares, and the see of the Pope, this one does not have an adjunct bishop! In other words, the See of Rome would be sede vacante! This means a new process for electing a pope must take place.

However, recall again that the excommunicated Pope (so no longer the Pope) can repent, and ask to the corresponding authorities (in order to make the process valid under the Canon Law) for reintroduction into the Church. Only if he is not willing to repent then the election process would go ahead. It would not be the first time in history where one "invalid Pope" claims to be the real Pope. Now, if a new Pope is elected and then the old one decides to ask for repentance, then that would be the ultimate bug in the software. Surely God will spare the Church from that ever occurring!


What are the core differences between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christianity?

To limit the massive territory of how Protestants differ from Orthodox, I'm going to filter it down a couple times.
First, I'm not going to include points that the Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree on that Protestants (typically) disagree with: that the Eucharist is the body, soul, and divinity of Christ; that Mary is the Mother of God; Apostolic Succession; iconography; sacraments; communion of the saints; rejection of the Protestant solas; contemplative prayer & mystical theology; etc. The reason for this is that you can learn about all these points just from reviewing the Catholic-Protestant debate.
Second, I'm not going to include points that Protestantism and Catholicism agree on that Orthodox disagree with or don't share: original sin, the entire Augustinian framework, the strong emphasis on scholastic theology, a general emphasis on the sacrifice of Jesus' crucifixion rather than the Incarnation as the locus of salvation, some degree of reticience around hesychasm & Palamian theology, filioque, etc.
I could be wrong, but once you cross out all that stuff, I think all you're left with is the Pope, in Catholic understanding the principle of unity of the Church. Of course, Orthodox and Protestants "agree" on this in completely different ways, since Protestants reject the Orthodox understanding of apostolic succession that the Catholic papal ecclesiology requires, so I would be hard pressed to call this a point of true agreement.


Is there a name for believing but not obeying?

I think the closest fit would appear to be Deism:

  Deism (i/ˈdiːɪzəm/ US dict: dē′·ĭzm) in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Furthermore, the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life. This idea is also known as the Clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Deists believe in the existence of a god without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

What I think the OP is asking for is a scholarly term to describe someone who believes that God exists, but denies that God is actively involved with his creation in any meaningful way.  Such a disinterested God would not issue any "rules" for his created beings to obey.  Further, such a person would deny that the Bible (or any religious text) is in any way a communication from God and would feel, therefore, no obligation to it's moral, ethical or sociopolitical code.

The definition of Deist seems to fit that rather well.


Does Paul ever actually quote Jesus anywhere?

1 Corinthians 11: 23-26
  For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.